Please or to access all these features

Weight loss injections/treatments

Discuss weight-loss injections and treatments, including personal experiences. Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. You may wish to speak to a medical professional before starting any treatments.

Can't believe how little my body needs :(

49 replies

GLPGal · Yesterday 07:30

I've been on the Wegovy pills since July, having battled with my weight for a long time. Over the last three months I have tracked my calories meticulously, and have not exceeded 1000 calories per day. This consists of two Protein Works meal replacement shakes, and one healthy, home cooked meal with a focus on vegetables and protein. I have stopped snacking entirely.

I've lost a steady 1lb per week. I'm very pleased. But how on earth can I sustain this long term? I've always said that 1200 calories does not result in weight loss for me. And believe me, I was MISERABLE on 1200 calories without the help of meds. I just don't understand why my body needs so little.

I'm 5ft 3 and, as of this morning, a healthy BMI at last! Would like to lose another 7-14lbs. But how on earth will I maintain it unless I want to be on these tablets for life?!

OP posts:
JustSetFireToIt · Yesterday 15:28

Yes, willpower and exercise sadly.

I’m the same. When I had my resting metabolic rate tested about 15 years ago, the consultant looked at me with such pity and said I was really unfortunate - it was 1300 calories. It only gets worse as we get older and there’s only so much time in the day for exercising and weights aren’t as much fun as running or cycling but essential if you want to maintain muscle into old age.

Sunbringer · Yesterday 15:34

You don’t have to stick to your weight loss calories to maintain. That’s the whole point.

HorseandHeron · Yesterday 15:39

babyproblems · Yesterday 07:34

And exercise to burn off the excess and build/maintain muscle. Xo

This. If you like food, the best way to manage maintenance is to do strenuous weight lifting/body weights/bootcamps a few times a week. You can burn up to 600 cals in an hour, and you will probably crave protein afterwards - not sugar or carbs.

On non-workout days, bulk up with lots of steamed veg, crudités and salad, berries and low fat high protein yoghurt like Skyr or quark.

Sunbringer · Yesterday 15:39

Carandache18 · Yesterday 15:12

This is what I find hard to understand. In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

People walked more, lifted more, didn’t have machines to wash clothes and clean rugs and whisk things and order shopping online. More men worked in physical labour where again they didn’t have as many power tools. They broke concrete with sledgehammers not electric jack hammers.

Convenience has removed a hundred little uses of energy aka glucose!

boxofshite · Yesterday 15:42

Carandache18 · Yesterday 15:12

This is what I find hard to understand. In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

Well the war had rationing so that would make an impact but when I see old photos I don’t think women are that thin, they have more defined waists but they aren’t all waifs.

fridgecigarette · Yesterday 15:43

You need to build as much muscle as possible. The more muscle you build, the more calories you burn at rest and hence your daily calorie needs increase.

The beauty of it is that it’s a loop. Can’t or don’t want to eat less calories? Then eat those calories (or even at a surplus of 300 calories a day) but make it at least twice your body weight (kg) in protein (grams). Eg. I’m 55kg so I aim for 110lb protein daily. Then lift heavy — progressively overload your lifting weight as you get stronger. Make sure every session you lift to failure. That’s what forces your muscles to grow in order to repair. You also MUST sleep at least 7-9 hours each night because sleep is when your muscles repair and build.

Result: you gain muscle. Gain muscle = needs more calories = lets you lift heavier = gains more muscle etc.

I did this to change my body composition from overweight to skinny fat to lean. Gained a ton of muscle which increased my daily calorie needs. Then after I gained enough muscle (about 5kg — I did look “bigger” for a while because of muscle on top of my weight) I did a cut to bring my body fat from 35% down to 25%. I’m now going into another bulk cycle, and once that’s done, I’m cutting to bring my body fat down to 20%.

I achieved all of this by eating more calories than before but making sure I was eating enough protein as well as lifting until I literally couldn’t lift anymore.

You can do this!

ETA: it took me 10 months (of strict lifting) to gain 5kg of muscle and 6 months (of strict cutting) to cut 25kg of body fat. Net weight loss was 15kg.

SixTimesALady · Yesterday 15:46

You're only eating one meal a day, though, when you could be eating three. Why do you drink protein shakes instead of eating more food? Food will be much healthier and more satisfying.

MxCactus · Yesterday 15:47

I don't disagree with you OP. I only lose 1lb a week if I eat 1000-1200 calories - at 1300 calories a day I don't lose anything! I'm 5ft 2" and 35

I maintain at about 1700-1800 though, so at least my maintenance calories are alright once I've got down to the weight I want.

Dieting is horrible!

Gassylady · Yesterday 18:37

@fridgecigarette my gym habit has fallen by the wayside a bit these last few months. I need to get back to it to support my weight loss. Any good sources of info on building routines, bulk and cut. Familiar with the terms but would love more background information.

fridgecigarette · Yesterday 18:43

Gassylady · Yesterday 18:37

@fridgecigarette my gym habit has fallen by the wayside a bit these last few months. I need to get back to it to support my weight loss. Any good sources of info on building routines, bulk and cut. Familiar with the terms but would love more background information.

This trainer is my go to for fitness and nutrition advice. His website has a macro calculator you can use for free to figure out your calorie needs. He also posts amusing, informative Instagram posts explaining these concepts in simple language. https://links.tarekelkhayat.com/

Tarek Elkhayat

Tools I wish I had when I started gym :)

https://links.tarekelkhayat.com/

MrsMiagi · Yesterday 18:48

JustSetFireToIt · Yesterday 15:28

Yes, willpower and exercise sadly.

I’m the same. When I had my resting metabolic rate tested about 15 years ago, the consultant looked at me with such pity and said I was really unfortunate - it was 1300 calories. It only gets worse as we get older and there’s only so much time in the day for exercising and weights aren’t as much fun as running or cycling but essential if you want to maintain muscle into old age.

Thats so weird. Why with pity? Thats not unusual as its the minimum calories for your bidy to function. You then burn more through daily movement and exercise so no idea why you had a look of pity?

MissConductUS · Yesterday 18:53

I've always said that 1200 calories does not result in weight loss for me. And believe me, I was MISERABLE on 1200 calories without the help of meds. I just don't understand why my body needs so little.

When you lose a substantial amount of weight, your body responds by slowing your metabolic rate to conserve calories. That's why you need fewer calories.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

MeandT · Yesterday 19:02

I agree expectations around essential calories is rarely realistic. And as others have said, if your metabolism has been messed up historically, your body will be extremely efficient at storing calories not burning them.

As others have said, while you're still on the jabs, now is the time to do the other half of what they suggest in conjunction - get better habits in place ready to wean down the dose.

'Lift heavy' is ubiquitous already. In practice, it means 3 months getting used to a regular session focused on muscle strengthening rather than heavy cardio 2 or 3 times a week. For most women who haven't ever weight trained, a circuits class, women who lift, or simple dumbbell & body weight routine at home can be enough to stimulate muscle growth-especially after weight loss.

Get at least a couple of sessions with a trainer who works with women. If they don't mention strengthening your pelvic floor within the first 15 minutes, there's a risk you can overload the other exercises & not have the strength you'll want in 10 & 20 years time to support your organs! So find someone who can assess how you use your posture & set up for exercises before you add any load.

If you don't fancy doing anything at a public gym, https://mamamadestrong.com is a fabulous follow along program to assess your own strengths & weaknesses & help balance and strengthen core before moving to lifting heavier weights in general.

Once you've figured out how 3 months worth of consistently doing at least 2 strength led sessions around the exercise you already enjoy, your tendons, joints & bones will have adapted (and you probably will have toned up a bit with more muscle mass already). Then it's a question of focusing on picking about 4-8 strength exercises & doing them consistently for another 8 weeks before you change your routine much. Either lower body/upper body split, or a selection that covers both. Ideally you should do each muscle group at least twice a week, because muscle only grows once it's been used to its breakdown point (and you feed it enough protein & rest afterwards).

An efficient home dumbell routine might be
1 goblet squats into calf raises
2 single leg deadlifts with one foot pushing against a wall behind you and weight in opposite hand from leg you stand on, then a shoulder press up each rep
3 backward lunge, then side raise & forward punch with your arms after you've lunged each leg
4 a row then a bicep curl

ideally with the weight high enough that you can do 5-8 well, but not many more. It doesn't hurt at all to start lighter and get to 12 or 15 before you feel you're going to cheat the move or have bad posture to keep going though - that's why working with a trainer for a couple of sessions can spare a lot of injuries, but don't stop while it's really easy.

The aim would be to do 3 rounds of however many reps you can get to on each of the 4 exercises. It might be 8 reps on the first round and only 4 on the 3rd round, that's ok. Good form is more important than number of reps.

Dead serious trainers would say wait 3 minutes between each. But being time efficient is a thing too, so moving through all 4 then having a 2-3 min rest & shake out would be fine too!

If you get bored easily, pick 2 or 3 "finishers" to add at the end. Swap these as much as you like to hit little muscles - sit ups, parachute jump lifts (face down on floor & lift legs & arms), tricep dips on a chair or bench, planks, step ups, boxing with a dumbell, star jumps, burpees (??? would anyone do those by choice?!) just 30-60 seconds hard of as many as you can do, a couple of times for 2 or 3 of them.

Then stretch out, eat something with protein and carb in it within 30 minutes, sleep lots that night & make sure you get a decent breakfast & lunch with at least 30g of protein in each the next day.

If a weight gets easy, add a couple of reps to keep the last ones hard with good form. Once you can do 8-10 well in all 3 rounds, choose a slightly higher weight the next session.

Doing the session above twice a week would cover all your major muscle groups and keep a bit of variety at the end.

After a 3 months easing in and 2 months of that circuit, you will unavoidably have a much stronger body than now.

Which would burn more calories at rest and you'd probably find easing your dose down will be more manageable.

Don't try to mix up losing weight with a sustained period of heavy lifting though. You need enough calories to build muscle! Maybe starting the 3 month getting used to it weight sessions while you continue to drop steadily would be a good idea? Don't be scared to "only" lose 2 lb a month at this stage though, and add a snack (15-20g of both protein and carb) within 30 minutes of finishing a weights session to refuel so your muscles can mend.

Once you've got through the 3 months of easing your body into it, you don't really want to be in calorie deficit if you're lifting weights with progressive overload every week. Your body needs to mend & lots of veggies, fibre and a sensible amount of protein (100g a day for your size) will be needed to keep going without getting exhausted or injured! And don't skimp on sleep or water.

6 months from now, you'd probably find your resting metabolic rate is somewhere more like 1300-400 calories a day.

It is possible to train a body back out of slow metabolism, but unlike losing body fat, there aren't really any shortcuts. You've had the help to get to a size you're much happier with, invest the time in that to make it stronger and more energy-burning for the long term!

And eat enough fibre. It helps with fullness, digestion, and damping down the cravings for the high-energy junky stuff that makes it far too easy to over consume. Don't tell yourself there's any demon foods, but just manage them as proper rare (once a fortnight, once a month) type treats.

There is no bad week. If you have a blowout meal or miss a session, don't write off the whole week, just pick up & keep going.

You've got this. And you'll be ready for when things slow down further in your 40s if you invest the time now!

Home - Mama Made Strong - Your postpartum body. YOUR answers.

Mama Made Strong is an online program that puts you in the driver's seat to heal your postpartum body, no matter how old your babies are.

https://mamamadestrong.com

Popcornandbeetroot · Yesterday 19:25

Carandache18 · Yesterday 15:12

This is what I find hard to understand. In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

People were more physically active during that period, rationing resulted in less calories being consumed, fat and sugar was restricted, no convenience food or food that was addictive with hidden calories and low nutrient levels. Most people cooked from scratch, grew some vegetables and walked further often being employed in a manual job
Many people volunteered to do extra duties within their local community - so lots of reasons why less people were a healthier weight.

DarkForces · Yesterday 21:07

Yes. They were super healthy times. The 30s diet option included dnp that cooked you from the inside (literally burned fat). After this was banned by the late 30s people turned to speed then the 40s they went for a more holistic approach of amphetamines, laxatives, thyroid medication and barbiturates. But hey, they were slim!

mamaof4losingmymind · Yesterday 21:10

Im 5"2 and exactly the same i won't lose above 1000 calories

Popcornandbeetroot · Yesterday 21:13

DarkForces · Yesterday 21:07

Yes. They were super healthy times. The 30s diet option included dnp that cooked you from the inside (literally burned fat). After this was banned by the late 30s people turned to speed then the 40s they went for a more holistic approach of amphetamines, laxatives, thyroid medication and barbiturates. But hey, they were slim!

Crikey I’m not sure the average working class person was doing that but possibly more middle high income socialites maybe? Sounds wild 🤪

DarkForces · Yesterday 21:19

Popcornandbeetroot · Yesterday 21:13

Crikey I’m not sure the average working class person was doing that but possibly more middle high income socialites maybe? Sounds wild 🤪

They were cheap as anything as there was no testing or safeguards so definitely not only available to the rich. I'm not sure why we have this idea that previous generations lived wholesome lives. We've never been more protected by regulation

ScrollingLeaves · Yesterday 21:33

Carandache18 · Yesterday 15:12

This is what I find hard to understand. In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

I don’t know what you mean.
Cooked breakfast with eggs bacon etc was high in protein. At school people got milk for breakfast- more protein. Lunch was meat and two veg. Puddings were fairly modest portions. Then an evening meal of some sort. No pizza, KFC, Macdonalds, enormous cakes etc with Lattes. No snacking all the time. Children played outside, physically moving a lot. Fewer cars. Much more physical housework. Push lawn mowers. No so called ‘sharing’ bags of crisps, or giant bottles of Coca Cola.

lljkk · Today 14:08

Poster1: In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

Poster2: I don’t know what you mean. Cooked breakfast with eggs bacon etc was high in protein.

In time of rationing, the portions per person would have been one egg and maybe 2 rashers at breakfast. If people needed more calories they had porridge, cereal, toast. By our standards, 1940-1960 portions would be tiny compared to today.. Still mainly carbs as calorie source for brekkie. Something like a roast for midday meal and then picky bits, like toast & cold meats for tea. My xMIL still eats like that. I suspect that protein intake per person has doubled since about 1960, because meat & milk foods were especially more expensive in 1960 than they are now.

In 1960, food was about 32% of household costs, today food is maybe 10-16% of median household costs.

When people try to claim that diets were so much more healthy 100 years ago, I just think of Angela's Ashes and all the sugar sandwiches.

ScrollingLeaves · Today 17:51

lljkk · Today 14:08

Poster1: In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

Poster2: I don’t know what you mean. Cooked breakfast with eggs bacon etc was high in protein.

In time of rationing, the portions per person would have been one egg and maybe 2 rashers at breakfast. If people needed more calories they had porridge, cereal, toast. By our standards, 1940-1960 portions would be tiny compared to today.. Still mainly carbs as calorie source for brekkie. Something like a roast for midday meal and then picky bits, like toast & cold meats for tea. My xMIL still eats like that. I suspect that protein intake per person has doubled since about 1960, because meat & milk foods were especially more expensive in 1960 than they are now.

In 1960, food was about 32% of household costs, today food is maybe 10-16% of median household costs.

When people try to claim that diets were so much more healthy 100 years ago, I just think of Angela's Ashes and all the sugar sandwiches.

I disagree. Many people went on to the ‘food pyramid’ with a wide base of carbohydrates, even more carbohydrates with vegetables and fruits added; some protein, and almost no fat including good, satiating fats (avocados, nuts and even sometimes eggs considered fattening ).

Many people nearly live on carbs and saturated fat now without much protein.. No breakfast then giant muffin; pizza dough with a lot of saturated fat, meal deals with carbohydrate heavy sandwiches and crisps, giant cookies.

Thesnowglobe · Today 18:03

I try to get 15k steps a day (I have a walking pad for days when I’m really busy) strength training minimum 4 x per week, plenty of protein, plus low calorie high volume foods. So, loads of veg and, the MN favourite, massive salads.
I do actually enjoy eating like that, but, given the choice? I’d eat enormous plates of pasta, every day. I don’t, or my arse wouldn’t fit through the door!!

HorseandHeron · Today 22:32

lljkk · Today 14:08

Poster1: In the past, and especially during and after WW2, very few people were overweight. Yet protein was limited (and so was sugar) and everyone was filling up on veg and starches.

Poster2: I don’t know what you mean. Cooked breakfast with eggs bacon etc was high in protein.

In time of rationing, the portions per person would have been one egg and maybe 2 rashers at breakfast. If people needed more calories they had porridge, cereal, toast. By our standards, 1940-1960 portions would be tiny compared to today.. Still mainly carbs as calorie source for brekkie. Something like a roast for midday meal and then picky bits, like toast & cold meats for tea. My xMIL still eats like that. I suspect that protein intake per person has doubled since about 1960, because meat & milk foods were especially more expensive in 1960 than they are now.

In 1960, food was about 32% of household costs, today food is maybe 10-16% of median household costs.

When people try to claim that diets were so much more healthy 100 years ago, I just think of Angela's Ashes and all the sugar sandwiches.

People also walked everywhere. Most people didn't have cars and many didn't have refridgerators or washing machines - so daily walks to work or school, to the shops to buy dinner fresh every day, to the laundrette with heavy laundry. No phones meant if you wanted to see friends or ask a neighbour something you walked round to their home.

As a teenager I easily did 10k steps on a lazy day, just going to school and back, 20k steps or more if I went out in the evening.

Sunbringer · Today 23:07

MissConductUS · Yesterday 18:53

I've always said that 1200 calories does not result in weight loss for me. And believe me, I was MISERABLE on 1200 calories without the help of meds. I just don't understand why my body needs so little.

When you lose a substantial amount of weight, your body responds by slowing your metabolic rate to conserve calories. That's why you need fewer calories.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

Only by about 120 calories. Otherwise nobody would ever starve to death.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread