Help not losing weight

[carrottopper]

New to exercise. I got an I watch for Christmas and since then I have aimed to move more, incorporate small jogs, short runs, walk more and do YouTube exercises at home. I've been burning 700 calories a day but not seen any weight loss! I've been watching quite healthily but not changed it too drastically. I expected to see a little weight loss by now.

Any advice? Surely 700 calories should be a positive move and worth doing. I'm enjoying it but getting discouraged

Women generally need and burn around 2,000 calories a day

They really don't This is high and a mythical number.

As previous posters have said you typically need a healthy deficit (upwards of 500 cals deficit) to see weight loss. Anything less than that and weight lost will be slow.

There are a couple of complications, if you build muscle you could be gaining muscle mass. Fat testing and measuring your body would show this up. Also the macros of the food you eat can make a difference. Sugar and simple carbohydrates are metabolised very quickly so (unless you are exercising intensely at the time of consumption) your body needs to be able to store the excess energy as fat, which means your hormones will be optimised for fat storage instead of fat burning. Some foods and alcohol will also encourage you to retain water which will affect your weight also.

So initially try tracking your food intake along with what you are already doing. Look at calories and macros. Monitor any changes in the size of your body by measuring or trying on tight clothes. Then tweak things according to any patterns you notice.

NB: with a 50 minute run plus a long walk I can easily burn over 700 calories.

This gives an idea of calories burnt and activity levels:

tdeecalculator.net/

I think fitness trackers can encourage some people to develop a warped relationship with physical activity.

Mine has helped me. I realise even though I run everyday and walk just about everywhere I cannot match my DH's energy consumption even on days he does very little formal exercise. We can run together at the same speed and he'll burn more calories! I tell him that's because I'm very energy efficient! Come a zombie apocalypse and I'll be laughing!So I have reduced my portions! Because we used to eat very similar amounts.

If you click on the activity app, then click on today's ring, it shows you total calories burned as well as your 'active calories' (the red ring).

I am logging my food intake on myfitnesspal and making sure I eat less than the calories burned, and it is working.

I don't know how accurate the calorie burn measurement is but I figure it's all comparative for me so it doesn't matter if it's not scientifically accurate!

I don't know how accurate the calorie burn measurement is but I figure it's all comparative for me so it doesn't matter if it's not scientifically accurate!

Exactly! It gives you some parameters to work with. From there it is easy to tweak things if needs be.

I agree- I definitely can't rely on exercise. I do need to look at portion size.

The original rights of woman- I was ok until 5pm. Then I was hungry. Dinner wasn't ready until 6. I also have lots on at work and feel very stressed. That's when I snack!!!

Lijkk I have an Apple Watch

Fellyjish- so if my total calories is 2,230, how much could I consume to see weight loss? If I stick to 1200, that would determine weight loss faster than 1800. Is that right?

Veryvery to get a calorie deficit of 500- if I my watch is telling me I am using 2,300 calories, does that mean anything under 1800 calories will help me lose weight?

Yes, in theory. However, I, personally, only really noticed weight loss at a deficit of 1000 or more. So you may need to try it to see.

You can look up accuracy ratings on devices. Apparently my FitBit is pretty accurate on running, if anything underestimates calorie burn but not so much on walking, tends to overestimate. It might be why I had to have a 'greater' deficit to see weight loss. But as I said earlier, macros and fluid retention factors might affect you also.

If you're not losing weight you're not in a calorie deficit. Simples. X

If you're not losing weight you're not in a calorie deficit. Simples

Not quite. Muscle mass changes and fluctuations in fluid retention might be affecting weight. Equally if the macros are wrong they could be encouraging fat storage rather than fat burning (see earlier post).

If you go into too much of a calorie deficit though you will lose muscle aswell as fat. Use MyFitnessPal to count calories. Weigh everything. Set a calorie target. Don't adjust it for exercise. Higher protein will protect against muscle loss and keep you fuller for longer. 1g at least per pound of body weight.

https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/the-politically-incorrect-truth-about-obesity?utmsource=facebook&utmmmedium=social&utmcampaign=article8708

I don't think it is unusual to lose a bit of muscle mass when losing a significant amount of weight, though. It stands to reason, a person needs less muscle to shift their body about if they weigh less. You just don't want to lose a disproportionate amount of muscle.

Very very. I agree you can lose fat and gain muscle and not be losing weight but you have to be really lifting some weights. 99.9% of people not losing weight aren't in a calorie deficit, sometimes underestimating a cheat meal despite weighing things all week. I really think it's that simple.

Very very. If you lose muscle you slow your metabolic rate have to eat EVEN less! That become a vicious cycle. You can get stronger and leaner and lose fat alone.

joggin, absolutely but I'm not sure about your statistic. But it's not unknown for people to lift serious weight! I don't personally but weight training is getting more and more popular.

Another thing I failed to mention is that sometimes when you lose fat you temporarily gain a bit of fluid. Then it goes suddenly.

The result? Weight loss is not always linear! I would encourage you to to keep at it, monitor, then tweak depending on results over time.

If you lose muscle you slow your metabolic rate have to eat EVEN less!

My point was about disproportionately losing muscle! Which you obviously don't want to do. So you don't want your muscle mass percentage to go down. However, naturally a bit of muscle mass will be lost with weight loss unless you make serious efforts to build muscle. Otherwise you lose muscle mass (hopefully not overall muscle percentage) because you do not need as much to move about. Yes, you need less calories, that happens when you lose weight anyway! (See the TDEE calculator I linked to earlier)

Def. agree it's not lineal. I used to track mine obsessively. I gain a kilo when I ovulate that I lose after my period. Some people suggest weighing daily. And finding the average at the end of each week to track. I also weigh myself 1st thing naked after one cup of tea TMI. My point being it needs to be fair to be accurate

That should say, "my point was not about disproportionately losing muscle."

joggin, I don't weigh myself on weekends!

On average op, without over complicating it, five hundred calorie a day deficit means a pound a week weightloss. A thousand s day is two pounds,

So if you burn 2300 a day and eat 1300 you should lose 2lbs a week. If you eat 1800 you should loose a pound a week. Yes there are many variables there.

But are you sure you want to do a calorie controlled diet? I do keto. Because I'm a sugar fiend but I'm not too fussed about things like bread, pasta, potatoes etc. It kills my sugar cravings and reduces my appetite. I don't count any calories and loose weight easily on it.

We are all focusing on calories, because you got a watch for Christmas, but is this really the way of eating for you?