Why isn't my new healthy lifestyle working?
September 15, 2010 6:05 AM Subscribe
For the last month, I have been eating an extremely healthy diet and documenting it rigorously. I have yet to lose so much as a pound according to my scale or an inch according to my tape measure - please help me figure out why not.
I am a woman in my early 30s, 5’3”, 180 lb with all of my excess weight carried in my upper body. I didn’t have a horrible diet before. I ate plenty of fresh food but my portion sizes were out of control. There were definitely not enough vegetables, too many refined starches and sugars and far, far too many biscuits from the biscuit tin at work (damn that thing) along with generally unhealthy stuff like diet coke. I made a decision to change my diet due mainly to the rampant diabetes and heart disease in my family.
I have uploaded a screenshot of a day from my food diary here – it is as scrupulous as it can possibly be. Everything is weighed or measured and for recipes like chicken curry or lentils I make sure to include the value of every ingredient in the calculation. I have cut out all refined starches (I have ½ cup of high-fibre muesli in the morning and 1 cup of a grain like barley, amaranth, or quinoa each day, but no white rice, bread, pasta or potatoes at all) though I am still getting a fair amount of sugar from all the fruit I eat.
The food choices and calorie count in the food diary are representative of about 6 days out of the week. On a Friday night I might have 2-3 pints of Guinness and a meal out, though even at restaurants I avoid rice, bread, and potatoes and try to get something relatively healthy. I usually eat a bit less the next day to make up for the Guinness and the meal out. Oh yeah, I also ride my bike about 25-35 miles a week in total over four or five days, depending on the weather, and I walk about 1.5 miles per day to and from the trains station.
I spent a fair bit of time sorting out all the crap information about food and diet and I’m working really hard to turn my health around. Physically, I feel better than I have in ages, my skin looks better, and the mild IBS I had before is completely gone. But I am exactly the same size and weight. Everything I have read says that 1400 - 1600 calories per day should have me losing weight, albeit slowly, especially considering the exercise I’m getting. But I’m not. At all. So basically my question is if there’s something I’m overlooking completely regarding my diet – and if not, what on earth is going on? Would it be safe to cut another 200-300 calories per day?
I am a woman in my early 30s, 5’3”, 180 lb with all of my excess weight carried in my upper body. I didn’t have a horrible diet before. I ate plenty of fresh food but my portion sizes were out of control. There were definitely not enough vegetables, too many refined starches and sugars and far, far too many biscuits from the biscuit tin at work (damn that thing) along with generally unhealthy stuff like diet coke. I made a decision to change my diet due mainly to the rampant diabetes and heart disease in my family.
I have uploaded a screenshot of a day from my food diary here – it is as scrupulous as it can possibly be. Everything is weighed or measured and for recipes like chicken curry or lentils I make sure to include the value of every ingredient in the calculation. I have cut out all refined starches (I have ½ cup of high-fibre muesli in the morning and 1 cup of a grain like barley, amaranth, or quinoa each day, but no white rice, bread, pasta or potatoes at all) though I am still getting a fair amount of sugar from all the fruit I eat.
The food choices and calorie count in the food diary are representative of about 6 days out of the week. On a Friday night I might have 2-3 pints of Guinness and a meal out, though even at restaurants I avoid rice, bread, and potatoes and try to get something relatively healthy. I usually eat a bit less the next day to make up for the Guinness and the meal out. Oh yeah, I also ride my bike about 25-35 miles a week in total over four or five days, depending on the weather, and I walk about 1.5 miles per day to and from the trains station.
I spent a fair bit of time sorting out all the crap information about food and diet and I’m working really hard to turn my health around. Physically, I feel better than I have in ages, my skin looks better, and the mild IBS I had before is completely gone. But I am exactly the same size and weight. Everything I have read says that 1400 - 1600 calories per day should have me losing weight, albeit slowly, especially considering the exercise I’m getting. But I’m not. At all. So basically my question is if there’s something I’m overlooking completely regarding my diet – and if not, what on earth is going on? Would it be safe to cut another 200-300 calories per day?
The 'healthiness' has nothing to do with it; you can lose weight eating potato chips. Try just: less food. Blunt cartoon: Why am I fat? Really, skip the "sorting out all the crap information about food and diet." Less food = less fat. Only very rarely is that more complicated.
A guess might be that your diet as listed would have you losing a pound a week if you were not hanging on to that pound via the Guinness and occasional restaurant excursions. If you want a beer -- skip the avocado (or whatever).
I lost 40 unfortunate post-baby pounds by just sticking to small quantities of whatever I wanted, which included high-fat stuff, occasional Cheetos and beer. Your menu is wonderfully nutritious, but apparently needs to be skimpier. Sadly!
posted by kmennie at 6:18 AM on September 15, 2010
A guess might be that your diet as listed would have you losing a pound a week if you were not hanging on to that pound via the Guinness and occasional restaurant excursions. If you want a beer -- skip the avocado (or whatever).
I lost 40 unfortunate post-baby pounds by just sticking to small quantities of whatever I wanted, which included high-fat stuff, occasional Cheetos and beer. Your menu is wonderfully nutritious, but apparently needs to be skimpier. Sadly!
posted by kmennie at 6:18 AM on September 15, 2010
Please don't be offended by this, but are you sure you're measuring your portions closely? I found that very difficult especially with things I cooked myself - I started out being really conscientious but later I started "eyeballing" things and the amount I was eating started to climb pretty quickly. Even a few hundred calories here and there added up for me. (For you this might also be the difference between 2 pints of Guinness and only one?)
I'm a similar height to you and found that about 1600 calories a day was about right for weight loss. I wouldn't go down below what you're eating, though more from my personal experience that 1200 calories a day felt like starvation and then I binged to make up for it!
Other than that, another vote for talking to your GP. What you're eating looks healthy to me (though I don't have any nutrition credentials whatsoever!), and it sounds like you're getting plenty of exercise, so maybe there's some other cause.
posted by SymphonyNumberNine at 6:23 AM on September 15, 2010
I'm a similar height to you and found that about 1600 calories a day was about right for weight loss. I wouldn't go down below what you're eating, though more from my personal experience that 1200 calories a day felt like starvation and then I binged to make up for it!
Other than that, another vote for talking to your GP. What you're eating looks healthy to me (though I don't have any nutrition credentials whatsoever!), and it sounds like you're getting plenty of exercise, so maybe there's some other cause.
posted by SymphonyNumberNine at 6:23 AM on September 15, 2010
240 carbs a day is a lot of carbs. You're getting plenty of exercise, but if you want to lose weight you need to trim that down to around 100 (and possibly lower) otherwise your body will never tap into your fat stores for energy. Why would it? You're pouring it in daily.
Other than that you've got great habits - food tracking, exercise, etc.
ObCredentials: I've lost 110 lbs in the past 16 months.
posted by unixrat at 6:24 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
Other than that you've got great habits - food tracking, exercise, etc.
ObCredentials: I've lost 110 lbs in the past 16 months.
posted by unixrat at 6:24 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
You are eating way, way, way too many carbs and not enough protein. I would be aiming for at least one gram of protein per pound bodyweight, 150g at the minimum, and less than 100g of carbst. Do not be afraid of the fat, it will not hurt you.
posted by Anonymous at 6:27 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by Anonymous at 6:27 AM on September 15, 2010
Please do not just start eating less food. In the long run, THIS WILL NOT HELP YOU. Sorry for the caps but it cannot be stressed enough. Do not deprive yourself of calories, you will mess up your metabolism, and potentially make it harder to lose weight.
I strongly agree with unixrat. 240 carbs is a lot of carbs. Add more protein instead, and don't worry too much about fat. Like for breakfast, have eggs more often than fruit and cereal.
Also, exercise.
posted by DeltaForce at 6:31 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
I strongly agree with unixrat. 240 carbs is a lot of carbs. Add more protein instead, and don't worry too much about fat. Like for breakfast, have eggs more often than fruit and cereal.
Also, exercise.
posted by DeltaForce at 6:31 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
Yes cutting out carbs and replacing with more protein will help. Also, if you're serious about weight loss, cut out alcohol entirely for a few months -- you'll be surprised at the effects.
How are you calculating home made chicken curry as having only 8g of fat? That sounds remarkably low. You're not using any oil? Any yoghurt? Any jars of sauce? etc.
posted by modernnomad at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
How are you calculating home made chicken curry as having only 8g of fat? That sounds remarkably low. You're not using any oil? Any yoghurt? Any jars of sauce? etc.
posted by modernnomad at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh and bike riding is great, but weight training will up your metabolism to a much greater extent.
posted by modernnomad at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by modernnomad at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
How long have you been at it, Wroksie? Just as a datapoint: according to this Basal Metabolic Rate calculator your daily caloric intake just covers your BMR, which is the amount of energy that would be required for you to sit and stare at a wall all day.
Nthing the 'too many carbs' sentiment: Less crispbread, more eggs, nuts and fruit!
Also, forget how much you weigh. If you're exercising that much and start getting enough protein you'll be replacing fat with (heavier) muscle anyway. Pay attention to how you look and feel. Pitch the scale!
posted by JohnFredra at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010
Nthing the 'too many carbs' sentiment: Less crispbread, more eggs, nuts and fruit!
Also, forget how much you weigh. If you're exercising that much and start getting enough protein you'll be replacing fat with (heavier) muscle anyway. Pay attention to how you look and feel. Pitch the scale!
posted by JohnFredra at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010
I'm not sure what I'm missing, but it looks like your carbs+fat+protein totals should add up to 1657 calories.
In any case, your diet is roughly composed of 24% fat, 58% carbs, and 18% protein. Lots of people would have trouble losing fat on a diet this carb-heavy. It doesn't matter that much that you're eating whole grains. If this isn't working for you, I'd recommend changing it up.
You don't say whether you're a vegetarian, but I'd recommend making a protein source the center of every meal -- chicken, fish, pork, eggs, beef, etc. Minimize the carbs and avoid them as much as possible in the latter part of the day when you're less physically active. A whey protein supplement could be helpful. Protein is much more difficult for your body to turn into bodyfat than the other macronutrients.
posted by JohnMarston at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
In any case, your diet is roughly composed of 24% fat, 58% carbs, and 18% protein. Lots of people would have trouble losing fat on a diet this carb-heavy. It doesn't matter that much that you're eating whole grains. If this isn't working for you, I'd recommend changing it up.
You don't say whether you're a vegetarian, but I'd recommend making a protein source the center of every meal -- chicken, fish, pork, eggs, beef, etc. Minimize the carbs and avoid them as much as possible in the latter part of the day when you're less physically active. A whey protein supplement could be helpful. Protein is much more difficult for your body to turn into bodyfat than the other macronutrients.
posted by JohnMarston at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
This seems like an excellent diet and you should be losing weight given your present weight and exercise level. I would see a doc to rule out endocrine causes etc.
I did notice that the carbs in that cereal were on the high side, but I am not so sure your overall carbs are out of wack. Low carb diets work but so do lots of others.
posted by caddis at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010
I did notice that the carbs in that cereal were on the high side, but I am not so sure your overall carbs are out of wack. Low carb diets work but so do lots of others.
posted by caddis at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010
If you're exercising that much and start getting enough protein you'll be replacing fat with (heavier) muscle anyway
This is said a lot, but don't fool yourself -- this is very unlikely to happen from regular biking and walking.
posted by JohnMarston at 6:41 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is said a lot, but don't fool yourself -- this is very unlikely to happen from regular biking and walking.
posted by JohnMarston at 6:41 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Check out the book Rethinking Thin by Gina Kolata regarding the most recent research regarding weight loss. Your body's set point may be saying "I want her at 180 lbs, and I'm gonna keep her there".
My counsel is focus on your exercise. Strong is the new skinny. Get strong, move a lot daily under your own power, and your body will reflect that lifestyle. Get out of your chair, get rid of the car, and buy a bike, take up salsa dancing, do ANYTHING to not be sedentary. Because being sedentary is what makes us soft, weak, and (sooner than necessary) dead.
As far as exercise goes, I'm a big fan of kettlebells (DVD & Book compliment each other superbly) as they are compact and can give you an amazing cardio as well as strength workout at the same time. Stay away from the machines, work out by moving heavy stuff through space using your own body strength.
Whatever your genetic predisposition to body-type, keep eating well and get strong, and then you will have a well-fed, strong expression of your genetic predisposition.
POWER TO YOU!
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:43 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]
My counsel is focus on your exercise. Strong is the new skinny. Get strong, move a lot daily under your own power, and your body will reflect that lifestyle. Get out of your chair, get rid of the car, and buy a bike, take up salsa dancing, do ANYTHING to not be sedentary. Because being sedentary is what makes us soft, weak, and (sooner than necessary) dead.
As far as exercise goes, I'm a big fan of kettlebells (DVD & Book compliment each other superbly) as they are compact and can give you an amazing cardio as well as strength workout at the same time. Stay away from the machines, work out by moving heavy stuff through space using your own body strength.
Whatever your genetic predisposition to body-type, keep eating well and get strong, and then you will have a well-fed, strong expression of your genetic predisposition.
POWER TO YOU!
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:43 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]
My 0.02:
Do not drink alcohol, specially Guiness.
3 pints is 3*170= 510 calories of pure carbs.
Also, resturant food is very, very deceitful. Why don't you try having a nice meal at home and go out for a coffe or tea cup? Even on your cheat days, eat at home and count calories. Cheat days aren't an excuse to throw an ancient Roman party!
----------------------------------------
Otherwise, 1500 cals per day is perfect, and if you complement with exercise then awesome.
Aim for a 1000 cal deficit every day, balance your calories (fat, protein and carbs, in adecuate proportions) and never go below 1200 cals per day.
Good luck!
posted by Tarumba at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2010
Do not drink alcohol, specially Guiness.
3 pints is 3*170= 510 calories of pure carbs.
Also, resturant food is very, very deceitful. Why don't you try having a nice meal at home and go out for a coffe or tea cup? Even on your cheat days, eat at home and count calories. Cheat days aren't an excuse to throw an ancient Roman party!
----------------------------------------
Otherwise, 1500 cals per day is perfect, and if you complement with exercise then awesome.
Aim for a 1000 cal deficit every day, balance your calories (fat, protein and carbs, in adecuate proportions) and never go below 1200 cals per day.
Good luck!
posted by Tarumba at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2010
Response by poster: modernnomad - Re. 8 grams of fat in chicken curry – I use four tablespoons of oil to sautee the onion and spices and I stir in ½ cup of yogurt at the end, but the recipe makes about 8 servings to stock the freezer so the fat goes a long way. Other than that it’s just skinless chicken breast, garlic, ginger, herbs, spices, and vegetables. So, yes, the count is right. Not avoiding fat (I always use full-fat yogurt and I eat an avocado every day) but I’ve never made my homemade curries with tons of oil, it makes me feel a bit sick if there’s an oil slick on top.
posted by Wroksie at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by Wroksie at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2010
>> This is said a lot, but don't fool yourself -- this is very unlikely to happen from regular biking and walking.
Happened for me. YMMV.
posted by JohnFredra at 6:51 AM on September 15, 2010
Happened for me. YMMV.
posted by JohnFredra at 6:51 AM on September 15, 2010
This is tough - it looks like you're doing a really good job, and kudos for weighing things and keeping track of your intake. You're doing a great job and it sounds like your body is responding positively since you feel better. I can't find a specific issue in your post, but I'll share the things that made it tough for me to drop below 180 lbs and maybe they'll help you figure it out.
I would allow myself a cheat day (Friday or Saturday), but it would turn into a free-for-all. I allowed myself any amount of beer, wings, and pizza for my sacrifice. This meant I was more than doubling my calorie intake that day, which effectively eliminated 3 or 4 days of calorie deficits for the week. I ate so much on those cheat days that it was like dieting 2 days per week instead of 6 days per week. It doesn't sound like this is your problem, but it took me several months to realize that I was going way overboard on my cheat days.
Moreover, I would make too many exceptions for 'special events,' which came to mean any time I was eating with other people. I would frequently go out with friends twice a week, and both of those because cheat meals with alcohol included. I eventually realized that I was undercutting myself with the frequency of these meals and got creative - just eating half, and finally managing my alcohol intake to 2 beers instead of 4-5. Again, I don't get the sense that you're doing this, but it was a blind spot for me.
posted by Tehhund at 6:55 AM on September 15, 2010
I would allow myself a cheat day (Friday or Saturday), but it would turn into a free-for-all. I allowed myself any amount of beer, wings, and pizza for my sacrifice. This meant I was more than doubling my calorie intake that day, which effectively eliminated 3 or 4 days of calorie deficits for the week. I ate so much on those cheat days that it was like dieting 2 days per week instead of 6 days per week. It doesn't sound like this is your problem, but it took me several months to realize that I was going way overboard on my cheat days.
Moreover, I would make too many exceptions for 'special events,' which came to mean any time I was eating with other people. I would frequently go out with friends twice a week, and both of those because cheat meals with alcohol included. I eventually realized that I was undercutting myself with the frequency of these meals and got creative - just eating half, and finally managing my alcohol intake to 2 beers instead of 4-5. Again, I don't get the sense that you're doing this, but it was a blind spot for me.
posted by Tehhund at 6:55 AM on September 15, 2010
Also, I recomend
CalorieCount
They do all this tracking for you, and give you loads of statistics and recommendations. You 'll see charts, percentages, comparisons and a million ways of getting useful info out of your data, only by entering what and how much you ate, as well as how much you exercised.
Good luck! If you decide to register, I'm Tarumba there, too.
posted by Tarumba at 6:56 AM on September 15, 2010
CalorieCount
They do all this tracking for you, and give you loads of statistics and recommendations. You 'll see charts, percentages, comparisons and a million ways of getting useful info out of your data, only by entering what and how much you ate, as well as how much you exercised.
Good luck! If you decide to register, I'm Tarumba there, too.
posted by Tarumba at 6:56 AM on September 15, 2010
I agree with the carbs being too high, and the other consideration that may or may not be of issue is how intense the exercise is. A leisurely stroll for a mile or so a day isn't going to do it. Same with the bike rides. Pretty close to 'hauling ass' in terms of rate. Also, exercise needs to be in excess of 20 minutes in order for it to be effective for weight loss. Aim for 40 minutes to an hour.
Skipping the Guiness altogether would not be a bad idea. If not cutting it out completely, limit yourself to 1 pint.
Good luck!
posted by bolognius maximus at 7:01 AM on September 15, 2010
Skipping the Guiness altogether would not be a bad idea. If not cutting it out completely, limit yourself to 1 pint.
Good luck!
posted by bolognius maximus at 7:01 AM on September 15, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks for all the input so far. When I was younger (and, incidentally, only about 10 pounds overweight) I tried super-low-carb diets and I felt terrible. I might change my breakfast or replace some of my daily fruit with nuts but I don’t want to go low-carb crazy. Also, I realise that my relatively small amount of biking and walking doesn’t count as real exercise, but it does definitely bump me up from the ‘sedentary’ category up to the ‘lightly active’ category on those height/weight/calorie weight loss calculator doohickies.
And thanks for all the affirmations that my weight isn’t the most important thing. I’m aware of that, but for me part of being healthy is not having 50 pounds of extra fat on my upper abdomen and chest. That’s like a diabetes and heart attack party waiting to happen. I’m not trying to get skinny, though, and I am happy with how much more energy I have since I’ve changed my diet. I am definitely going to ask my GP about the hormone stuff if I’m still stuck in another month. Weight training is something I’ve been thinking about, as well.
Also, can I say, eating lots of fibre is the best thing ever. EVER.
posted by Wroksie at 7:02 AM on September 15, 2010
And thanks for all the affirmations that my weight isn’t the most important thing. I’m aware of that, but for me part of being healthy is not having 50 pounds of extra fat on my upper abdomen and chest. That’s like a diabetes and heart attack party waiting to happen. I’m not trying to get skinny, though, and I am happy with how much more energy I have since I’ve changed my diet. I am definitely going to ask my GP about the hormone stuff if I’m still stuck in another month. Weight training is something I’ve been thinking about, as well.
Also, can I say, eating lots of fibre is the best thing ever. EVER.
posted by Wroksie at 7:02 AM on September 15, 2010
I'm not carb-phobic, but that jumped out to me as a lot of carbs. I'd replace some of the fruits with veggies, consider cutting out the mueseli as well (lot of sugar, not enough fiber to make up for it, you could use that 193 calories on something else). Are you drinking enough water, taking a multivitamin?
I think the going out is putting you over - you have to account for those calories just as closely as during the week. You can easily blow a couple thousand calories just on a few Guinness and a restaurant meal.
posted by mrs. taters at 7:08 AM on September 15, 2010
I think the going out is putting you over - you have to account for those calories just as closely as during the week. You can easily blow a couple thousand calories just on a few Guinness and a restaurant meal.
posted by mrs. taters at 7:08 AM on September 15, 2010
Are you drinking plenty of water? Hydration is so important to keeping our bodies functioning happily.
Can you weave an extra mile of walking into your walk home from the train? Do you walk at a good clip? The leanest I've ever been was when I was walking a (fast!) three miles a day to and from work.
posted by messica at 7:08 AM on September 15, 2010
Can you weave an extra mile of walking into your walk home from the train? Do you walk at a good clip? The leanest I've ever been was when I was walking a (fast!) three miles a day to and from work.
posted by messica at 7:08 AM on September 15, 2010
If diabetes runs in your family, then you may be insulin resistant. In which case, a low carb diet may work better for you.
But it's definitely worth seeing a doctor to rule out thyroid issues too.
posted by kjs4 at 7:10 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
But it's definitely worth seeing a doctor to rule out thyroid issues too.
posted by kjs4 at 7:10 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
Nthing the carbs. You're having more carbs in your muesli than I eat in 3 entire days. But I wouldn't cut out the fruit, just the grains. (Human beings aren't really meant to eat grass.)
Also, get your thryoid checked. And are you doing any weight training? If you build some muscle, you'll burn more calories no matter what you're doing.
posted by MexicanYenta at 7:11 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also, get your thryoid checked. And are you doing any weight training? If you build some muscle, you'll burn more calories no matter what you're doing.
posted by MexicanYenta at 7:11 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
I tried super-low-carb diets and I felt terrible
You don't necessarily have to be extreme about it. Wikipedia says: "The American Academy of Family Physicians defines low-carbohydrate diets as:
Low-carbohydrate diets restrict carbohydrate intake by reducing the consumption of carbohydrates to 20 to 60 g per day (typically less than 20 percent of the daily caloric intake). " You're getting 240g a day, which is around 60% of your intake. There's a vast gulf between your current diet and a low-carb diet.
And your biking and walking certainly count as "real exercise," it's just not the kind of exercise that's likely to pack muscle on you.
posted by JohnMarston at 7:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
You don't necessarily have to be extreme about it. Wikipedia says: "The American Academy of Family Physicians defines low-carbohydrate diets as:
Low-carbohydrate diets restrict carbohydrate intake by reducing the consumption of carbohydrates to 20 to 60 g per day (typically less than 20 percent of the daily caloric intake). " You're getting 240g a day, which is around 60% of your intake. There's a vast gulf between your current diet and a low-carb diet.
And your biking and walking certainly count as "real exercise," it's just not the kind of exercise that's likely to pack muscle on you.
posted by JohnMarston at 7:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: For most people, going below 1500 kcal is not sustainable, and sustainability is what you're looking for when you want to keep the weight off for good.
A month may seem like forever but it's really not long enough to make any definite conclusions. It is possible that you are replacing fat with muscle in places you are not currently measuring. You could also be retaining water where you are shedding lard. If your dietary changes have been rapid, your metabolism might act a little strange at first. Do see a GP for blood work, though. It's always smart to rule out any medical conditions that may affect weight loss.
The best advice I can give you is to concentrate on habit changes and forget about pounds, inches and calories for now. Eating lots of vegetables, normalizing portion sizes, eating enough before dinner time, listening to your body's hunger signals, being physically active, giving yourself permission to eat enough and enjoying treats and high-calorie foods in moderation are all things you have to learn eventually. For sustainable weight loss, these things are much more important (and considerably less sexy) than tinkering with macronutrient ratios.
posted by Orchestra at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
A month may seem like forever but it's really not long enough to make any definite conclusions. It is possible that you are replacing fat with muscle in places you are not currently measuring. You could also be retaining water where you are shedding lard. If your dietary changes have been rapid, your metabolism might act a little strange at first. Do see a GP for blood work, though. It's always smart to rule out any medical conditions that may affect weight loss.
The best advice I can give you is to concentrate on habit changes and forget about pounds, inches and calories for now. Eating lots of vegetables, normalizing portion sizes, eating enough before dinner time, listening to your body's hunger signals, being physically active, giving yourself permission to eat enough and enjoying treats and high-calorie foods in moderation are all things you have to learn eventually. For sustainable weight loss, these things are much more important (and considerably less sexy) than tinkering with macronutrient ratios.
posted by Orchestra at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
Berries, banana, kiwi, and figs in a single day is a lot of sugar. Maybe sub in almonds or some other protein for one or two of them? You might change one thing (reduce fruit, cut stop eating out or don't go nuts when you eat out, sub in glass of wine for guinness, start weight training) and see if that helps, then if not, do another.
posted by *s at 7:27 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by *s at 7:27 AM on September 15, 2010
I'm usually not anti-carb[1], but I think yours may be just a little high, as others have said. The mayo clinic says get 45 to 65 percent of your daily calories from carbohydrates." Going by their numbers for a ~1500 calorie diet that would be 169 to 244 grams. Right now you're at 240 and that's not counting the Guinness.
Some people says alcohol has all sorts of negative effects on dieting. I've never done much looking into it, but a quick google turned up this page. I know nothing about the author or his credentials, but at least he cites sources, which automatically makes it better than 90% of fitness articles on the web.
[1]I don't think I could survive a low carb diet. I've been losing weight despite having about 60% of my calories come from carbs. My nutrient intake is inline with the mayo clinic's guide: 45-65%carbs, 10-35% protein, 20-35% fat. IANANutritionist; YMMV
posted by chndrcks at 7:54 AM on September 15, 2010
Some people says alcohol has all sorts of negative effects on dieting. I've never done much looking into it, but a quick google turned up this page. I know nothing about the author or his credentials, but at least he cites sources, which automatically makes it better than 90% of fitness articles on the web.
[1]I don't think I could survive a low carb diet. I've been losing weight despite having about 60% of my calories come from carbs. My nutrient intake is inline with the mayo clinic's guide: 45-65%carbs, 10-35% protein, 20-35% fat. IANANutritionist; YMMV
posted by chndrcks at 7:54 AM on September 15, 2010
I have dropped 15 pounds so far this summer and am planning on dropping more - and the only way I've managed this is with Weight Watchers. I didn't join them or anything - I just figured out their point system and started using it relentlessly, and I have pretty steadily lost a little over a pound a week. Basically, it's a really low fat, low calorie diet and honestly this is the only thing that has worked for me. By low fat, I mean, forget the curries. No more oil. No more butter. No more pasta, no more bread, no more nuts. No more of any of that stuff. It's counterintuitive because you will keep thinking, oooh, but this is not healthy, etc. and frankly, it probably isn't but still, it works. I say, the hell with super healthy for right now: I can be healthy when I'm at my target weight. So it's low fat cream cheese and olive oil spray and frozen veggie burgers and lots of fruit and - this was key - light beer. No more Guinness. It works. I'm 5'10" and now down to 182; I plan on getting myself down to 155 before I stop and I'm currently at 25 points a day, which is essentially 1300 calories.
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
The best advice I can give you is to concentrate on habit changes and forget about pounds, inches and calories for now. Eating lots of vegetables, normalizing portion sizes, eating enough before dinner time, listening to your body's hunger signals, being physically active, giving yourself permission to eat enough and enjoying treats and high-calorie foods in moderation are all things you have to learn eventually. For sustainable weight loss, these things are much more important (and considerably less sexy) than tinkering with macronutrient ratios.
I don't wanna nag, but if you've highlighted this as the best answer, it's not really solving anything. It's just confirmation bias - someone telling you what you want to hear.
You want to lose weight, but you're not losing weight with your current regime. You need to problem solve.
There are many, many ways to go low-carb. Ultra-low carb (<2>
250 is very, very high. Your weight loss will be very slow at this level.
posted by unixrat at 8:00 AM on September 15, 2010
I don't wanna nag, but if you've highlighted this as the best answer, it's not really solving anything. It's just confirmation bias - someone telling you what you want to hear.
You want to lose weight, but you're not losing weight with your current regime. You need to problem solve.
There are many, many ways to go low-carb. Ultra-low carb (<2>
250 is very, very high. Your weight loss will be very slow at this level.
posted by unixrat at 8:00 AM on September 15, 2010
Just reiterating what others have said; you are getting too many of your calories from carbs and sugar and not enough protein. Cut out the muesli, double your helping of greek protein in the morning; replace your fruit snacks w/veggies, small salads or almonds; and try to add more lean protein for lunch. You can always take fiber supplements or add flax seed to your yogurt if that's a concern. This is not a low-carb diet, this is just *lower* carb that what you current have. (I've lost 20lbs by lowering carbs and upping protein, but not going into crazy, no-carb land.)
If you're a woman, another issue is to look into birth control. Hormones will affect water weight; once I went off the pill I lost 5lbs without changing my eating habits, and now that I'm over that plateau, I'm back on track to my goal.
posted by lychee at 8:00 AM on September 15, 2010
If you're a woman, another issue is to look into birth control. Hormones will affect water weight; once I went off the pill I lost 5lbs without changing my eating habits, and now that I'm over that plateau, I'm back on track to my goal.
posted by lychee at 8:00 AM on September 15, 2010
For most people, going below 1500 kcal is not sustainable, and sustainability is what you're looking for when you want to keep the weight off for good.
That's a ridiculous statement on the face of it. If you're going on a diet to lost weight, you will need to eat less calories than usual. To say that sustainability is what you're looking for to keep the weight off is completely wrong. After all, if your goal is losing weight, when you attain your target weight, WHY THE HECK would you want to sustain the same diet? You went on the diet to LOSE WEIGHT, now that's done, and you go to a normal diet.
There is absolutely no diet anywhere that will both have you lose weight and can be sustained after you reach your target so that you don't lose or gain weight. Those goals are completely contradictory.
posted by splice at 8:01 AM on September 15, 2010
That's a ridiculous statement on the face of it. If you're going on a diet to lost weight, you will need to eat less calories than usual. To say that sustainability is what you're looking for to keep the weight off is completely wrong. After all, if your goal is losing weight, when you attain your target weight, WHY THE HECK would you want to sustain the same diet? You went on the diet to LOSE WEIGHT, now that's done, and you go to a normal diet.
There is absolutely no diet anywhere that will both have you lose weight and can be sustained after you reach your target so that you don't lose or gain weight. Those goals are completely contradictory.
posted by splice at 8:01 AM on September 15, 2010
Ugh, metafilter ate my brackets.
< 20 carbs doesn't work for many people - it didn't work for me. I've adjusted upwards towards 60 and have been very happy with it.
posted by unixrat at 8:01 AM on September 15, 2010
< 20 carbs doesn't work for many people - it didn't work for me. I've adjusted upwards towards 60 and have been very happy with it.
posted by unixrat at 8:01 AM on September 15, 2010
In my recent experience, it takes a while for things to get going. My personal habit is to weigh myself every day and record the results. The number is all over the place, day-to-day, but eventually a trend line begins to emerge. That can take a while. I probably didn't notice any improvement in the first month but, inevitably, the numbers started going down.
Follow some of the advice above and don't be in too much of a hurry.
posted by klanawa at 8:02 AM on September 15, 2010
Follow some of the advice above and don't be in too much of a hurry.
posted by klanawa at 8:02 AM on September 15, 2010
These diet discussions always boil down to the calories in/out people vs. carb counters.
I think that this is a clear case where counting calories is not working.
posted by unixrat at 8:07 AM on September 15, 2010
I think that this is a clear case where counting calories is not working.
posted by unixrat at 8:07 AM on September 15, 2010
Response by poster: Unixrat - I marked it as best because I thought this bit, especially, made sense:
A month may seem like forever but it's really not long enough to make any definite conclusions. It is possible that you are replacing fat with muscle in places you are not currently measuring. You could also be retaining water where you are shedding lard. If your dietary changes have been rapid, your metabolism might act a little strange at first. Do see a GP for blood work, though. It's always smart to rule out any medical conditions that may affect weight loss.
Whether I am eating potato chips or protein shakes, common sense says that SOMETHING should be happening with my body at 1600 kcal/day and maybe this is it?
I am definitely considering the lower-carb advice (see my reply above about changing my breakfast and cutting out some fruit) and will probably mark some of those responses after I sort through them. I just really liked the way Orchestra worded what he had to say and it made sense to me. I appreciate all the advice though.
posted by Wroksie at 8:13 AM on September 15, 2010
A month may seem like forever but it's really not long enough to make any definite conclusions. It is possible that you are replacing fat with muscle in places you are not currently measuring. You could also be retaining water where you are shedding lard. If your dietary changes have been rapid, your metabolism might act a little strange at first. Do see a GP for blood work, though. It's always smart to rule out any medical conditions that may affect weight loss.
Whether I am eating potato chips or protein shakes, common sense says that SOMETHING should be happening with my body at 1600 kcal/day and maybe this is it?
I am definitely considering the lower-carb advice (see my reply above about changing my breakfast and cutting out some fruit) and will probably mark some of those responses after I sort through them. I just really liked the way Orchestra worded what he had to say and it made sense to me. I appreciate all the advice though.
posted by Wroksie at 8:13 AM on September 15, 2010
I've tried all sorts of things and the only thing my body responds to is reduced carbs. I know that's totally not true for everyone, but it definitely is for me. (And yeah, if I drop too low too fast I turn into a raging beast for the first two weeks.)
posted by restless_nomad at 8:18 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by restless_nomad at 8:18 AM on September 15, 2010
Right, sorry, I didn't want to nag. I just worried that you had chosen the 'keep doing what you're doing' feel-good fuzzy answer and had shut out other answers possibly outside a comfort zone.
(Obviously I don't know you, I was just guessing.)
I eat about 250 grams of various temperate climate berries a day - strawberries, blueberries, and occasionally blackberries, topped with a dusting of fake sugar (pick your favorite). It helps that they're in somewhat in season. Tropical, sugary fruits are right out.
Bump up your protein as it's the building blocks of your muscle. All that exercise will go right out the window if your muscles don't have what they need to grow. More muscle = higher basal rate of calories during the day = increased weight loss, as every little bit helps.
Replace your pasta/breads with green veggies and voila, I bet you're well under 100 a day.
Except for brussel sprouts, screw those things.
posted by unixrat at 8:47 AM on September 15, 2010
(Obviously I don't know you, I was just guessing.)
I eat about 250 grams of various temperate climate berries a day - strawberries, blueberries, and occasionally blackberries, topped with a dusting of fake sugar (pick your favorite). It helps that they're in somewhat in season. Tropical, sugary fruits are right out.
Bump up your protein as it's the building blocks of your muscle. All that exercise will go right out the window if your muscles don't have what they need to grow. More muscle = higher basal rate of calories during the day = increased weight loss, as every little bit helps.
Replace your pasta/breads with green veggies and voila, I bet you're well under 100 a day.
Except for brussel sprouts, screw those things.
posted by unixrat at 8:47 AM on September 15, 2010
After all, if your goal is losing weight, when you attain your target weight, WHY THE HECK would you want to sustain the same diet? You went on the diet to LOSE WEIGHT, now that's done, and you go to a normal diet.
There is absolutely no diet anywhere that will both have you lose weight and can be sustained after you reach your target so that you don't lose or gain weight. Those goals are completely contradictory.
This kind of thinking is why people say diets don't work. The fact is diets do work if you stick to them, but not if you think like this. You can't do a "weight loss diet" and then go back to a "regular diet," where regular means the way you ate before you lost weight, and expect to not gain the weight back.
To put things very simply, a given body mass and activity level requires a certain amount of energy to maintain -- i.e., your total daily energy expenditure. If you're taking in less energy than you expend, you will lose mass. When you lose mass, your daily expenditure goes down, because less mass takes less energy to maintain and less energy to move. You'll stop losing mass when your expenditure falls enough to match your intake again, at which point the diet which was causing you to lose will now cause maintenance.
So any given intake + activity level will support a certain bodyweight. For example, a person at 300 lb. requires more energy to maintain their weight than they would at 200 lbs. If the 300 lb. person eats an amount that would only sustain 200 lbs., they will lose weight until they reach 200 lbs. and then they'll maintain that weight. There is no diet that will cause indefinite weight loss, aside from starvation.
This is all ignoring body composition and macronutrient makeup, both of which are important factors, but that's very basically how it works.
posted by JohnMarston at 8:50 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
There is absolutely no diet anywhere that will both have you lose weight and can be sustained after you reach your target so that you don't lose or gain weight. Those goals are completely contradictory.
This kind of thinking is why people say diets don't work. The fact is diets do work if you stick to them, but not if you think like this. You can't do a "weight loss diet" and then go back to a "regular diet," where regular means the way you ate before you lost weight, and expect to not gain the weight back.
To put things very simply, a given body mass and activity level requires a certain amount of energy to maintain -- i.e., your total daily energy expenditure. If you're taking in less energy than you expend, you will lose mass. When you lose mass, your daily expenditure goes down, because less mass takes less energy to maintain and less energy to move. You'll stop losing mass when your expenditure falls enough to match your intake again, at which point the diet which was causing you to lose will now cause maintenance.
So any given intake + activity level will support a certain bodyweight. For example, a person at 300 lb. requires more energy to maintain their weight than they would at 200 lbs. If the 300 lb. person eats an amount that would only sustain 200 lbs., they will lose weight until they reach 200 lbs. and then they'll maintain that weight. There is no diet that will cause indefinite weight loss, aside from starvation.
This is all ignoring body composition and macronutrient makeup, both of which are important factors, but that's very basically how it works.
posted by JohnMarston at 8:50 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
I lost about 20 lb. on around 1600 calories a day, but the scale wouldn't budge for around 3 weeks and then suddenly it would be a couple of pounds down. It may be like that for you. The good news was that by the time I was done (nearly a year) I was pretty much maintaining without effort. Maintaining can be harder than dieting and it will be super hard if your diet was extreme.
I will say that I tried with and without alcohol (nights out like you describe). I stopped the alcohol and a few pounds came off just like that. Alcohol seems to make it harder for me to burn calories and I feel a lot hungrier the day after drinking.
posted by BibiRose at 8:52 AM on September 15, 2010
I will say that I tried with and without alcohol (nights out like you describe). I stopped the alcohol and a few pounds came off just like that. Alcohol seems to make it harder for me to burn calories and I feel a lot hungrier the day after drinking.
posted by BibiRose at 8:52 AM on September 15, 2010
If you drink caffeine, fake sugar/sweeteners in one form or another (Splenda or whatever), or alcohol routinely cut those out for a week and see if it you feel different. I was very much like you, and incredibly pissed and frustrated (and YES, I was measuring super carefully and all that, etc.) and about to call the doctor to see if there wasn't something seriously wrong with me when as a last resort I completely cut out those 3 things for a couple weeks and lo, the tape measure began cinching in. Nutrition is bizarre and we still don't know enough about it--experiment gently with yourself, things that shouldn't make a difference might.
I've also (and this might sound quackish too) noticed there seems to be a relation between how fast I eat or how spaced out my meals are and my general health and ability to lose weight easily. If I eat slowly, savoring and chewing and taking the time to taste everything, and make sure I don't eat any one meal where a macronutrient is entirely by itself (no sugar-bomb snack nor just a piece of meat on a plate), aaand eat small meals in regular intervals throughout the day, it seems to smooth out my insulin response and aid my digestion. As a bonus, I feel much much better when I do this, and it makes eating less overall no problem because you always feel sated and satisfied. It's worth the extra time devoted to meals that it involves.
And as mentioned, yes, eat way fewer carbs and more protein, and don't be absolutely terrified of fat. Once I adjusted things on my meal plan back when I was tracking food super carefully like you so I was getting a maximum serving of protein 3x a day, eating 2 servings of fresh produce for lunch and for dinner, and making sure ALL carbs for the day including ones in produce, etc. totaled under 100g, I was going places. This will help keep you from losing all your muscle relative to a reduce calorie but unlimited carb ratio approach, and you won't be as hungry or have up and down cravings either. And it'll make working out if you choose to do so much less taxing.
posted by ifjuly at 8:57 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
I've also (and this might sound quackish too) noticed there seems to be a relation between how fast I eat or how spaced out my meals are and my general health and ability to lose weight easily. If I eat slowly, savoring and chewing and taking the time to taste everything, and make sure I don't eat any one meal where a macronutrient is entirely by itself (no sugar-bomb snack nor just a piece of meat on a plate), aaand eat small meals in regular intervals throughout the day, it seems to smooth out my insulin response and aid my digestion. As a bonus, I feel much much better when I do this, and it makes eating less overall no problem because you always feel sated and satisfied. It's worth the extra time devoted to meals that it involves.
And as mentioned, yes, eat way fewer carbs and more protein, and don't be absolutely terrified of fat. Once I adjusted things on my meal plan back when I was tracking food super carefully like you so I was getting a maximum serving of protein 3x a day, eating 2 servings of fresh produce for lunch and for dinner, and making sure ALL carbs for the day including ones in produce, etc. totaled under 100g, I was going places. This will help keep you from losing all your muscle relative to a reduce calorie but unlimited carb ratio approach, and you won't be as hungry or have up and down cravings either. And it'll make working out if you choose to do so much less taxing.
posted by ifjuly at 8:57 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
You're eating way too much food if you actually plan on losing weight.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:06 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:06 AM on September 15, 2010
Using this, and assuming a sedentary lifestyle, I have you burning about 1800 calories a day (here). If you're eating 1550/day, that's a deficit of 250 calories/day, 1750 a week, or 7000 a month. Generally speaking, you need to have a 3500 calorie deficit for each lb you want to lose. 7000 is only 2 lbs in a month. Now, it doesn't work that way entirely, buts it a general guideline. The body fluctuates, and 2 lbs is easily made up if you're retaining any sort of water, it's that time of the month, weighing yourself in the evening vs the morning, or heck, if you just need to take a dump. (I've been obsessed with my weight the last 9 months, losing 55 lbs via Weight Watchers, and yes, I've weighed myself before and after.) In general, 2 pounds can easily go unnoticed.
I don't work for them or anything, but I've had so much success with the online version of Weight Watchers that I will recommend them to anyone who will listen. You're already documenting the heck out of everything; the work needed to do it the WW way will seem like a vacation!
posted by cgg at 9:21 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
I don't work for them or anything, but I've had so much success with the online version of Weight Watchers that I will recommend them to anyone who will listen. You're already documenting the heck out of everything; the work needed to do it the WW way will seem like a vacation!
posted by cgg at 9:21 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
After all, if your goal is losing weight, when you attain your target weight, WHY THE HECK would you want to sustain the same diet? You went on the diet to LOSE WEIGHT, now that's done, and you go to a normal diet.
Even if you subscribe to the idea of separate phases and diets for loss and and management you will still need to sustain the deficit until you are at your goal weight. If you have a lot to lose, this will take a long time regardless and going under a level you are comfortable with will make it harder than it has to be. Keeping the deficit reasonable and learning sensible eating habits straight away will make future weight management much easier.
In any area of behavior, successful changes are often gradual and feel relatively easy to maintain for extended periods of time. If you get the fundamentals of healthy, relaxed eating right, dieting in the traditional sense isn't really necessary. Sure, to lose weight you need to consume less energy than you burn off, but learning to eat and exercise properly can't be ignored. When you only want to lose the weight once, the learning time invested will be well worth it even if that means the whole process will take a little longer.
Harvard Medical School has published some nice, science-backed stuff about losing weight this way, including some books and a nifty food pyramid. Their approach is by far the most sensible I have encountered. They, too, recommend cutting carbs.
posted by Orchestra at 9:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Even if you subscribe to the idea of separate phases and diets for loss and and management you will still need to sustain the deficit until you are at your goal weight. If you have a lot to lose, this will take a long time regardless and going under a level you are comfortable with will make it harder than it has to be. Keeping the deficit reasonable and learning sensible eating habits straight away will make future weight management much easier.
In any area of behavior, successful changes are often gradual and feel relatively easy to maintain for extended periods of time. If you get the fundamentals of healthy, relaxed eating right, dieting in the traditional sense isn't really necessary. Sure, to lose weight you need to consume less energy than you burn off, but learning to eat and exercise properly can't be ignored. When you only want to lose the weight once, the learning time invested will be well worth it even if that means the whole process will take a little longer.
Harvard Medical School has published some nice, science-backed stuff about losing weight this way, including some books and a nifty food pyramid. Their approach is by far the most sensible I have encountered. They, too, recommend cutting carbs.
posted by Orchestra at 9:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nthing weight training, if only to shake your body up and maybe jump-start some weight loss.
May I suggest that for your cheat day, if you do go out to a restaurant that you look up that restaurant's nutrient information beforehand? It is ridiculous how many calories get packed into an entree, even one marketed as 'healthy' - this way you can decide if that meal's really worth this many calories, sodium and trans fats in your system. I'd also switch to 1 pint of Guinness or something a little lighter, but YMMV. This way you can choose something you like and enjoy your cheat day without it completely torpedoing your hard work early on in the week.
And I like this as a good reminder: eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (And in your case it's probably worth adding: wee bit more protein.)
posted by zennish at 9:48 AM on September 15, 2010
May I suggest that for your cheat day, if you do go out to a restaurant that you look up that restaurant's nutrient information beforehand? It is ridiculous how many calories get packed into an entree, even one marketed as 'healthy' - this way you can decide if that meal's really worth this many calories, sodium and trans fats in your system. I'd also switch to 1 pint of Guinness or something a little lighter, but YMMV. This way you can choose something you like and enjoy your cheat day without it completely torpedoing your hard work early on in the week.
And I like this as a good reminder: eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (And in your case it's probably worth adding: wee bit more protein.)
posted by zennish at 9:48 AM on September 15, 2010
Response by poster: Civil_disobedient- while there are tons of disagreements about the important of macronutrient balance, pretty much every single reasonable source I've looked at that mentions calories says that something around 1600 calories per day is right for someone of my size and activity level for slow, sustainable weight loss. I'd be interested to know your reason for stating that it's 'way too much food' to lose weight.
posted by Wroksie at 10:06 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by Wroksie at 10:06 AM on September 15, 2010
My doctor told me to try to eat more vegetables than fruits, make sure I was getting enough protein, and lower my carbs to about 180g/day. 180g was too difficult for me, so I went with about 200g. Some days less, some days a little more. I was disappointed to find out that whole grains were still really high carb, but as I also can't handle a truly low carb diet, I haven't gone that way. My main thing was gradually switching my plates to be filled with tasty vegetables and healthy protein, rather than being half rice or pasta or grains (even brown rice/barley/etc.--I have only a very small amount of those things now). I'm not really worrying about olive oil and whatnot. (I don't worry too much about occasionally going to restaurants, either, although I rarely finish the whole thing and we often take leftovers home.) I'm walking a lot. As I've done this, my weight has started to drop and I've basically stopped missing the plate-filling sides.
One difference I noticed between my daily food intake and yours is that I get more protein at breakfast and lunch (I think). I have old-fashioned oats with almond butter at breakfast, and something at lunch (it varies--eggs, natural lunch meat, tofu). You're getting protein, but it looks like it's mostly at the end of the day (?), when it might be less useful for keeping you full and energized.
Good luck :)
posted by wintersweet at 10:24 AM on September 15, 2010
One difference I noticed between my daily food intake and yours is that I get more protein at breakfast and lunch (I think). I have old-fashioned oats with almond butter at breakfast, and something at lunch (it varies--eggs, natural lunch meat, tofu). You're getting protein, but it looks like it's mostly at the end of the day (?), when it might be less useful for keeping you full and energized.
Good luck :)
posted by wintersweet at 10:24 AM on September 15, 2010
My weight loss, fwiw, goes like this: nothing, nothing, nothing, gained a pound WTF!, lost 3 pound, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, my pants fell off!!!
In other words, there's not a steady decline in weight but fits & starts and I won't see any changes for a while and then bam! clothes look too big & sloppy.
And Nthing the carbs. I love baguettes like nothing else but cutting down my carbs has been awesome. I have 2 cheat meals a week :)
posted by pointystick at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]
In other words, there's not a steady decline in weight but fits & starts and I won't see any changes for a while and then bam! clothes look too big & sloppy.
And Nthing the carbs. I love baguettes like nothing else but cutting down my carbs has been awesome. I have 2 cheat meals a week :)
posted by pointystick at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]
You're calorie intake is very close to your rested calorie burn rate, My guess is you're probably loosing a bit of weight just not very much.
Try a site like this but be very conservative with how much actual exercise you're getting. Then subtract a further 200-300 calories more cause you probably still overestimated.
Then its just a matter of dividing the deficit with 3500 to see how many pounds you're loosing.
So in reality your probably around 1 or 2 pounds a month which is fine for long term fat loss and probably healthier then the more chrashy diets some of us like to go on.
More importantly woman can sometimes have a lot of water retention around their periods so it can be a good idea only to weigh yourself approximately once a month, timed around your cycle. A couple of pounds can quickly become lost in the static if you weigh yourself to often.
If its been less then a month since you started, water retention can do really strange things to your scale. I've seen my weight drop by 4 ponds in less then 24 hours just from water, and come back almost as quick. I'm not female though, but thats what low carbs can do for you :)
posted by Greald at 11:45 AM on September 15, 2010
Try a site like this but be very conservative with how much actual exercise you're getting. Then subtract a further 200-300 calories more cause you probably still overestimated.
Then its just a matter of dividing the deficit with 3500 to see how many pounds you're loosing.
So in reality your probably around 1 or 2 pounds a month which is fine for long term fat loss and probably healthier then the more chrashy diets some of us like to go on.
More importantly woman can sometimes have a lot of water retention around their periods so it can be a good idea only to weigh yourself approximately once a month, timed around your cycle. A couple of pounds can quickly become lost in the static if you weigh yourself to often.
If its been less then a month since you started, water retention can do really strange things to your scale. I've seen my weight drop by 4 ponds in less then 24 hours just from water, and come back almost as quick. I'm not female though, but thats what low carbs can do for you :)
posted by Greald at 11:45 AM on September 15, 2010
Here's a slightly different take you might want to consider. The number of calories or the number of carbs might not give you the total picture. Whether you use their program or just use it as a tool to evaluate yours is up to you. Note that weight loss is not their focus, but achieving a healthy body composition is a common outcome from their program. Worked for me.
posted by kch at 12:37 PM on September 15, 2010
posted by kch at 12:37 PM on September 15, 2010
There is absolutely no diet anywhere that will both have you lose weight and can be sustained after you reach your target so that you don't lose or gain weight.
Of course there is -- eventually you will level off and what was once a weight-loss diet becomes a maintenance diet. Think it through: If an obese, 6' male cuts down from 4000 cals per day to 2000, will they eventually waste away to nothingness, or will they level out at 180-200 lbs.? Obviously the latter.
To the OP: You've cut your daily intake to a good level, but one that doesn't leave much room for cheating (which is why your cheating is likely negating your caloric restriction the rest of the time). Dropping another 100 cals and adding some weight training might help, and still allow some cheats.
Also, rather than going by the scale, you could take pics of yourself naked every few months and use that for comparison. This tends to be a better method for people just starting to work out, and who are building a little muscle at the same time they're losing fat.
You also don't say whether the biking you do is strenuous or not. I could do 35 miles a week around my neighborhood and not break a sweat.
Congratulations on adopting a healthy lifestyle!!
posted by coolguymichael at 12:37 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Of course there is -- eventually you will level off and what was once a weight-loss diet becomes a maintenance diet. Think it through: If an obese, 6' male cuts down from 4000 cals per day to 2000, will they eventually waste away to nothingness, or will they level out at 180-200 lbs.? Obviously the latter.
To the OP: You've cut your daily intake to a good level, but one that doesn't leave much room for cheating (which is why your cheating is likely negating your caloric restriction the rest of the time). Dropping another 100 cals and adding some weight training might help, and still allow some cheats.
Also, rather than going by the scale, you could take pics of yourself naked every few months and use that for comparison. This tends to be a better method for people just starting to work out, and who are building a little muscle at the same time they're losing fat.
You also don't say whether the biking you do is strenuous or not. I could do 35 miles a week around my neighborhood and not break a sweat.
Congratulations on adopting a healthy lifestyle!!
posted by coolguymichael at 12:37 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Everybody's different, but I'm surprised at how many people are horrified by the amount of carbs in your diet - I easily eat twice that (much of it coming from evil french baguettes, no less), and I still always lose weight if my calories drop too much.
Not that it's particularly healthy to eat the way I do, just saying - bread and pasta alone won't prevent you from losing weight.
I recently lost a lot of weight due to an illness and have been working to gain it back, and both processes took longer than you'd expect. With the weight loss, I had been eating poorly for a couple months before suddenly none of my clothes fit anymore, and now on the other side of it, it's taken over three months of sticking to a higher-calorie diet to see a noticeable change, and I'm still not even at my normal size yet. I bet if you stick to your regimen (which sounds awesome) for another month or two, you'll start seeing the big changes.
posted by ella wren at 6:25 PM on September 15, 2010
Not that it's particularly healthy to eat the way I do, just saying - bread and pasta alone won't prevent you from losing weight.
I recently lost a lot of weight due to an illness and have been working to gain it back, and both processes took longer than you'd expect. With the weight loss, I had been eating poorly for a couple months before suddenly none of my clothes fit anymore, and now on the other side of it, it's taken over three months of sticking to a higher-calorie diet to see a noticeable change, and I'm still not even at my normal size yet. I bet if you stick to your regimen (which sounds awesome) for another month or two, you'll start seeing the big changes.
posted by ella wren at 6:25 PM on September 15, 2010
Oops, my math was wrong on the carbs, I definitely don't eat 500g a day! I probably eat around the same as you, for what it's worth.
posted by ella wren at 6:31 PM on September 15, 2010
posted by ella wren at 6:31 PM on September 15, 2010
Look, you can argue how low-carb isn't working for you and how 1600 calories isn't too high and all that, but the fact is what you aren't doing isn't working so you need to switch things up. At 5'3'', 180, there is no way you are carrying enough muscle mass or building enough muscle that you're just replacing the fat with it (not to mention it takes a hell of a lot longer to build a pound of muscle than lose a pound of fat, especially for women).
You don't want people to tell you to eat less. You don't want people to tell you to try to eat less carbs. So I'm not sure what you want to hear. Go walking or swimming or biking for hours a day but don't eat any more than you already are, that will add to the calorie deficit.
Bodies are weird. They do not do what they're "supposed" to do. A calorie reduction of 3500 a week does not mean you will lose exactly one pound a week. Some people lose weight on 70% carbs, others need 30%. You do not know what kind of person you are until you try these things out.
As for weight-loss clinics and all of that, please understand that many nutritionists and doctors operate on horribly outdated information based on a couple of badly-done studies from forty or fifty years ago.
posted by Anonymous at 9:11 PM on September 15, 2010
You don't want people to tell you to eat less. You don't want people to tell you to try to eat less carbs. So I'm not sure what you want to hear. Go walking or swimming or biking for hours a day but don't eat any more than you already are, that will add to the calorie deficit.
Bodies are weird. They do not do what they're "supposed" to do. A calorie reduction of 3500 a week does not mean you will lose exactly one pound a week. Some people lose weight on 70% carbs, others need 30%. You do not know what kind of person you are until you try these things out.
As for weight-loss clinics and all of that, please understand that many nutritionists and doctors operate on horribly outdated information based on a couple of badly-done studies from forty or fifty years ago.
posted by Anonymous at 9:11 PM on September 15, 2010
Response by poster: Schroedinger, not sure what you want from me, I said quite clearly that I would consider cutting more carbs and that I would look in to weight training (I already spent about an hour last night looking at this site, and I think there are some dusty free-weights in my storage space from the previous tenant, so I might get started this weekend).
In regards to calories, I know there’s lots of conflicting advice but one thing that seems pretty clear is that severely cutting calories isn’t healthy or sustainable. That's really the only advice I'm not interested in. I will probably start to drink less, or not at all, and I already know about the excess calories in restaurant food and I watch out for it, so it's not like I'm accidentally getting 4,500 extra calories from butter-fried salad every Friday. Anyway, I know that I get really grouchy and tend to binge on bread and sugar if I let myself get too hungry. If it takes me two years to lose fifty pounds, that’s fine, but I’m not going to start eating 1,000 calories a day because I would be miserable and I wouldn't stick to it. The point for me isn't to fit into a size four, the point is to be healthy and not to become diabetic at forty. I asked for advice, 90% is about cutting carbs. Great. I’ll give what I’m doing another month to see if changes start to happen, as some others have suggested they might, and if not, then Atkins, here I come*. (*exaggeration for effect)
posted by Wroksie at 1:56 AM on September 16, 2010
In regards to calories, I know there’s lots of conflicting advice but one thing that seems pretty clear is that severely cutting calories isn’t healthy or sustainable. That's really the only advice I'm not interested in. I will probably start to drink less, or not at all, and I already know about the excess calories in restaurant food and I watch out for it, so it's not like I'm accidentally getting 4,500 extra calories from butter-fried salad every Friday. Anyway, I know that I get really grouchy and tend to binge on bread and sugar if I let myself get too hungry. If it takes me two years to lose fifty pounds, that’s fine, but I’m not going to start eating 1,000 calories a day because I would be miserable and I wouldn't stick to it. The point for me isn't to fit into a size four, the point is to be healthy and not to become diabetic at forty. I asked for advice, 90% is about cutting carbs. Great. I’ll give what I’m doing another month to see if changes start to happen, as some others have suggested they might, and if not, then Atkins, here I come*. (*exaggeration for effect)
posted by Wroksie at 1:56 AM on September 16, 2010
It's all about substitutions you can live with. For example, there are some, uhh, low hanging fruit if you do it by the sugar numbers. From your diary:
banana, 27g carbs, 14g sugar
fig, 24g carbs, 20g sugar
honey, 17g carbs, 16g sugar
That's a total of 68g carbs and 50g sugar (28% and a whopping 90% of your dailies, respectively), just from three quickly-eaten food items. Even ignoring the carb thing, think of the sugar. You could try replacing them with non- or lower-sugar substitutes (eg Splenda for the honey, blueberries or other low-GI fruit for the fig and banana). 1/2 cup of blueberries, for example, has 40 calories, 11g carbs, and 7g sugar. If you ate that instead of the fig, you'd be halving everything, and it would be just as satisfyingly delicious.
There is plenty of range between 240g of carbs a day and Atkins (eww); just make some easy substitutions you won't notice all that much. The low-carb ideological frenzy can be tiresome, so maybe just concentrate on reducing sugar for a while (especially if you're concerned about diabetes). this looks like a good list.
Calorie Count says there are 210 calories in a pint of Guinness. Even if you just had two instead of three, (or one instead of two), there's another easy picking right there.
I think the general consensus is that you shouldn't go below 1200 calories, or you'll be doing yourself more harm than good.
posted by media_itoku at 3:59 PM on September 16, 2010
banana, 27g carbs, 14g sugar
fig, 24g carbs, 20g sugar
honey, 17g carbs, 16g sugar
That's a total of 68g carbs and 50g sugar (28% and a whopping 90% of your dailies, respectively), just from three quickly-eaten food items. Even ignoring the carb thing, think of the sugar. You could try replacing them with non- or lower-sugar substitutes (eg Splenda for the honey, blueberries or other low-GI fruit for the fig and banana). 1/2 cup of blueberries, for example, has 40 calories, 11g carbs, and 7g sugar. If you ate that instead of the fig, you'd be halving everything, and it would be just as satisfyingly delicious.
There is plenty of range between 240g of carbs a day and Atkins (eww); just make some easy substitutions you won't notice all that much. The low-carb ideological frenzy can be tiresome, so maybe just concentrate on reducing sugar for a while (especially if you're concerned about diabetes). this looks like a good list.
Calorie Count says there are 210 calories in a pint of Guinness. Even if you just had two instead of three, (or one instead of two), there's another easy picking right there.
I think the general consensus is that you shouldn't go below 1200 calories, or you'll be doing yourself more harm than good.
posted by media_itoku at 3:59 PM on September 16, 2010
I know this is very very late to the party but I chanced upon this thread and thought I'd chime in. Success for me involves the use of a food scale. The portions you list in your sample appear to be based on "serving sizes." I've found those to be highly suspect unless they're in ounces or grams.
For example, I love to have a bowl of Puffins cereal. It's 90 calories for 30 grams, or "approximately 3/4 cup." So for a while I used a pyrex measuring cup and poured in about 3/4 cup. Then one day I thought "I should weigh this" -- and discovered I was actually taking in more like 45 grams per bowl (135 calories). Eye-opening, to say the least!
So if you're using units of volume to measure your food, I highly suggest switching to weight units instead. Digital scales are not that expensive and can measure as low as .05 ounce. (Grams are much more useful.) It sounds annoying but in the end it's faster not to have to pull out the exact right measuring cup/spoon -- just use whatever's handy and scoop it into a bowl.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have 113g of whole milk yogurt with 7g honey and 50g banana. :-)
posted by rouftop at 2:06 PM on December 5, 2010
For example, I love to have a bowl of Puffins cereal. It's 90 calories for 30 grams, or "approximately 3/4 cup." So for a while I used a pyrex measuring cup and poured in about 3/4 cup. Then one day I thought "I should weigh this" -- and discovered I was actually taking in more like 45 grams per bowl (135 calories). Eye-opening, to say the least!
So if you're using units of volume to measure your food, I highly suggest switching to weight units instead. Digital scales are not that expensive and can measure as low as .05 ounce. (Grams are much more useful.) It sounds annoying but in the end it's faster not to have to pull out the exact right measuring cup/spoon -- just use whatever's handy and scoop it into a bowl.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have 113g of whole milk yogurt with 7g honey and 50g banana. :-)
posted by rouftop at 2:06 PM on December 5, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by saveyoursanity at 6:10 AM on September 15, 2010