why isn't it working??

SunnyDay1

SunnyDay1

New member
so here is what i do--- during the day i eat the same things (weight control oatmeal for breakfast, turkey and cheese on wheat&fiber bread w/lots of veggies/no mayo)... sometimes i throw in a trail mix bar and i always drink lots of water (read at least 100oz by 5pm). sticking with that everyday i've taken in less than 600 calories by the time my sweetie gets home from work. he works very hard (construction) all day so i make whatever he wants for dinner. that does mean things like burritos and cheeseburgers and chicken and rice and all manner of things... i eat with my family, but i take in reasonable portions and don't go back for seconds. if i need dessert then i go for something like a "no sugar added" fudgesicle or something. it's hard for me to calculate the calories for the things i eat for dinner, but i'm pretty sure that i stay under what i should have. the general consensus i've gotten is weight x 15= calories to maintain... which for me would make it 2625... and then a 25% decrease for weight loss which puts me just over 1900. so if i'm getting less than 600 calories throughout the day and then being careful with portions in the evenings, i'm pretty sure i'm falling under 1900. before i started with the eating the same things during the day and being careful at night, i was eating whatever i wanted. which with my 3 kids meant sometimes spaghetti-os and cookies. oh and lots of soda...
before i started there was also no exercise in my daily regime. i kept up with my housework but when i didn't have dishes to wash or anything i just sat around and watched tv or whatever. now i exercise 5-6 days a week. i do an exercise dvd in the mornings (this week it's been yoga booty ballet) and then after lunch i ride my stationary bike for 20 minutes at a level that keeps my heart rate up and makes me sweat. i don't ride the bike on the weekends and i don't do dvds on sundays.
i've been doing it for 2 weeks now. i haven't lost a single pound. in fact, in the first week i gained a pound. i don't think 2 weeks is long enough to use the "maybe i'm gaining muscle" excuse and anyway, i think if i was toning/gaining muscle enough then i would see a change in the way my clothes fit even if i didn't see a change on the scale.
why isn't this working??
i feel like i'm doing things right. as far as my diet goes, i'm doing the best i possibly can. when it comes to dinnertime at my house i refuse to eat something different than everyone else, and for now i'm not gonna make them change what they eat. i'm not deep frying anything or anything like that.
i know i'm not perfect. i don't go to the gym. i can't run a mile (or half a mile for that matter). i don't eat baked chicken and steamed veggies for dinner. but i really thought that making changes got results, you know? cut out soda and drink lots of water-- lose a couple pounds. eat breakfast and have a healthier lunch, cut down portion sizes--- lose a couple pounds. do some exercise (what, 20 minutes 3 times a week , i hear? i beat that)-- lose a couple pounds. why won't it work for me?? what can i do to see some results?
please if anyone has any ideas let me know... i'm so frustrated.
 
I can't tell you the "right" way to do it; I can only tell you what has worked for me, this time around.

The first step was getting accurate information. I made all sorts of guesses about my calorie intake and output, but it was not until I really started keeping track that I made serious progress. I got the FitDay program for my PC, although you can use the online version, too. I like the PC program, because I do most of the cooking in our household, and that way I can create "custom" meals with all the ingredients, making the tracking much easier.

It's very surprising how quickly the calories add up when you start recording them. Some very innocent looking food turns out to be not so innocent at all.

Another important step for me was developing a serious exercise program, and tracking all the calories expended on that program. Mine involves about 4 hours of cardio a week, and 2 hours of weight training. It's very intense, probably too much so for most people, but it's exactly what I needed.

Now, over time, if I gain or lose weight I know exactly why it happened. Yes, I hit plateaus, but eventually I overcome them, and I can almost guess when I'll have enough of an accumulated calorie deficit to do so.

In other words, I can't give you an "easy" answer. What I am doing takes a lot of discipline and determination, but it can be done.

Also, 2 weeks is not very much time, either. I consider a 2 week plateau to be a weak opponent. However, I've got the data on my side.

By the way, you may want to peruse this Index of WLF "Keepers", a page filled with links to posts containing information on the issues you raise.
 
i have actually read your list of "keepers" i did find it very informative.
and i do use fitday to calculate my calories, though i don't do it daily, that is why i'm sure that i make it under the 1900 calories.

i thought a "plateau" was when you lose a decent amount of weight for a little while (consistently) and then you come to a point when the weight loss drops off. i haven't lost any weight at all yet so i wouldn't consider this a plateau.

i know that there won't be an "easy" answer, but right now i don't even have a not so easy one. thanks so much for your thoughts though...
 
SunnyDay said:
so here is what i do--- during the day i eat the same things (weight control oatmeal for breakfast, turkey and cheese on wheat&fiber bread w/lots of veggies/no mayo)... sometimes i throw in a trail mix bar and i always drink lots of water (read at least 100oz by 5pm). sticking with that everyday i've taken in less than 600 calories by the time my sweetie gets home from work. he works very hard (construction) all day so i make whatever he wants for dinner. that does mean things like burritos and cheeseburgers and chicken and rice and all manner of things... i eat with my family, but i take in reasonable portions and don't go back for seconds. if i need dessert then i go for something like a "no sugar added" fudgesicle or something. it's hard for me to calculate the calories for the things i eat for dinner, but i'm pretty sure that i stay under what i should have. the general consensus i've gotten is weight x 15= calories to maintain... which for me would make it 2625... and then a 25% decrease for weight loss which puts me just over 1900. so if i'm getting less than 600 calories throughout the day and then being careful with portions in the evenings, i'm pretty sure i'm falling under 1900.
Click to expand...

" weight x 15= calories to maintain " - just something to keep in mind, this is just a very general rule of thumb to estimate your daily needs and may not be as accurate for some in estimating calories as it is for others. If your example, at 175 lbs, if you have a very high amount of body fat vs. lean muscle, the estimate of 15 may overestimate what your realistic daily calorie goals should be. It varies person to person due many factors - like % bodyfat - but also varies due to things like age, sex, genetics etc. etc.

So, for example to maintain, in your case, it might be a factor of 12 - or 2,100 instead of 15 or 2,625. So, by taking in 1,900 calories you're actually taking in closer to what your true maintenance level is, and 1,900 may not be the deficit level of 25% that you assume it is. If that is the case - your deficit is only 200 ( 2,100 - 1,900 ) calories a day - so forget 2 weeks, you wouldn't drop your first pound of fat for almost a month. In this case, it's would no wonder you'd be frustrated in not seeing any results in 2 weeks - you shouldn't expect to see any drop for about a month...let alone 2 weeks. :)

My point is, you have to careful about your assumptions when doing number calc's - if your number assumptions innacurate, you may end up with unrealistic expectations. Just something to keep in mind.

byw - what is your age and height ?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Wragnell. Although, I highly doubt your maintenance would be as low as 12 unless you have been dieting for a long while using ridiculous protocols.

If you are not losing weight, the simple fact is, your calories are off. Especially if you just started dieting.

Some people have to drop to 8-10 cals per pound in order to see weight loss.
 
SunnyDay said:
this is all so confusing to me. doesn't seem like i'll ever get it right.

i'm 23 and 5'6
Click to expand...

O.K.

Let's run some numbers........

- Assume your body fat is ( for women ) a healthy 22% - your lean mass would be 137 lbs.

- Now assume your body fat is actually 35% - your lean mass would be 114 lbs​
.

Now, there is a formula called a Katch-McArdle Formula that uses your lean mass to ' ballpark ' what your daily calories should be based on a math formula and an assumption of your daily activity level is ( I would out yours at a ' light ' level ). The link is below. Here are the maintenace calories for each bodyfat assumption...

22% : 2,350 calories a day.................25% deficit = 1,750 a day
35% : 2,054 calories a day .................25% deficit = 1,540 a day​

And again, if your were 35% body fat, the factor is very close to the 12 calories per pound of bodyweight ( like the 12 that I ' guessed' at - just a fluke :) ) to maintain your weight ( i.e 2,054 / 175 = 11.7 or 12 )

Again, I'm only showing you these calcs to illustrate a point more than anything else - I'm not saying either of the bodyfat % assumptions apply to you. Any numbers anyone comes up with are just estimates at best - but my point is, that is if you can fine tune your personal information - such as trying to figure out what your body fat % is for example - you stand a better chance of coming up with more realistic estimates. And once you do that, you can manage your expectations more realistically as well.:)



 
Last edited:
IMO

There is no need for all this struggle. I say this so often and people still fail to see the simplicity of it:

You are NOT signing a contract when it comes to selecting your caloric intake. Ball-parking it is completely fine! Why? A) As Wrangell said above, they are all estimates anyhow, and B) Picking a caloric intake isn't the important variable. Rather, tracking your progress is.

My point is, if you pick 12 calories per pound as your starting point, fine. Track your weight and your measurements each week. If the numbers aren't heading in the direction you had hoped, adjust the energy flux by either dropping some cals or upping some expenditure until you find that sweet spot (deficit) that triggers the utilization of existing tissues (i.e. fat) and the weight starts dropping.

It is that simple. I see no point in stressing yourself out over this. Nor do I see a point in trying to pin-point the most accurate starting place when your metabolism is a dynamic concept.... meaning, it is changing anyhow.
 
Steve said:
I agree with Wragnell. Although, I highly doubt your maintenance would be as low as 12 unless you have been dieting for a long while using ridiculous protocols.

If you are not losing weight, the simple fact is, your calories are off. Especially if you just started dieting.

Some people have to drop to 8-10 cals per pound in order to see weight loss.
Click to expand...

Good point Steve.

Actually I only picked the 12 out of the air to illustrate the point that a high bodyfat % could possible translate to a factor lower than 15.

I'm not suggesting it is in any way 12 is close to what her realistic maintenance factor might be.

Thanks for pointing that out. :)
 
Steve said:
IMO

There is no need for all this struggle. I say this so often and people still fail to see the simplicity of it:

You are NOT signing a contract when it comes to selecting your caloric intake. Ball-parking it is completely fine! Why? A) As Wrangell said above, they are all estimates anyhow, and B) Picking a caloric intake isn't the important variable. Rather, tracking your progress is.

My point is, if you pick 12 calories per pound as your starting point, fine. Track your weight and your measurements each week. If the numbers aren't heading in the direction you had hoped, adjust the energy flux by either dropping some cals or upping some expenditure until you find that sweet spot (deficit) that triggers the utilization of existing tissues (i.e. fat) and the weight starts dropping.

It is that simple. I see no point in stressing yourself out over this. Nor do I see a point in trying to pin-point the most accurate starting place when your metabolism is a dynamic concept.... meaning, it is changing anyhow.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
thanks for the help guys... though i gotta say what i'm able to take from that is keep cutting calories until you start to lose weight. i hope that was really the bottom line, because if it wasn't then i totally didn't understand. so for now that is what i will try, though to me it is terrifying... someone very close to me is just beginning to come back from anorexia and that is how she started. i have to do something though. thanks again.
 
Personally, I would make it a point to figure out how many calories you are eating exactly. But that is just me. That is the only way you are going to be close to certain that you are in a deficit.

If you are eating, say 1800 per day, that is roughly 10 calories per pound of body weight and for the average dieter, you should be losing on that amount, especially knowing that you just started dieting recently.... so metabolic slowdowns really aren't an issue.

What does this tell us?

A) Your *estimate* of caloric intake is way off. I would not be surprised. I have known people who would swear on their mother's grave that they are eating below a certain amount, yet, when you actually start adding things up.... they go over. Calories are one of the most misunderstood components of this for most.

B) Something could be wrong with you and you should seek medical advice if this is the case.

I wouldn't keep slashing calories until you start to lose. If you find yourself having to go to 8 calories per pound of body weight, I would get a physical done.

Then again, I don't know how you are going to know for sure what you *actual* caloric intake is when you have such a wild-card at dinner.

Put it this way, when I used to REALLY sit down with someone and workout their current and revised nutrition plans, there were extremely few cases where it ended up being B from above. More than 99/100 times it was A.
 
i know one day doesn't count for anything really, but i went to fitday and put in everything i ate and drank yesterday and came out at 1661 calories. do you think that is an ok number?
 
SunnyDay said:
i know one day doesn't count for anything really, but i went to fitday and put in everything i ate and drank yesterday and came out at 1661 calories. do you think that is an ok number?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I mean, in reality, I would think it to be low, if anything.
 
SunnyDay said:
but low enough to prevent weight loss? i guess i'm just having trouble finding that magic number
Click to expand...

Low enough to prevent weight loss?

What do you mean?

If you are in an energy (calorie) deficit, you lose weight. There is no such thing as "low enough to prevent weight loss."

On average, and this applies to a very large population, eating between 8-12 calories per pound of body weight ON A CONSISTENT basis will be sufficient for weightloss.
 
i keep reading how if i get too few calories my body will go into "starvation mode" and i won't lose anything at all, instead storing everything.
 
SunnyDay said:
i keep reading how if i get too few calories my body will go into "starvation mode" and i won't lose anything at all, instead storing everything.
Click to expand...

Bogus.

Starvation mode isn't an "event." It is a process.

You just started dieting and you are not restricting cals to any extreme level, obviously.

On top of this, starvation mode doesn't make you store anything. It is impossible to store anything when you are in a caloric deficit.
 
SunnyDay said:
so if it's not dangerous the more i cut, the more i'll lose?
Click to expand...

No, you are not listening.

The starvation response is a process that occurs over a long period of time. You JUST started dieting plus you are using SANE caloric intakes.

Flip that, eat too little for too long and your body will begin to resist. It won't magically store fat and start disregarding the basics of thermodynamics. But it will respond, namely via the endocrine system and your hormones, to alter (down-regulate) your metabolic rate.

I said don't worry about the starvation response b/c you aren't doing the things that cause it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top