What if....

[bluemomma]

.... you KNOW you're eating proper portions, counting calories (even loosely), cutting down on fats and carbs, exercising (either moderately or more strenuously), drinking lots of water and STILL not losing weight?

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've been to a gym regularly. But I'm back at it like I was before....I don't eat poorly. What I've been posting on here is probably more or less teh norm, give or take the odd day.

I'm concerned that I won't lose any fat, and my doctor will insist that I must be pigging out and dont' know it and that I should just *eat less and exercise more* as she's previously stated. I honestly, in my heart of hearts, feel like there is something wrong with my metabolism. I've been fighting this battle for a LONG while and I felt like I had it under control until I got pregnant.

There is no logical reason for me to be this big. I don't drink anything but water and the occasional diet soda or small glas of orange juice. I don't eat butter or sauces (don't like 'em). I don't do calorie rich condiments like ranch dressing or anything. I don't do fatty meats -- hell, I don't even like meat really but I eat it because I need to. I don't drink milk but ONCE in a while... like maybe 2 glasses of skim/month. I don't do lots of crackers, cookies, etc. I don't do fast food but once in a while (makes me sick-- sometimes I will but then I regret it for 4 days). I don't do desserts like cake, cookies, ice cream, etc. My usual *supper/dinner* fits on a small toast sized plate. Trust me when I say it's NOT portion control. I don't get up during the night to midnight snack. I don't eat chips, popcorn, pretzels or anything like that. I occasionally have some chocolate... so what is up??? I mean... it shoudl be EASY for me to lose 2 plus lbs/month. Instead nothing happens and it takes FOREVER to lose ANY fat.

*sigh*..... sorry.... just a little bit frustrated atm.

Thanks for listening
bluemomma

 

[PorscheFan]

I'd get a scale and measure everything you eat everyday. Make a spreadsheet and count the calories, fat, carbs, and protein. Never eat anything that doesn't go on this list. Do this for three months then report the results to your doctor. This is what I did. It's amazing how fast the calories add up when you don't do this. It's also amazing how easy it is to keep them down when you do.

 

[Kayshiz]

I'm not saying it's what is happening to you, but I have had to many of my friends tell me (especialy since I've been losing weight) that they "don't understand how they got to be the size that they are, and that they eat healthy, and don't indulge in sweets..."
But I see the way that they eat, even of they don't, I KNOW how they got to be that way, but it's impossible for them to see it.

Sometimes we think we are eating the right portion size, or know how many calories we eat, but unless you are weighing everything you eat (not with measuring cups, but an actual scale) and write every little thing down, we lose track. They can add up quick.
Cutting down on fat and carbs means nothing if your still getting the calories elsewhere.

You need to actually take the time (atleast weeks) and get super picky about this if your still having problems. Weight loss can take a bit to show so you need to do this for more then just a few days to see any results.

If after that you still feel like there is something else going on, you need to go to another doctor or specialist if you really feel like yours is missing something. It's your body, not your doctors. If you don't take any action to solve your problem you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[ChefChiTown]

.... you KNOW you're eating proper portions, counting calories (even loosely), cutting down on fats and carbs, exercising (either moderately or more strenuously), drinking lots of water and STILL not losing weight?

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've been to a gym regularly. But I'm back at it like I was before....I don't eat poorly. What I've been posting on here is probably more or less teh norm, give or take the odd day.

I'm concerned that I won't lose any fat, and my doctor will insist that I must be pigging out and dont' know it and that I should just *eat less and exercise more* as she's previously stated. I honestly, in my heart of hearts, feel like there is something wrong with my metabolism. I've been fighting this battle for a LONG while and I felt like I had it under control until I got pregnant.

There is no logical reason for me to be this big. I don't drink anything but water and the occasional diet soda or small glas of orange juice. I don't eat butter or sauces (don't like 'em). I don't do calorie rich condiments like ranch dressing or anything. I don't do fatty meats -- hell, I don't even like meat really but I eat it because I need to. I don't drink milk but ONCE in a while... like maybe 2 glasses of skim/month. I don't do lots of crackers, cookies, etc. I don't do fast food but once in a while (makes me sick-- sometimes I will but then I regret it for 4 days). I don't do desserts like cake, cookies, ice cream, etc. My usual *supper/dinner* fits on a small toast sized plate. Trust me when I say it's NOT portion control. I don't get up during the night to midnight snack. I don't eat chips, popcorn, pretzels or anything like that. I occasionally have some chocolate... so what is up??? I mean... it shoudl be EASY for me to lose 2 plus lbs/month. Instead nothing happens and it takes FOREVER to lose ANY fat.

*sigh*..... sorry.... just a little bit frustrated atm.

Thanks for listening
bluemomma

You could very well be eating with "proper portion control", but that doesn't mean that you will be or even SHOULD be losing weight. You lose weight by burning more calories than you consume. So, even if you eat with "proper portion control", you're not going to lose weight unless you do enough activity to burn more calories than you are consuming.

 

[PandaQuill]

You should list the food you eat on the Diary section of this site or something. :O Including about how much :3 If it really DOES look like you're practically eating nothing and still not losing weight, then you should get your thyroid checked. :O

Do you feel cold/sleepy easily?

 

[Stacy]

My advice is use a food diary, write down everything you eat and find out the exact amount of calories you are putting in your mouth. No more "loosely" figuring calories. Studies show that most people miscalculate their daily calories by a LOT. If you aren't keeping a food diary you may be surprised exactly how much you are eating or even how much calories are in what you are eating (I sure was). The site I used to keep track of my calories now is MyFitnessPal.com (I'm in no way affiliated with the site, I just like it and use it). You don't have to use a site, even writing everything down on paper and getting a calorie counter book will help. I used to do it that way but find using a site is easier.

I also invested in a food scale - like six bucks on ebay - and that has helped a lot too.

Anyway, the best advice I can give anyone trying to lose weight is - If you bite it, write it.

 

[dsquared]

Hmmmm...maybe what you're NOT doing is what you should be doing.

I have a friend who drinks about a gallon of whole milk every two days, eats tons of red meat, and eggs and Bacon ever morning...and is as thin as a rail.

The point is what keeps one persons weight in check won't necessarily work for you. If you've been eating this way for a while, maybe it's time to try something different?

 

[bluemomma]

disquared you could be onto something LOL. I am going to keep going for a while and if nothing happens, then, as you say... I'll know what DOESN'T work at least .

Thanks to all who have replied. I do keep track of what I eat and how much (and yes Mar1984, I am going to count the calories even though I dont' believe in it per se LOL). We shall see.....

Cheers,
bluemomma

 

[5KFreak]

I do keep track of what I eat and how much (and yes Mar1984, I am going to count the calories even though I dont' believe in it per se LOL).

Bluemomma,

I don't believe in it either. Reason being is because I lost a lot of weight at one point by just eating right and exercising. However there came a point where I stalled. This is when I thought that it was time to start counting calories and getting the perfect macro ratio. I had spreadsheets that had the calories and macros of every single thing that went into my mouth. I didnot go out to eat because I could not determine the calorie count or the weight, and I did not drink a drop of anything except for water, tea, and coffee. I did this for MONTHS absolutely perfectly along with a perfectly paired workout routine of weights and cardio.

My weight flucuated a little up and down all the time. Never had any substantial weight loss. The most I would lose was about 7 pounds and then I would gain it back over a period of time. I tweeked my program all time to keep it in tune with how my body was doing. I even had professional testing to see the actual calories my body burns at rest (even then it's not dead on). I even saw doctors for thyroid issues because I could not drop the weight.

This went on for about two years I guess and after getting quite obsessive over it I decided to quit doing it. I got a new job and for a year I did not pay attention to anything weight or diet related. Then I started back again but different. Not counting one calorie that goes into my mouth and not consistantly lifting one weight for a year I have lost 20 scale pounds fom when I started, 41% of my starting body fat percentage, and I have gained about 7lbs of muscle with the little lifting that I do end up doing. Although muscle flucuates by 3 pounds or so on measurements.

Oh and I get professionally measured by the same person, same scale, and same calipers each month.

 

[Andy2]

I have a tough time with how people "don't believe" in the calories out > calories in methodology. I mean, if you are literally burning more calories than you consume, how are you possibly going to gain body fat? You're operating at a deficit, and due a little old law of thermodynamics, its going to be impossible to create excess caloric energy from nothing.

Sure, the scale may not move much during stall periods, but you need to realize that this is most likely water retention, and yet ANOTHER reason why a scale makes such a poor method of weight loss measurement.

TLR

As long as you are accurate with your cal intake, cals out > cals in is going to get you where you need to go. AFAIK, it isn't possible to gain body fat if you stick to this. If you stall for a week, keep going. Eventually, its going to move. My 2cents.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Thanks to all who have replied. I do keep track of what I eat and how much (and yes Mar1984, I am going to count the calories even though I dont' believe in it per se LOL). We shall see.....

First of all, there's a difference between keeping track of what you eat (in regards to what you're eating and how much of it you are consuming) and keeping track of how many calories you consume. For instance, saying that you ate 2 slices of pepperoni pizza and drank a glass of soda for dinner isn't really a way to measure how much you're truly eating. All you're doing is giving yourself a very inaccurate and horribly unhelpful way of keeping track of your weight. And, if you were to continue measuring your food intake as such, you will never, ever, ever be able to accurately and properly keep track of how much weight you SHOULD be losing.

What you need to do is count calories. Referencing the example I used earlier, saying that you ate 2 slices of pepperoni pizza and drank a glass of soda for dinner is an extremely vague and inconclusive way to judge what you're truly consuming. I mean, how big were those slices of pizza? How much cheese was on each slice? Sauce? How thick was the dough? What ingredients were in the pizza? And, how big was that glass of soda? What kind of soda was it? Also, did you eat the entire 2 slices or just 1 whole slice and half of the other? Were the pieces of pizza the same size? Did you drink just the glass of soda you poured for yourself or did you fill it back up once you were half way done with it?

Using the measurement of "2 slices of pepperoni pizza" and "a glass of soda" could mean a million different things. So, just keep track of the calories you are eating. That is the ONLY way for you to accurately determine how much you are truly consuming.

And, pair that with keeping track of how many calories you are burning through exercise and normal daily activity. The only way to cut fat is to burn more calories than you are consuming. I don't really understand why you don't "believe in it", because it's scientific fact and it's literally impossible to argue.

 

[bluemomma]

I don't *believe* in it for two reasons:

1. A calorie is a measure of energy - not a measurement of the value of the food. You can consume 100 cals of fat, or sugar, or protein and it's still 100 cals, but what your body can do with that fuel, and how, will vary and affect how your body functions. This will, either directly or indirectly, affect weight positively or negatively; and

2. I used the body for life program several years ago (which I can't do to a tee now because of an inflamed injury), and lost 45 lbs in about 7-9 months and I did so without counting a single calorie. I went from a size 22 to a size 12/14.

I'm not saying counting calories is not valid.... what I am saying is that I'm not sure that obsessing about it is necessary. I prefer to believe that the quality of the food I'm eating is worth more.

Cheers,
bluemomma

 

[ecky1]

The problem is that by your own admission that way isn't working for you so why not give proper calorie counting a try.

I'm not saying counting calories is not valid.... what I am saying is that I'm not sure that obsessing about it is necessary. I prefer to believe that the quality of the food I'm eating is worth more.

 

[MAR1984]

1. A calorie is a measure of energy - not a measurement of the value of the food. You can consume 100 cals of fat, or sugar, or protein and it's still 100 cals, but what your body can do with that fuel, and how, will vary and affect how your body functions. This will, either directly or indirectly, affect weight positively or negatively

Can you give me an example that will help me explain what you mean here?

2. I used the body for life program several years ago (which I can't do to a tee now because of an inflamed injury), and lost 45 lbs in about 7-9 months and I did so without counting a single calorie. I went from a size 22 to a size 12/14.

You may not even realize this, but any time you lose weight, its because your calorie intake was less than what your body needed to maintain weight. How you go about getting into that defecit matters little. Most programs that work, are all basically "counting calories" where someone has done the counting for you.Counting calories yourself, I would argue, is better because you learn how to configure your diet for your own needs, rather than a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all approach. You then learn how to switch back to maintenance, or eating just enough calories to maintain weight.

You see, counting calories is really not a "weight loss program" you can believe or not believe in. Its an accounting system. Maybe there can be other systems, but counting calories is like keeping a check book ledger - you know how much money you have at any time, how much is going into your account, and how much is going out. If you don't keep that ledger, you'd never know when you had a ton of money in your account, or when it was running low. You know you can't buy a $500 TV if you only got $100 in the bank. Maybe you keep an approximate tally in your head, but every once in a while you forget something you bought and overdraft. Or you use credit cards, and aquire debt. Debt is like fat in this analogy, you're spending more than you make == You're eating morethan your body uses.

Now, lets see if I can complete the analogy with an example of not counting calories but instead following a program.

MAR's no debt money saving program!
Step 1: Only go grocery shopping once per week, and don't stay in the store longer than a half hour. Only fill up half a cart.
Step 2: Pay all your bills because you have to.
Step 3: Don't buy electronics
Step 4: Don't buy a car, but instead use public transportation.
Step 5: Rent a small condo rather than buying a house
Step 6: Don't go to restaurants
Step 7: no credit cards
Step 8: etc etc.

Follow these steps and you will save money and never have debt!

So, for some people, following those steps will allow them to save a ton of money and never go into debt. Some people will find ways to follow the rules and still spend too much money, some may find it too restrictive to follow, some may not know what to do if they go off the program, and still others will find the whole system silly and will realize they can buy whatever they want as long as they are keeping track of how much they make and how much they spend. You might also notice, if you're not working and there is no money coming in, the program is going to fail. Similarly, if you're eating more than your body needs, regardless of the program, its not going to work.

 

[Andy2]

1. A calorie is a measure of energy - not a measurement of the value of the food. You can consume 100 cals of fat, or sugar, or protein and it's still 100 cals, but what your body can do with that fuel, and how, will vary and affect how your body functions. This will, either directly or indirectly, affect weight positively or negatively; and

I feel like you are mistaking calories and macro nutrients. From my understanding, all food provides calories. period. IIRC a gram of protein is 4 calories, and 1 gram of carbos is 7 calories ect. However, calories are still the common denominator.


Taking this example to an extreme for purely explanitory reasons: Assuming you have a BMR of 2000 kcals a day, you could potentially eat 1600 calories worth of soda/fast food/whatever. Granted, you would feel absolutely terrible, but you would still lose weight.

 

[5KFreak]

EEKS! First I would like to point out my typo from my earlier post. I was a bit dislexic and I meant to type 14% body fat. Not 41 :0

1. A calorie is a measure of energy - not a measurement of the value of the food. You can consume 100 cals of fat, or sugar, or protein and it's still 100 cals, but what your body can do with that fuel, and how, will vary and affect how your body functions. This will, either directly or indirectly, affect weight positively or negatively

BINGO! However, Bluemomma I will warn that many people on this forum (just from reading around) are firm believers that a calorie is a calorie and they feel that if they ate less that what they burned in 100% fat or drank all of their caloric needs in alcohol that they would lose weight BECAUSE if you burn more than you consume then you lose weight! This is what they call the law of thermodynamics.

Can you give me an example that will help me explain what you mean here?

Without getting extremely technical it is known science that during food absorption the conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store. So what happens when I sit down and absorb 300 calories of fat? Or for that matter what if I consume my entire days calories in nothing but fat? From the posts I have read I will be challenged I am sure to provide some study or medical report to this, however I don't have that much time on my hands so I will challenge those particular people to prove my statement incorrect rather.

feel like you are mistaking calories and macro nutrients. From my understanding, all food provides calories. period. IIRC a gram of protein is 4 calories, and 1 gram of carbos is 7 calories ect

I think this might have been a typo! Carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram. Same as protein. Alcohol carries 7 calories per gram, and fat, 9 calories. Which in it's own proves that all calories are not created equal.

I have a tough time with how people "don't believe" in the calories out > calories in methodology. I mean, if you are literally burning more calories than you consume, how are you possibly going to gain body fat? You're operating at a deficit, and due a little old law of thermodynamics, its going to be impossible to create excess caloric energy from nothing.

So how would you explain my earlier scenario? I had it down to a science (even getting a professional assessment of how many calories my body burned at rest) and ate the perfect balance of less than what I burned in the gym. Even balanced the macros just right but never lost weight, fat, nor did my clothes change? How do you explain that a lot of folks on this forum are doing the same thing calorie counting to to T and still have issues with consistant weight loss? I surely hope to think that a couple of off moments on the calorie counting is at fault.

Besides who the heck wants to calorie count for the rest of their lives?

 

[Andy2]

BINGO! However, Bluemomma I will warn that many people on this forum (just from reading around) are firm believers that a calorie is a calorie and they feel that if they ate less that what they burned in 100% fat or drank all of their caloric needs in alcohol that they would lose weight BECAUSE if you burn more than you consume then you lose weight! This is what they call the law of thermodynamics.

There are a lot of believers of this notion because it is scientifically supported. In an area that is FULL of false reports and speculation, I tend to stick with the data that laboratories produce.

I think this might have been a typo! Carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram. Same as protein. Alcohol carries 7 calories per gram, and fat, 9 calories. Which in it's own proves that all calories are not created equal.

You are correct - I had my figures mixed up.

However, I fail to understand how this proves all calories are equal. Essentially, if you have a dish and a cup in front of you, and one has 7 grams of carbs, and the other has 4 grams of alcohol, each of those is going to provide 28 identical units of caloric energy.

So how would you explain my earlier scenario? I had it down to a science (even getting a professional assessment of how many calories my body burned at rest) and ate the perfect balance of less than what I burned in the gym. Even balanced the macros just right but never lost weight, fat, nor did my clothes change? How do you explain that a lot of folks on this forum are doing the same thing calorie counting to to T and still have issues with consistant weight loss? I surely hope to think that a couple of off moments on the calorie counting is at fault.

How do I explain that people aren't losing weight? It could be water retention due to stressed muscles, or a high sodium diet etc. Typically, its the same answer that nobody likes to hear; studies have shown people tend to overestimate their intake. Plain and simple, 99/100 people who aren't losing are simply eating too much.

What I suggest? Lower your caloric roof another 100-200 calories, sit for a week or two, and see if that changes.

I stand by Cals out > cals in, because it HAS worked for so many people.

Besides who the heck wants to calorie count for the rest of their lives?

Personally, the hassle of counting calories is worth the self confindence a healthy body gives me. Besides, once you find out the caloric values of foods you enjoy, it becomes much easier to add up and maintain daily.

Not counting calories is a HUGE reason why people show up on this forum.

 

[5KFreak]

There are a lot of believers of this notion because it is scientifically supported. In an area that is FULL of false reports and speculation, I tend to stick with the data that laboratories produce.



You are correct - I had my figures mixed up.

However, I fail to understand how this proves all calories are equal. Essentially, if you have a dish and a cup in front of you, and one has 7 grams of carbs, and the other has 4 grams of alcohol, each of those is going to provide 28 identical units of caloric energy.



How do I explain that people aren't losing weight? It could be water retention due to stressed muscles, or a high sodium diet etc. Typically, its the same answer that nobody likes to hear; studies have shown people tend to overestimate their intake. Plain and simple, 99/100 people who aren't losing are simply eating too much.

What I suggest? Lower your caloric roof another 100-200 calories, sit for a week or two, and see if that changes.

I stand by Cals out > cals in, because it HAS worked for so many people.





Personally, the hassle of counting calories is worth the self confindence a healthy body gives me. Besides, once you find out the caloric values of foods you enjoy, it becomes much easier to add up and maintain daily.

Not counting calories is a HUGE reason why people show up on this forum.

So do you stand firm that if a person eats 100% of their calories from fat and it is below their needs and they are burning more than they take in of that fat, that person will lose weight?

Same scenario for drinking the daily allotment in vodka, same outcome? As long as I ingest less than what I burn, I am sure to lose weight?

By the way I am not talking just scale weight in my scenario, I am talking body fat. By your notion, I could eat pizza, nachos, and butter all day long, but as long as I did not go over a certain number (my daily needs to live) and then worked out every night then I should lose fat. Sounds easy enough! Who the hell can't eat pizza, nachos and butter all day long as long as they quit at 1500 calories or whatever the number maybe? I wonder why people are still having such an issue! Even some on this forum (and others) who preach this to death are still struggling with reaching their goal weight.

Please know that I am not saying this is not true, the calories in vs calories out! Hell yeah you have to burn more calories than you take in, however everyone is different, the body is an AMAZING thing, and weight loss is a lot more complicated than that easy formula. Meaning that the TYPE of calories going in are just as, and if not more important to weight loss.

 

[Andy2]

So do you stand firm that if a person eats 100% of their calories from fat and it is below their needs and they are burning more than they take in of that fat, that person will lose weight?

Same scenario for drinking the daily allotment in vodka, same outcome? As long as I ingest less than what I burn, I am sure to lose weight?

By the way I am not talking just scale weight in my scenario, I am talking body fat. By your notion, I could eat pizza, nachos, and butter all day long, but as long as I did not go over a certain number (my daily needs to live) and then worked out every night then I should lose fat. Sounds easy enough! Who the hell can't eat pizza, nachos and butter all day long as long as they quit at 1500 calories or whatever the number maybe? I wonder why people are still having such an issue! Even some on this forum (and others) who preach this to death are still struggling with reaching their goal weight.

Please know that I am not saying this is not true, the calories in vs calories out! Hell yeah you have to burn more calories than you take in, however everyone is different, the body is an AMAZING thing, and weight loss is a lot more complicated than that easy formula. Meaning that the TYPE of calories going in are just as, and if not more important to weight loss.

That is exactly what I am saying. Of course this example is taken to the extreme, and if a person actually attempted this they would likely

A) feel pretty sick, because they are missing a ton of macro nutrients.
B) Be ravenous with hunger later in the day, because all of the food you listed has an overabundance of sugar.


But yea, for kicks, if you drank 1500 calories worth of pizza/nachos a day and absolutely nothing else, you would be WILDLEY unhealthy, but I submit that the body would burn off these calories and more just by being alive.

Would you have energy? Prolly not, you eat like crap. Would you feel terrible, and likely reach for unaccounted for comfort food? A lot of people do just that.

 

[5KFreak]

However, I fail to understand how this proves all calories are equal. Essentially, if you have a dish and a cup in front of you, and one has 7 grams of carbs, and the other has 4 grams of alcohol, each of those is going to provide 28 identical units of caloric energy.

I simply mean if a fat calorie is the same or equal to a protein calorie then why do they have different energy outputs? Why doesn't carbs, fats, and proteins all have the same calories?