I'm Losing Weight Without Exercise.

[Nasseny1]

OK guys, I've been doing 1200 cals a day. And I started August, I lost 8 pounds in that month and up until now I've lost 3 more, so in total 11 pounds.

From 160 to 149.

Firstly, I don't see the weight loss, just a bit I guess..but other than that I don't see a big difference. Why?

Secondly, I have been only exercising rarely, like once every 2 weeks. And I've lost weight.

Now, Is that real weight?
Could I have only lost water weight?
But I consume 2 L of water a day. And I have also been frequintly binging.
Will this be kept up, will I still lose weight this way?
Do I need to exercise, even though Im losing weight?

I need a lot of advise. I don't know where to go from here. Any Help, would be great.

 

[dariqueen]

Of course you can lose real weight without exercise, if you're eating less calories than you're body needs to survive. That doesn't mean it's optimal though. It's good for your muscles, including the heart, to keep active.

 

[wishes]

not to mention your body will eventually adjust so you loose nothing on 1200 odd calories

keep exercising keeps the metabolism up

 

[roo]

By not exercising and dieting at such a low level (1200 calories) you probably have lost muscle mass, which would mean you have lost weight.

I doubt your weight loss is fat loss.

If you want to lose any fat you should start exercising, and incorporate a weights routine (more muscle means you burn more calories) and probably eat more than that or you will hit a plateau early. Read the sticky's.

I would recomend exercising 5 times a week for an hour and do 3 weights sessions a week, and eat more say 1500-1800.

 

[wishes]

i wouldnt go as far as saying it was mostly muscle mass, thats a bit over the top
over a long period it would be some muscle mass and some fat and some fluid. But at the beginning of every diet its probably mostly water weight.

Exercise does help you maintain muscle mass (and yes you really do want to retain it so you can walk, move,or do stuff ya know), but 3 times a week for 30 mins would easily be enough.

 

[Nasseny1]

Thanks guys, so I've dicided to keep it at 1200 cals a day and exercise like 3-5 times a week. Lets see how it goes.

 

[nol3afclover]

Thanks guys, so I've dicided to keep it at 1200 cals a day and exercise like 3-5 times a week. Lets see how it goes.

I am absolutely shocked that no one so far has advised against you only taking in 1200 calories.

Exercising at 1200 cals per day is worse than what you're doing. You need calories to recover from a workout. The more you workout, the more cals you should intake. I dont recommend 1200 cals to anybody, whether they are working out or not. Exercising at such low intake will probably do nothing for you but leave you fatigued and hungry, not to mention that any resistance workout would be a waste due to lack of calories to recover from the workout.

You need to increase your calorie intake and get active. Cutting your calories that low may in fact prevent you from losing FAT, weight probably, but FAT will continue to be stored in your body.

 

[laraqua]

By not exercising and dieting at such a low level (1200 calories) you probably have lost muscle mass, which would mean you have lost weight.

I doubt your weight loss is fat loss.

If you want to lose any fat you should start exercising, and incorporate a weights routine (more muscle means you burn more calories) and probably eat more than that or you will hit a plateau early. Read the sticky's.

I would recomend exercising 5 times a week for an hour and do 3 weights sessions a week, and eat more say 1500-1800.

I may be an amateur but I wouldn't suggest that amount of exercise for an unfit person, if you're anything like me. A half hour of solid, proper exercise makes me sore the following day - and sometimes the day after that - and even gentle exercise on those days can exarcebate the soreness to painful levels. Though, of course, not being an expert I can't tell if that's because I'm a freak or that it's just a symptom of chronic unfitness. Just thought I'd better warn you.

 

[Blancita]

Why do you need to cut your calories all the way to 1200 just to lose weight? Do you have a very slow metabolism that requires this?

How many cals on average did you eat in a day before you started your diet?

Just curious about the method behind your logic. I suppose you're assuming that if one cuts food/cals one loses fat, so if one cuts MORE calories, and burns MORE calories through exercise, one will lose even MORE fat. The problem is that this approach often leads to failure because either your diet is too austere to keep up (i.e. you're hungry!), you hit a plateau because your body goes into "starvation mode", or you lose a lot of muscle in addition to the fat (I read an excerpt of a study that said you lose 50/50 muscle/fat if you're not exercising as well as significantly decreasing your calories).

Be careful with your chosen method, I dont know of anyone in this forum that has been successful following this "too gung ho" approach. Slow and steady wins the race!

 

[wishes]

od, I dont know of anyone in this forum that has been successful following this "too gung ho" approach. Slow and steady wins the race!

1200 is a decent enough amount if you have a lot of weight or want it gone a little faster. Sure its slightly more extreme and you have to make sure you keep up activity. But most diet programs revolve around similar calories and i dont see you jumping down their throats.
Most weight watchers are about 1400 calories, same with jenny craigs and all the rest.
i would be more worried about idiots that go for VLCD diets of 800 or less calories rather than jumping down the throat and not supporting others who are just desperate.
And as for not knowing anyone whos lost any major amount of weight on so few calories ... hello .. my name is liz.. ive lost a crapload of weight using this method. You might want to check out some of the other users on here who have lost similar amounts on similar calories.

Im not saying its perfect, but everyone seems to jump on the old bandwagon 'OH NOES! UR GONNA DIE IF U EAT SO LITTLE!'

 

[Blancita]

Great for you Wishes, I'm glad you were able to lose your weight on that amount and that it worked for you. I suppose I stand corrected. I still would wonder why someone's starting point would be 1200 calories, that's all. I suspect initially the same amount of weight can be lost going higher. But to each his or her own, I was just curious about the thinking behind it and I wondered what the overnight difference in calories was pre and during the diet.

I still feel it is a valid point that a lot of people give up because they try to make these huge changes all at once and often are feeling overwhelmingly hungry so that their plans end up failing. You've certainly reminded me that this does not apply across the board. Best **wishes** to you .

 

[nol3afclover]

1200 is a decent enough amount if you have a lot of weight or want it gone a little faster. Sure its slightly more extreme and you have to make sure you keep up activity. But most diet programs revolve around similar calories and i dont see you jumping down their throats.
Most weight watchers are about 1400 calories, same with jenny craigs and all the rest.
i would be more worried about idiots that go for VLCD diets of 800 or less calories rather than jumping down the throat and not supporting others who are just desperate.
And as for not knowing anyone whos lost any major amount of weight on so few calories ... hello .. my name is liz.. ive lost a crapload of weight using this method. You might want to check out some of the other users on here who have lost similar amounts on similar calories.

Im not saying its perfect, but everyone seems to jump on the old bandwagon 'OH NOES! UR GONNA DIE IF U EAT SO LITTLE!'

1200 calories for a man that size is downright unhealthy.

 

[wishes]

T2_Trucker only ate 800 calories a day to begin with (not counting veg, so was probably closer to 1200 or more) and for a fair way of his diet.

Sure we look back and go 'mm yeah i probably should have done it better' but results are what keep you going, and 1200 gave great results.

 

[Blancita]

T2_Trucker only ate 800 calories a day to begin with (not counting veg, so was probably closer to 1200 or more) and for a fair way of his diet.

Sure we look back and go 'mm yeah i probably should have done it better' but results are what keep you going, and 1200 gave great results.

Didn't T2_Trucker start out in the high 200s or 300s? That could be why he could get by on so little.

I think its fairly obvious that over time on 1200 calories and without exercise, as the poster is doing, the person will definitely lose weight. This does not mean most of it will be fat, nor does it mean that the weight will stay off after finishing the 1200 calorie diet.

 

[nol3afclover]

T2_Trucker only ate 800 calories a day to begin with (not counting veg, so was probably closer to 1200 or more) and for a fair way of his diet.

Sure we look back and go 'mm yeah i probably should have done it better' but results are what keep you going, and 1200 gave great results.

Well some people have great success with fad diets too, would u recommend those? Im not saying that eating 1200 calories is 100% failiure...Im saying its not healthy, it's starving your body of nutrients, whether you lose weight or not, its still not healthy, and you're probably losing alot more than fat (muscle,water). She needs to find something she can STICK to....1200 cals for a very limited time is possible, but i wouldnt count on doing that for a extended period of time.

 

[Nasseny1]

OK thanks guys for all of the input, so here is the information which may clear anything.

I used to Weigh: 160 lbs
I want to Weigh: 100 lbs

When I tested (It was a site I got on the forum, I forgot the name.) out the cals and stuff I got this:

I need 2046.7 cals to maintain 160 lbs
I need 1791.5 cals to reach my goal with out exercise.
If I ruduce my cals to 1546.7 I will lose 1 lb per week with out exercise.

I am not saying I am lazy and I don't want to exercise. This is just the information the site gave to me. I do want to exercise, but I swear if you read my diary you'll see the lack of time I have and how tired I am that I cannot even do 3 session exercise per week let alone 5, like the rest of you.

 

[bikinibound]

OK thanks guys for all of the input, so here is the information which may clear anything.

I used to Weigh: 160 lbs
I want to Weigh: 100 lbs

When I tested (It was a site I got on the forum, I forgot the name.) out the cals and stuff I got this:

I need 2046.7 cals to maintain 160 lbs
I need 1791.5 cals to reach my goal with out exercise.
If I ruduce my cals to 1546.7 I will lose 1 lb per week with out exercise.

I am not saying I am lazy and I don't want to exercise. This is just the information the site gave to me. I do want to exercise, but I swear if you read my diary you'll see the lack of time I have and how tired I am that I cannot even do 3 session exercise per week let alone 5, like the rest of you.

If you truly want to be healthy, you need to exercise. I don't care how busy you are--you can make time for it if you really want to. I'm sure you can find 30min 3X a week if you really wanted to. People make all kinds of excuses not to exercise (I know I did!), but what it really comes down to is this--do you want to be healthy or not? You say you're too tired. Well then exercise is the perfect thing for you because it will give you more energy. I feel fantastic after a hard workout. It also is great for reducing stress and depression. Thos endorphins are awesome. Take it from someone who hating exercising for 35 years--that's me. Now I love it, and I wish I'd started exercising regularly years ago. I have a crazy schedule that is different every day. So I have to do some planning to get my workouts in. If this lazy former couch potato can do it--anyone can!!

 

[Blancita]

Not to debate one of my favorite and most intelligent people on the forum, Bikinibound , I think I saw in the first page of Nasseny's diary (which I starting reading before baby called me away ) that she's a young girl (I think 16) and depressed and running herself ragged with a full day at school and a then job everyday watching a group of toddlers and chasing after them the whole time. By the time she get's home at night I think she's been out of the house more than 12 hours.

When I was that age I didn't do any specific exercise, but I did run from here to there on my bike or walking around with my friends (maybe the equivalent of the job with the toddlers). At the time no one had ever even heard of girls lifting weights and Jane Fonda was just introducing us to aerobics LOL!!! -- this is how it was back in the 80's .

I think Nasseny's eating very little (1200 per day) so certainly that would be one reason she is less energetic than she might otherwise be. Obviously Nasseny, you would better off eating more and trying to get in some kind of workout.

I would tell you I think your calories are way too low but I know you wont believe me and I'll have people on here getting upset that I would say that I feel this way, so I'll leave it .

 

[Nasseny1]

Not to debate one of my favorite and most intelligent people on the forum, Bikinibound , I think I saw in the first page of Nasseny's diary (which I starting reading before baby called me away ) that she's a young girl (I think 16) and depressed and running herself ragged with a full day at school and a then job everyday watching a group of toddlers and chasing after them the whole time. By the time she get's home at night I think she's been out of the house more than 12 hours.

When I was that age I didn't do any specific exercise, but I did run from here to there on my bike or walking around with my friends (maybe the equivalent of the job with the toddlers). At the time no one had ever even heard of girls lifting weights and Jane Fonda was just introducing us to aerobics LOL!!! -- this is how it was back in the 80's .

I think Nasseny's eating very little (1200 per day) so certainly that would be one reason she is less energetic than she might otherwise be. Obviously Nasseny, you would better off eating more and trying to get in some kind of workout.

I would tell you I think your calories are way too low but I know you wont believe me and I'll have people on here getting upset that I would say that I feel this way, so I'll leave it .

Thanks I agree, maybe I should eat more calories, but how much more? 200 cals more? or like 100 cals, I still want to lose 2 lbs per week though.

 

[roo]

Thanks I agree, maybe I should eat more calories, but how much more? 200 cals more? or like 100 cals, I still want to lose 2 lbs per week though.

I would suggest 1400 calories PLUS. You need the energy to go to school and do well, to concentrate and do do your job too. Make sure you get a big nutritous breakfast too!

Here is a good way to fit in 30 minutes of exercise 5 days a week. Wake up 30 minutes earlier and go for a walk. That way you get your exercise over and done with, and it really makes me feel good for the rest of the day. I know your busy, but its not hard to get up 30 minutes earlier.

You can lose weight just by diet but its not healthy and you dont want to be dieting your whole life.