Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
BITTERQUILL Posts: 1,639
7/13/13 5:04 P

That would really depend on how much exercise you are doing. For someone who works out a lot, it may be reasonable even for a short person. In many cases, the tracker over-estimates by a pretty wide margin, but that should be mitigated by the fact that you're using an HRM. I'm 5'3 and just a little under age 30. At 130 lbs and in weight loss mode, I need to be working off around 1,000 calories, seven days per week to get the same range you listed. That's a two-hour jog every single day, for me, to get a weight-loss range in the 2000-calorie area.

That said, the chance that you're not losing due to eating too few calories is very small. Eating less than you burn will always cause weight loss (eventually) unless you have a medical condition or there are other factors at work. Metabolic damage exists, surely, but it usually takes an extended period of near starvation to cause it. Three weeks of under-eating by a couple hundred calories isn't going to halt your weight loss. If anything, it will usually speed it up to a rate that is not ideal.

Still, it's pretty common to see a delay before weight starts coming off, and there are a great many possible causes, down to something as simple as water retention. If you've only recently increased your exercise a lot, it can cause a massive amount of water retention as your muscles adjust. A few years ago when I started exercising in earnest, my scale actually showed a gain of nearly five pounds *over night* after a particularly heavy workout. My muscles were so full of liquid that it took several weeks of regular exercise to show even a small drop in weight. This sort of swelling usually clears up within a few days, but if you've increased exercise dramatically it could take longer. Changes to your diet can affect water retention, too, particularly salt and fiber intake.

So give it time. Be very careful in food measurement, to ensure that you are tracking accurately; consider a digital food scale in place of volume or (worse) "eyeball" measurements. Watch your sodium. Keep up the exercise, since you're using a heart rate monitor already and have a pretty good idea of your caloric burn. Maybe talk to a doctor, if you're concerned about your personal numbers. Go with the range Coach Tanya recommended, and be patient. It can take a while.

(By the way: I'm only an inch taller than you. When I look at my info in a BMR calculator, my basal metabolic rate is expected to drop by less than 100 calories by the time I'm 50. Of course calculators are not perfect, but for most people they are pretty accurate. Not only are you not "old," you're probably don't have a vastly different metabolism than you did 20 years ago, assuming all other factors are the same. If you're bigger than you were at 30, as most people are, your metabolism might actually be higher than it was then. It's definitely harder to lose weight as you get older, but there are many other factors that play a larger part.)

Edited by: BITTERQUILL at: 7/13/2013 (17:34)
WALLAHALLA SparkPoints: (427,732)
Fitness Minutes: (222,121)
Posts: 80,467
7/12/13 7:29 P

Thanks Coach Tonya!

I use the fitbit zip, and only log my activities there and let them sync over. I'll up my calories to match the low end of the new tracker and see where that takes me.

TONKA14 Posts: 4,947
7/12/13 9:14 A

It is important to keep in mind that the guidelines for your calorie range are for those NOT on SparkPeople getting a personalized program recommendation. Those guidelines are ball park ideas for those only reading the book. Your Spark plan will create more specific calculations based on your exercise level. The more you exercise, the more you will need to eat (regardless of which program you are using) so your body burns energy from fat stores instead of continuing to store it. This old blog post explains why a bit.

It sounds like you are not seeing weight loss because you are not eating enough to support the level of exercise you are doing. If you are a dry sponge your body make "soak up" the calories when you increase but never fear, once your sponge is wet, those will be lost.

Since it sounds like you are in the new program, take a look at your base range listed on your start page. It is important to know how accurate the calories burned listing is on your fitness page. If it is from our program it is important to remember that sometimes they can be over-estimated for what you did. If you are using a fitness device, those will tend to be most accurate. A safe way to transition into this new plan is to use the range between the top end of your base range and bottom end of your new range after exercise for the area you should eat within until you see how your body responds after a couple weeks. If you are still not seeing loss in a few weeks, use the entire range provided after exercise as your guide.

Weight loss and finding the right balance is trial and error for all of us so don't give up. You will find your sweet spot!

Coach Tanya

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,433
7/12/13 1:04 A

"I have seen a few cases already where adding exercise is causing the new tracker to MASSIVELY overcalculate how many calories to eat, I've even seen as high a range as 3800-4100"


Mine kind of did this, but i figured out why. When i changed to the new tracker and added in a 30-minute walk, my range shot from 1200-1550 up to like... 1800+... which, just no. 30 minutes of mild walking doesn't burn that many calories.

Now, I never ever used the Fitness tracker before; i found it pointless since it didn't connect to the nutrition tracker, except if you input your "typical/expected" weekly activity.... somewhere back in time i'd input some random thing in the fitness tracker, like, i expected to burn x amount of calories/week.

Well. My fitness got double-counted. I got credit for 1/7th of my expected weekly exercise calories, PLUS the walk that I input.

I removed *everything* from the whole "i plan to strength train x times/week, cardio x times/week for x minutes"..... and my nutrition tracker went back to 1200-1550, then i put the walk back in, and it went to like 1335.... MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE.

I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be double-counting their exercise calories during the learning-curve for the new system........ (but I am really happy for the new system; I never used the old fitness tracker, and now that I have this one set up right for me, I WILL use this new one).

7/12/13 12:58 A

I would increase them, although I know there seem to be some issues with the new tracker, so I can't say how much. I'm 5'2, and even eating the most whole, nutritious foods, 1200 calories is a really low day for me, as in I'm starving. I've lost over 40 pounds eating far more calories, so I don't really buy the "you should eat that low if you're below that height" thing. In fact, I scoffed out loud when I read that in the book. I do exercise quite a bit, but I also know even if I weren't exercising, I wouldn't be able to sustain my lifestyle change for very long if 1200-1300 calories were all I was allowing myself every day.

MEGAPEEJ Posts: 732
7/11/13 10:07 P

I have seen a few cases already where adding exercise is causing the new tracker to MASSIVELY overcalculate how many calories to eat, I've even seen as high a range as 3800-4100 (which the person assigned to it said "no way").

Up to 2200 seems high for your height (unless you have a lot of weight to lose), but I do think you should be eating more. 1200 is the absolute bare minimum a small sedentary woman should eat, and if you're exercising at all it just isn't enough to fuel it. That 1850 number seems reasonable, as does the high end of your previous range - 1550. I would aim for that general range and see what happens.

EMAVERICK Posts: 7,229
7/11/13 10:01 P

Congrats on your faithfulness--eating around 1200 calories is a tough balancing act. There are lots of reasons one doesn't seem to lose weight, even in three weeks, when one might actually be losing weight. Starting an exercise routine when it wasn't there before, can "turn fat into muscle" which looks a whole lot better, but doesn't change the weight so much. Also sore muscles retain a lot of water, and can cause a temporary weight gain or retention.

But yes, we can lose more weight by eating the appropriate amount for our activity level, and when we are heavier than our ideal weight, that ups the appropriate level too, as well as our workout. So, the book may be talking about if you were nearer your ideal weight and were still trying to lose, what the calories should be, but right now you are just starting out.

Anyway. Odds are the higher calorie range is still lower than uncontrolled calorie range, so why don't you try it out? Spend three weeks at the website's recommended level and see how it feels, how your body reacts.

You might be pleasantly surprised

WALLAHALLA SparkPoints: (427,732)
Fitness Minutes: (222,121)
Posts: 80,467
7/11/13 8:51 P

I am a bit confused with the new nutrition/fitness tracker.

I'm 51 and 5'2, so the Spark Solution book says I should eat closer to 1200 calories per day in order to lose weight. Means I only get 1 snack. I'm in week 3 and still not losing any weight, even though I have faithfully stuck to the plan. No variations at all on nutrition, but I do quite a bit more exercise than it says to.

After exercising, the new tracker says that I should eat 1,852 - 2,202 calories, both yesterday and today. So, does that mean I have not been losing because I'm actually not eating enough??? Do I stay around 1200 calories since I'm old and short, or do I add the extra calories?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
weight yo-yo 'ing 10/21/2016 10:54:57 AM
consistency 8/10/2016 5:36:04 PM
Watermelon Juice and Pomegranate Juice 12/16/2016 3:20:17 PM
Sparkling Water 1/17/2017 9:45:26 AM
A New Post Workout deviled egg recipe anyone? 6/13/2016 3:15:49 PM