So what's going on with this here scale thing?

spas

New member
I started off with a starvation type diet, no more than 500 calories a day, and went to the gym. Lost about 4 lbs, but that was pretty much unsustainable and for a week I scrapped it and just exercised. For the past week and a half I've been on a 1200 calorie diet, eating tons of small meals throughout the day and I eat lean meats, veggies, fruits, and fiberous foods. I keep exercising hard (worked up to 30 mins of cardio at the upper end of my THR and now I run for about 3 miles, twice a week) and do weight training. I've become clearly more toned, stronger, and more fit.. but why does the scale read even HIGHER than my starting weight?

Should I even care about the scale? I always said I didn't but maybe I am just in denial and I'm actually gaining fat instead of muscle. I don't really know. What's up?

I'm 17, female, scale ranges from 138-141 (once changed that much in 1/2 hr, after my weight training), 5'3 with a small to medium frame.
 
Oh dear, I felt really sad upon reading you were existing on 500 calories a day! That is dangerously low! And totally unnecessary.

This is the Harsh Truth section, so here's what Steve (an expert on this site) has to say about starvation diets:

Originally Posted by Steve
I replied to someone's post in the Cohen's Forum accidently... The original poster was unsure how she could lose weight for weeks and then, simply plateau. It triggered this from me:

People will never get this on this board. Let's pretend your maintenance is 2500 calories per day. This means, you are eating 2500 calories worth of energy per day and you are expending roughly 2500 calories worth of energy per day. Results in a net break-even and theoretically, there is no weight gain or loss. Right?

BTW, 2500 calorie maintenance level would be for someone roughly 170 lbs. The bigger you are, the higher your maintenance level is.

INFORMED individuals looking to lose weight will cut calories by some small margin, say 10-20%. As they begin to lose weight, their metabolism will slow, even though they are going about weight loss in an appropriate fashion. You can't continue losing weight forever at your original deficit. Your metabolism catches up to you and it slows to a point where you won't see results. At this point, depending on a few factors, you could cut calories again to trigger another deficit based on your NEW maintenance level.

There comes a point where this will become counter-productive. You can't expect to continually play the "slashing calories" game and expect to be healthy AND expect to see results. There comes a point where you CAN'T eat any less and ideally, you don't follow the path this far! After a certain point, I recommend starting a cyclical diet where you bounce calories up and down. Or a diet including refeeds of carbs. There are multiple options you can execute once you come to this fork in the road.

Now, around here, most people cut calories originally by some ridiculous amount. Still using a maintenance of 2500 calories, I find many around here will slash to 1200, or something ludicrous like this. Why a 50% calorie slash seems OK to some of you I will never understand. Our bodies are very adaptive, finely tuned machines that are built to survive. And you better believe that you are sending many, many signals to your body that say, "Time to change physiologically because it looks like we are going through some hard times."

One of the greatest, actually, the greatest metabolic studies ever conducted was the Minnesota Starvation Diet. Here, they slashed calories by 50% off of maintenance to realize the impacts STARVATION had on post war and Jewish victims of the Nazis, and how to best go about rehabbing them. The sad thing is, I see a lot of people doing this same thing around here.

When you do this the right way, your body will adapt and progress will slow. What do you think doing it the wrong way does?

I have no idea any of the original poster's stats or how she is going about weight loss, so please don't think I am directing this at you.

But something that is directed at you is this. You say you don't understand how you can lose weight for weeks and then, plateau. That is because you don't understand how your body works. Your body adapts. The same technique, have it be a certain calorie intake, a certain way of exercising, or whatever have you will have to be manipulated and changed if you are going to realize continued success.

And for those of you who do things the least optimal way through starvation* are going to have a long, hard road ahead of you if your goal is actually looking and feeling good, and not just what the number on the scale says.

Realise that starvation does not actually mean eating nothing and being on the verge of death. i mean depriving your body of the basic macro and micro nutrients as well as sufficient calories in so that you are creating a below par atmosphere for your overall health and continued success.

As you can see 1200 calories is considered terribly low, and not very sustainable for someone who's been used to eating twice that amount. You would therefore be even more prone to failure by eating 500 calories. You're 17, so you're still growing. Therefore you need your energy. It really isn't wise to deprive yourself of food, particularly at this point in your life. It could even affect your periods over a long time.

The reason the scales aren't cooperating is simply because you're not eating enough. There's only so many tricks you can attempt to pull on your body before it wises up and shuts down on you, refusing to lose any more weight (it begins to hoard its energy supplies, so even the little you eat is stored as fat instead of burnt off normally - this is a normal response from the body as it needs to protect itself from starvation). Even if you eat at maintenance level (just enough to keep your weight constant - not going up, not going down), you will still lose weight if you up your exercise like you've described. By working out when your body doesn't have the energy for it you're placing a great strain on your body, and something will eventually give (and I'm afraid it'll be your health, which would be sad).

I would suggest you up your calorie levels immediately, retaining the same amount of exercise. You haven't got a whole lot to lose, so your goal is very achievable. I would also suggest you read round the forum and sorta educate yourself on the various means of losing weight as it was very helpful to me (and I'm a relative newbie). Good luck with it and let us know what happens..
 
Should I even care about the scale? I always said I didn't but maybe I am just in denial and I'm actually gaining fat instead of muscle. I don't really know. What's up?

I wouldn't worry so much about what the scale is telling you but rather how your clothes are fitting and what you see in the mirror, Check measuements regularly and you might see changes there.
 
As you can see 1200 calories is considered terribly low, and not very sustainable for someone who's been used to eating twice that amount. You would therefore be even more prone to failure by eating 500 calories. You're 17, so you're still growing. Therefore you need your energy. It really isn't wise to deprive yourself of food, particularly at this point in your life. It could even affect your periods over a long time.

I'm not hungry ever and when I am, I eat. I am definitely not used to eating 2400 calories a day, hell I don't even think it's possible for me to stuff myself that much except on special occasions like birthdays (mm cake). I don't think I've ever ate that much regularly. I eat really nutriously and sure don't feel deprived.

I am getting smaller but I'm just curious why the numbers aren't doing the same.
 
As others are still stating, you are 17, still growing.

I highly think the weight increase/plateau is due to an increase in your lean muscle mass, aka skeletal tissue, muscle, etc.

If you don't think that is the case, then I have no idea :D
 
IMHO, spas is not eating nearly enough to be putting on lean muscle mass. You really can't put on muscle without eating enough nutrients and calories (especially protein). I believe the failure to lose the weight is just proof of what Rho was getting at, that spas is eating way too little for a young growing girl and her metabolism has slowed down. I believe its common for your appetite to decrease as you restrict calories, so the fact that you're not hungry might be more a function of this response than anything else. Honestly spas, if you want to lose weight your going to need to get your metabolism on track by eating more each day until you're at a normal calorie level like at least 1800 per day. After you get your body to where its not gaining at 1800-2000 per day, you can start going a bit lower again to lose the weight. I personally believe this is the only way things will work out for you and you'll look healthy. I have a feeling this is not the advice spas is looking for, however, especially since it sounds completely counter-intuitive. If only spas did some reading on here she would discover that all of the people who restricted their calories too much failed to lose after a certain point.
 
After checking out the scale and deciding that yes, it is definitely 140 lbs :( and my skin is looking weirder for sure, I'm going to try to eat 1600-1700 cals a day. My legs are getting trimmer with all the running but I haven't seen the tone at the rate that I was initially seeing in my arms. I am using FitDay now which I looooove because I love to see calculators and stuff. So I'm going to try this for the next week and hopefully I won't gain any weight :/
 
That is funny. My scale also went up to 140 (plus .5 actually) and it IS discouraging. Unfortunately for me, and unlike you, its because I'm eating at my maintenance level and I'm not exercising enough. I think you're on the right track and I honestly don't think you should worry if you put a teeney bit of weight on. I'm not convinced you will, but even if you do, right now you're working on increasing your metabolism for your future weight loss. And hey, what's a few weeks in the grand scheme of a long life. Let me know if you start a progress diary on the forum so I can visit :).
 
As others are still stating, you are 17, still growing.

Just to restate what DeepGreen said, you are only 17 and you are growing. Putting yourself at such a low calorie defecit is honestly worse than have five or ten extra pounds. I saw something on one of those 20/20 shows back when I was high school ('99-02') and there was a woman who kept her calories low, ate little to no dairy and fats and went running three times a week. She now has the bones of someone in their 70s I'm not even kidding. They did a bone density scan on her because she fell and fractured something like her back, but at her age it shouldn't have caused any more damage than some bruising.

And 1200 calories, especially for someone like you who is active is not enough. I'm not sure who started this 1200 calorie a day thing... I think one professional said that was the least amount of food you could eat and not die but then someone took it way out of context. Upping your calories like you mentioned sounds like a great idea. And if your skin is still bothering you and it's not that time of the month, try increasing your water intake... I've never really had bad skin, let alone acne, but on the rare occasion I get zitty, water helps.
 
Oh it just was that time of the month, maybe that was it.

I just don't understand how celebrities are eating 1200 calories/day and working out every day and yet I'm supposed to eat more? They dropped the weight so why can't I if I do the same thing?
 
Back
Top