Fitness Minutes: (7,524)
917 12/21/13 8:58 A
Wow how long have you been eating those calorie amounts? That is dangerously low! You honestly seem to be at a good weight. Have you considered recomp as a goal (changing your body shape versus fixating on a scale weight). If you've been eating at a that low of a weight for that long, you are doing metabolic damage to your body. You will not lose. Your body will be in starvation mode and it will hang on to every tiny morsel of food that you put into your mouth. Do you have any symptoms like being cold, brittle nails or hair, cold hands or feet, sleep problems? There is a whole list of things you should be on the lookout for if you're eating that low. You are going to harm your body.
If you start introducing more calories into your body, it will gain especially if you've been eating that low for a long time. My suggestion would be to figure out your TDEE (total body energy expenditure) and eat there until your weight stabilizes. You will gain weight most likely but mostly it will be water weight. This is an excellent read from Go Kaleo (she heads up a group on Facebook that I am also a part of called Eating the Food it is all about supporting people on their quest for true healthy lifestyles with sustainable eating approaches you might consider checking them out it is a stellar group with a TON of support) gokaleo.com/stop-dieting/
Take care of yourself. Eat to sustain your life. The scale does not define you. Focus on health versus "weight loss" eat for sustainablility so you can live a long and happy life and exercise in a way that makes you happy.
a week isn't long enough to see results, especially at your size. if you weigh 138lbs, you will see numbers from 133-143 on the scale without you having gained or lost an ounce. it's all normal variation in your weight due to different amounts of food, water and waste that happen to be in you at the moment. you're at the point where you really do need six weeks to see what happens. because you aren't big enough to have 2lb per week losses. a pound a week is pretty aggressive for your size and activity level. so you're realistically looking at a half a pound a week or less in loss. again, when you don't have much to lose it comes off slowly. but look at that half pound a week compared to just half of normal fluctuations, which would be 5lbs. it's a tenth of it. that's why even if you do everything right and are losing you may not see that half pound loss on the scale, even when you are losing it. it's why you have to wait for all those little losses to add up enough so that you can see them. i mean, if you're female and you timed the weigh ins for the right week, that gain at 1500 has more to do with water weight gain during your cycle than anything you ate. that's why some people don't weigh that week.
12/19/13 12:49 P
I don't get much information from number of calories you eat. You are petite (you said) and if I put your age, height and weight in a BMI calculator, you come out to be at a normal weight BMI of 24.4. (in the range of 18.5 - 24.9).
Because you're petite, the number of calories you eat is going to be adjusted to your size. The calculator I was using (on Webmd) gave me 2002 calories daily with moderate activity for you to maintain and 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lbs a week.
But you say you don't lose at 1200 calories. So I'm guessing it's activity that is the mystery factor in the mix. If you go lower in calories, as you say, then you worry about getting enough nutrition. Spark people has good tools for giving you an idea of your food intake and nutrition goals. But I think it is a challenge!
Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 12/19/2013 (13:05)
12/19/13 12:35 P
Have you tired calorie cycling? It works for me. Try eating at the low end of your range for 3 days, then eat at the high end (even a little over) one day.
You are still getting the same calories, just dispersed differently.
Fitness Minutes: (55,321)
2,704 12/19/13 12:32 P
Are you actually measuring your food and verifying the data in the database when you track it? If not, then your estimated calories might not be accurate. I've seen it many times when you think you're tracking it accurately, but maybe what you call one ounce of nuts is really two. Maybe someone else's entry for cherry tomatoes isn't entered accurately.
My recommendation is to eat what you're hungry for, but measure and track diligently. Then see how many calories you are truly consuming.
Breakfast- egg spinach and cheese lunch usually a turkey wrap and some cherry tomatoes snack huge bowl of brocali and ranch and dinner is fish and a vegtable then snack is usually almonds I'm losing now but wasn't when u was eating more food. Average is about 8-900 calories now. I don't eat fruit either
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
12/19/13 8:15 A
Nirerin made an excellent point. The other thing is that as we age our metabolisms slow down and it just gets harder to lose weight period.
how long are you giving it at the higher cal ranges? because with so little weight to lose, you should be eating about 100 cals below where you maintain, which does translate to an incredibly slow loss. which means that the 5lbs you fluctuate from day to day can quite easily mask any loss you make in the short term.
Fitness Minutes: (5,920)
3,793 12/18/13 10:23 P
Hi I just got back on spark and I'm trying to lose 8lbs that I have gained over the course of a year. I've been at it since sept. I am 5'3 138 trying to get to 130. I eat very clean,exercise 5x a week with cardio and weights. The problem is I only eat around 8-900 calories as of the last 2 weeks. I have lost 2lbs dropping my calories that low. I know it's not healthy but I can't seem to lose at 1200 calories or even 1500 the higher I go (which people have told me to do) the less I lose or I just plateau. I'm not hungry and I feel good on the lower calories. I'm just concerned it's not healthy but I can't lose on anything higher. I'm pretty petite frame also. Any advice????