Not loosing weight despite serious calories reduction

[ScubaAlex]

When I started out, I needed to loose about 12-13 lbs. I know that doesn't sound like much but that is what makes it all the more difficult. 

Of course the first 3 lbs came right off in barely a week or so, the rest has been a true struggle.

This past week, I have been exercising daily if not even twice a day, eating around 1000 calories (so a defiicit of 750-1000 calories per day!), no alcohol, drink an average of 100 fl oz of water per day, and I got the scale this morning to only see 1.2lbs gone.  WTF!  The week before, when I had my period and with an average of 800 calorie deficit per day, I didn't loose anything!!   This is totally depressing. 

I don't see how I can eat even less and still be functional.  Thoughts?

(I'm now 139lbs, 5'6, 45 y/o and aiming for 132lbs). 

[Ukase]

I'm sorry - but this is completely false.

There is one rule with diets. Calories burned must be greater than calories eaten to lost weight.

If I fast for a day, I will lose weight. Water, fat and muscle. It's that simple.

If I have 1/2 my bmr worth of food, I will lose weight - water, fat and muscle. It's that simple.

Is it a good idea, diet-wise to fast, or to only eat 50% of my bmr? No, not in the long run. In the short run, aside from possibly over-eating, there's no reason to expect your body to go into "starvation mode".

You don't need to worry about starvation mode unless you've literally been starving for about 36-48 hours.

If you don't believe that, I welcome you to show me the scientific study that backs up this claim that our bodies hold onto calories while on a large calorie restrictive diet. In fact, I'd love to see the results of this study, if in fact a study was ever done.

To the OP - I certainly understand your disappointment and/or frustration. We sacrifice, we expect to see something for our troubles, and we hope it's something worthwhile. My best advice is to not give up, keep at it. You're probably a little high on the sodium intake, causing you to hold on to water. In a couple days time, you'll be A-okay.

[Maxit]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A

[Heybales]

---

@mhl wrote:
I agree! I started 4/20 and have lost 48 pounds. I fluctuate between 500 and 875 calories a day. I walk 6 to 8 miles a day. It is working for me!

---

Good thing it's working, that way you'll enjoy doing it all over again when it's easier to gain and harder to lose next time, and the time after, and the time after.

I guess you could be about 4 ft tall though, and walking very slowly, in which case that could be reasonable.

But at almost 4 lbs weekly and walking only - kiss that muscle mass goodbye, and get ready for the fun of having less.

Ask your Dr how many semisters or classes they took on nutrition and body metabolism, if this is a general practitioner doing something he should have referred you to a dietician for. Perhaps they are a specialist, in which case lets hope they kept up with current studies.

[ScubaAlex]

I completely agree that there is no one rule with diets and the whole advise on eating at least 1200+ calories in order to loose weight is definitely not true for smaller people!

although I do work out almost everyday, the rest of the is not that active as sit at my desk. I recently started using a treadmill desk but I can only do that for an hour or two a day.

I'll keep an eye on my sodium intake since I do often have soups for dinner (progresso light to which I had some veggies). 

Unfortunately, loosing 5-8lbs is really very very hard when it's not the first 5 of 50lbs to loose but the last 5.  It takes way longer. 

-Alexandra

[Heybales]

---

@Ukase wrote:

I'm sorry - but this is completely false.

There is one rule with diets. Calories burned must be greater than calories eaten to lost weight.

If I fast for a day, I will lose weight. Water, fat and muscle. It's that simple.

If I have 1/2 my bmr worth of food, I will lose weight - water, fat and muscle. It's that simple.

Is it a good idea, diet-wise to fast, or to only eat 50% of my bmr? No, not in the long run. In the short run, aside from possibly over-eating, there's no reason to expect your body to go into "starvation mode".

You don't need to worry about starvation mode unless you've literally been starving for about 36-48 hours.

If you don't believe that, I welcome you to show me the scientific study that backs up this claim that our bodies hold onto calories while on a large calorie restrictive diet. In fact, I'd love to see the results of this study, if in fact a study was ever done.

---

Did you know that calories in can actually effect calories out? Go too low compared to what you burn and your body will adapt.

While having more fat available makes it easier not to get the effect, it still happens, and is accepted fact that for morbidly obese patients there will be a drop of 20-25% of metabolic rate and whole day burn. But their level of eating is still so high it doesn't matter at that point.

But you start doing that with only 50 lbs to lose or less, now you start having fun with eating levels being at point people have trouble adhering or sustaining it.

You sound like you are mixing 2 things here too, common myths attached to starvation mode, aka adaptive thermogenesis, aka metabolic efficiency improvement - and the body's response to actually starving.

Starvation mode response and starving mode responses are different, and the myths claimed for the former usually, but some don't even, apply to the latter.

Like gaining fat and weight eating too little. Myth. Now, adherence may be terrible, and every single binge episode is nothing but surplus so indeed the end result is extra fat. But that's a problem with the claim "I gain on my diet of 1200 calories". No, you gain on the binges of 2000 once weekly, because you don't adhere to 1200.

Other myth with starvation mode, you burn muscle first and everything you eat is added as fat. That's real starving with longer time span then you even mentioned. But that's when fat levels are so low, carb levels are also very low, and there ain't much else to burn but muscle.

Other myth is these effects or other myths happen when you skip a meal. As you indicated, need longer than a missed meal. Studies have actually shown in fasting the first 24-36 hrs metabolism actually increases, before it takes a nose dive.

But couple points do happen with starvation mode, AT, or metabolic efficiency, when taking a big deficit.

Body will start slowing down other daily activity, the Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) part of the day, so more calories left for basal metabolism. So you could do a hard workout and burn say 400 calories and that's accurate, but your body causes you to burn 200 less from rest of the day. Fitbit will catch that happening though, and people have reported it. "why do I burn more on my non-workout day, this thing can't be right".

Body will lower RMR somewhat, some of the basic metabolic things are just done slower so less calories used for them, reserving calories for the really needed basal things. "why has my nail or hair growth slowed down, my skin is so flaky, why am I cold now" are comments noted.

And then finally body just becomes more efficient at everything, from processing food, to NEAT, to even exercise burn. This usually isn't noted except what used to be enough accuracy in food logging and exercise to create a deficit and lose weight all of a sudden doesn't work, without any other good reason.

HBO documentary linked above is great place to start, though they take stance once it happens it's done.

Here's another link showing that even for overweight folks, just a minor 25% deficit caused a decrease in totaly daily burn of 20-25%, and that was below what was expected from loss of muscle mass. Throw that in like you said, now in really bad state. This link at least shows recovery is possible, though a tad long perhaps.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-l...

And if you want a bunch of studies showing what can happen:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-lo...

But indeed, the myths surrounding starvation mode, or mis-application of how fast some things happen, or the side effects not recognized as their own issues, really confuses the issue. And it's not about the eating level, but the amount of deficit. Had someone I helped eating 3500 calories daily get it, but his TDEE based on tested RMR prior to diet should have been around 5500. He was large and didn't move much, so it was easy to estimate TDEE based on tested RMR. Later test confirmed what happened. But eating 3500 decent food was still interesting.

The end of the matter is, while you can indeed keep eating less and less and get around it, will that ultimately be successful for adherance to keep losing weight, and maintain goal weight?

And with Fitbit not knowing you have done that too your body, it is merely reflecting potential daily burn, not your real suppressed daily burn, so can you be accurate enough to still reach goal?

[OddLynn]

@Chess wrote:

---

Oh please.  Don't post such nonsense.  Of COURSE you will lose weight if you eat fewer calories.  And you certainly can go below 1000 a day if you are eating the proper foods. The body certainly is not "starving" not does it think it is.  I always have to stay at 1000 or below to lose.  1100 or 1200 is maintenance for me.  Not every body works the same.

---

Although I'm new here, I've probably been trying to lose weight longer than you've been born. You're last statement is the most truthful of them all. Not every body works the same, nor does everyone lose the same. In a perfect world, it would be calories in less than calories out to lose weight. However, that doesn't always work for me or a lot of people for that fact. 

There are weeks where I have to eat less in order to lose and there are weeks where I better eat more because my body does think it's starving. This happens because we are mammals and were hunter/gatherers long before the rise of society and industry. We were perfected during feast or famine and therefore some body's store fat and can burn it quick, some never store fat at all and some are a combo of the two. I figure I'm a combo of the two.

Everyone has their own beliefs and it's what makes their diets work or not. I used to think that the word diet was what Garfield thought: die with a t on it. Then I realized it is something that you need to do every day. Or at least enough to keep your body healthy and active. It's only what we eat daily and therefore shouldn't rule or lives like it does.

[mhl]

Agreed! I am 66. And I don't diet. I have changed my lifestyle for good!

[robbackatya]

The problem is that the equation that most sites including fitbit uses can be off by as much as 67%. They use standard Mifflin with EER to figure out someones BMR(Basil Metabolic Rate).

See below which states that someone with the exact same lean body mass(currently the most accurate way to measure BMR) can be off by 67%. The point is Fitbit like all other sites in trackers expect you to manually adjust your numbers and the fact is your number will change daily.

Don't listen to others about what your caloric intake should be you need to find that out for yourself by analysis or putting it into a caculator that automaticallly makes the adjustments for you.

Bottom line the current equations are static and we are not so you have to adjust daily to get an accurate number.

So rule number one you "dont use a static equation for a dynamic person."

Regarding your monthly cycle. Alot of women gain wait during this time. So you can use a standard diviation if you want to analyze it. I gain 3 pounds during this time and subtract to get your actual wieght or ignore it all together and stay doing what you were doing when you were getting positive results. Then go back to adjusting after you have completed the cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[11] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[11]

[Heybales]

---

@robbackatya wrote:

The problem is that the equation that most sites including fitbit uses can be off by as much as 67%. They use standard Mifflin with EER to figure out someones BMR(Basil Metabolic Rate).

See below which states that someone with the exact same lean body mass(currently the most accurate way to measure BMR) can be off by 67%. The point is Fitbit like all other sites in trackers expect you to manually adjust your numbers and the fact is your number will change daily.

Don't listen to others about what your caloric intake should be you need to find that out for yourself by analysis or putting it into a caculator that automaticallly makes the adjustments for you.

Bottom line the current equations are static and we are not so you have to adjust daily to get an accurate number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[11] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[11]

---

What was interesting about those studies on BMR.

First, they actually tested RMR, that's what the gas-exchange test is called, RMR.

Second, these were not standardized for accurate RMR tests, no confirmation of no workout prior day, no eating before test, ect. Almost as bad as you show up at the gym or mall, and there's a machine they'll test you for free. Talk about invalid tests.

Third, no analysis if the person was in a diet, which if too extreme can effect RMR.

Fourth, that around the world analysis used formula's that are not intended for some races/backgrounds, they are known flawed estimates. Some races have much smaller metabolically active organs, so even though the LBM is the same, the main burners are smaller, they actually have more muscle mass, and that just isn't a big calorie burner.

When you look at weight loss studies, which actually have tighter controls on them, and they confirm the people have had no weight loss or attempts in prior 6-9 months, and they accurately measure bodyfat% by hydrostatic or Podbod or DEXA (not BIA scale or pinch test), and proper RMR tests done, the study participants are within 5% of expected.

Women being on the low end because they have smaller metabolic organs, men on the high end.

But you do need to start somewhere, so might as well start as decent an estimate as possible, and then as you point out, adjust as needed. But since you can cause it to lower, always start on high side and adjust down.

Women, who have a BMR that literally changes through the month, need to wait a month to see results to decide what to do.

[robbackatya]

Agree, you have to start somewhere and the current static euqations are a good place to start if you are not going a more controlled route to get a more accurate number.

Once you have enough data logged you should be able to get alot closer than any online calculator or tracker. I would go as far to say that for people that don't understand adjustments need to be made or can't make the adjustments themselves, trackers and sites are keeping them fat with bad data.

[Heybales]

I'd suggest since many don't even have an idea how the eating goal was obtained, or didn't realize they burned calories sleeping, they would have no way to understand how to do an adjustment.

I think the tools if used right would be successful, I actually think far too many think they know enough to do it better, likely because of yo-yo dieting, despite above facts, that they select everything on the "safe" side, activity level is lower than honest, biggest deficit possible, be under goal too, don't add calorie burns that Fitbit is badly underestimated, ect.

And then when they forget the frequent binges because eating level is so much lower than needed, they don't lose weight, coupled with shooting their body in the metabolism and making it worse, along with muscle mass loss and slower metabolism then too.

[Ccl33]

I agree it is difficult. I am a bit older than you and have always been active. I have been using the fitbit and eating less than 800 calories and burning more and the scale barely moves. Most days I get 10,000 steps, but the burn always exceeds the calories eaten. Recently I joined weight watchers which is good eating too so I will see how that goes.

[robbackatya]

Just a thought regarding the 800 calories.

I would say some people start off with some pretty serious goals. My wife is a great example of someone that has a pattern of this. She will put on a real low calorie goal and lose weight and then can't maintain that low of calories, binge and gain some of it back. Now I will say she is in good shape, but her weight yo-yos 7-9 pounds(and it does impact he psychologically! To me that is insane. Not only does it screw up your metabolism but causes body fat% to increase.

In my weight loss/health journey I never did this. I knew exactly where my 0 weight loss or gain number was and just tried to eat underneath that. I never felt like I was dieting or starving. That is not to say it did not take some discipline to log and break the pattern of eating when I am not hungry(another challenge), but it has been an easy journey and continues to be.

If you ask someone can you lose 2 pounds in a month or even 1 pound in a month they will say "easy", but doing it for 12 months in a row is hard for most. Finding a program that is right for you and staying consistent really will clear up the weight loss problem. An important part of this is getting some basic parts of the weight loss equation correct regardless of the eating and exercise program you are on.

[mrolling03]

My mom tried this diet. Personally I think it is the most unhealthy and unsafe idea simply because you're depriving your body of nutrients and then after going through such a severe defecit, most tend to overeat on their "normal days." Women should not eat less than 1,200 calories a day for safe weight loss.

Consistency and patience is the key when it comes to weight loss. If you eat a consistent amount of calories every day and have a routine of exercising 3-5 days a week, then most people will typically lose .5-2 lbs a week. Trying to eat less than 1,200 calories a day puts your body into starvation mode and it will attempt to hold onto any fat. Also, if you consume a lot of sodium and sugar that can be counterintutive to your goals.

I am absolutely no expert, but after talking with my doctor and also working through this process with my boyfriend who is incredibly knowledgable about nutrition I'm starting to learn how much their advice is accurate.

It sounds like you've been taking the right steps already, but something I've learned is that diets don't last, if you're committed to losing weight and being fit and healthy, it's about the lifestyle change. Focus on healthy food changes and a consistent routine and you'll reach your goal (which it sounds like you're doing already).

I wish you the best of luck, but just please be safe when doing so, that's ultimately what matters.

[christy2774]

It sounds like you put the time in exercising and eating healthy.  But I agree with another post about not eating enough.  If you don't enough healthy nutritious food for calories, you body will tell itself it is starving and it is going to latch onto every calorie you take in and store it.  Losing weight isn't a quick fix.  Enjoy all your little acheivements in between as well as the end result.  It is all about making a life change.  If you want weight to stay off, you have to do it the right way and in a way that is realistic and something you can keep up with for the long haul.  It is why fad diets never work.  You can't do it forever and when you stop, you gain everything back and then some.  I have learned that losing weight is as much mental as it is physical.  Best of luck on your journey 🙂

[Tweetycew]

Have you hit your goal yet?  I hope so, you are trying so hard and that last 5 lbs is always the hardest to budge.

[Ccl33]

I am doing something similar. I got the fitbit one and did just ok with it and now I am doing weight watchers. Still log food in both, but loosing is so slow. I do the gym several times a week and treadmill at home when I don't get to the gym. I just increased my calories to 1000 per day because there is so much about not eating enough. Grr so difficult

[Ccl33]

After reading your post, I increased my calories to 1000. I was eating about 800 and losing very little.

[Tweetycew]

You still may need a few more calories especially if you are exercising.  If I don't exercise, I keep my calories around 1200 but if I am exercising it goes up to 1600 but I try not to eat empty calories like you get from sweets and junk food.  Protein and high fiber, lots of fruits and veggies.  Weight Watchers has some really good and filling recipes.  The best tool in the weight loss kit is WATER.  Lots of water all day long. Good Luck!

[kristhebooklady]

When you go below 1200 calories the body see you are starving yourself and won't lose weight. It takes eating calories and not skimping on calories. If I burn 1000 more calories exercising thanI eat, I will lose two lbs a week. I 'm possible, not impossible. Slow and steady wins the race. I hope this helps.

kris:)