Can anyone help - why am I not losing weight (using MFP)

[LindaBoughtAPeaShooter]

Trying to walk more (have an injury which means no running)
Eating my 1200 per day and not cheating! Only time I eat more is if I have done some exercise and recorded it (am using map my walk) and therefore have extra calories available iykwim.

Standard day:
Weetabix, handful of raspberries, skimmed milk

Cous cous (40g dry) with cooked chicken and salad, 1/2 tsp olive oil

Chilli, 40/50g rice, veg

Snacks: freddo frog (end of day treat), grapes, metcalfe sweet and skinny popcorn pack (74kcal)

What am I doing wrong?? I'm so disheartened, I've stuck to it so well but in 4 weeks I've only lost 3 lbs (didn't lose any this week)

Help!!

But you have lost weight...you have lost 3lbs which is excellent!

Don't eat your exercise calories - there's no need and I can't understand why these apps allow people to do that.

Just stick with your 1200 cals a day and exercise everyday without eating the extra calories and you will lose weight.

I didn't realise how sedantry my life was until I started wearing a polar a300 and I had to do my activety quota. I had been confusing mental exhaustion at the end of the day with physical tiredness. There's a vast difference beteeen the two

agree with Loubilou09, 1lb a week is an excellent achievement and is usually maintainable.

MrsPeely me neither! I also didn't realise how little calories I was burning from just walking...loads of the apps get it completely wrong hence why it's important not to eat the exercise calories.

My average daily calorie burn for my height and weight is sbout 1750. I walked 14,500 steps yesterday and only got an extra 225 calories on my Garmin which I do trust
As it's got a HRM - that's only 1975 for the day. I used to think that walking 7 miles was giving me an additional 600 calories.

Well done on your 3lb loss, you've done brilliant, i agree with Loubilou09 don't eat extra given for exercise. Think this is where I've been going wrong with using mfp

Loubilou09, not stalking you, but also agree about the garmin! I've compared the calorie estimate with Strava, a Samsung health app and a garmin Fenix. The latter is consistently lower than the others, but I'm inclined to believe it as it is recording HR, pace, distance, height etc in real time.

for example, I did a 7.5 mile walk yesterday, Strava estimated 1050 calories, the garmin 540!

ifailed that's interesting! - go with Garmin I think as yes it's got your heart rate to go by and is not averaging by distance alone! It's completely shocked me to be honest but explains A LOT

Endomondo is a classic for getting it wrong and it really annoys me - I have seen people put up a Facebook post showing a screenshot from the app that says they have walked three miles and burnt over 400 calories that's bloody dangerous territory if you ask me...how many people are eating all this extra calories??

I got to various fitness classes and one in particular is very hard core - running, burpees, high kicks, leg lifts, jumping jacks etc - I am breathing hard, sweating and bright red in the face and most of the other attendees who are slim, fit, regular exercisers are having a similar reaction to the class and only then do I burn 450 calories according to the garmin!

I am doing the same as you (1200 cals) but I am more relaxed at the weekend.

I have lost 4lb in two weeks which I am thrilled with. I don't eat my exercise calories though.

You're eating a lot of sugar - Weetabix, raspberries, skimmed milk, cous cous, rice, freddo frog , grapes, metcalfe sweet and skinny popcorn pack - it's all sugar.

Would you try low carb? I was like you until I cut out the sugar and starches.

please don't cut out a food group

or sugar

you ARE losing weight!

Calorie counting is the way to go! HATED low carb. Nothing nicer than a slice of vogel wholemeal and oat bread!!

I'd cut out snacks, you should not need them if you eat 3 decent meals a day. And I have never eaten the exercise owned calories.

If you can, try and eat breakfast later and dinner earlier. My body loses much more weight if I fast for at least 14 hours in 24. So I have breakfast when I arrive at work at 9 and dinner with the kids before 7.

I've gone from a 14 to a 10 following those rules.

Just coming on to say the same as others! Keep going you are losing weight! AND DO NOT EAT EXERCISE CALORIES!!!

You don't say how old you are or what you weigh and what you should weigh but at first glance, your diet does look a little carb heavy.

Yes, you can still lose weight by eating carbs but it'll take a lot longer.

I'm old and have always had to be extra vigilant with my weight otherwise I gain. If I eat more than 1000 calories a day I don't lose weight. Some people would starve on that (lucky things).

It won't take longer eating carbs

A carb calorie is the same as a protein calorie

Why will it take longer to lose weight if you eat carbs?

You lose weight by reducing your calories, the beauty of low carb is that you don't feel as hungry when you are trying to lose weight and naturally lower your calories.

Eating carbs won't make you lose weight slower though

Yes exactly.

I can understand a plate of stir fry veg and eggs is going to keep you fuller than a doughnut, but if you only eat a doughnut for lunch you would still lose weight

Eating carbs WILL make you lose weight slower IF you're insulin resistant which I suspect you are as your sugar intake is quite high.

A carb calorie is the same as a protein calorie - this is 50 shades of wrong.

500 calories from chocolate is NOT the same as 500 calories from broccoli. I suggest you read some science instead of just repeating tired UNPROVEN rhetoric.

^Your gut quickly absorbs the fiber-free sugars in the chocolate as fructose and glucose. The glucose spikes your blood sugar, starting a domino effect of high insulin and a cascade of hormonal responses that kicks bad biochemistry into gear. The high insulin increases storage of belly fat, increases inflammation, raises triglycerides and lowers HDL, and raises blood pressure. Insulin’s effect on brain chemistry increases your appetite. Insulin blocks leptin, your appetite-control hormone. You become more leptin resistant, so the brain never gets the “I’m full” signal. Instead, it thinks you are starving. Your pleasure-based reward center is triggered, driving you to consume more sugar and fueling your addiction.

Those 750 calories of broccoli make up 21 cups and contain 67 grams of fiber. The average person consumes only 10 to 15 grams of fiber a day. Broccoli is 23 percent protein, 9 percent fat, and 68 percent carbs (or 510 calories from carbs). The “sugar” in 21 cups of broccoli is the equivalent of only 1.5 teaspoons; the rest of the carbs are the low-glycemic type found in all non-starchy vegetables, which are very slowly absorbed.

However, you wouldn’t be able to eat 21 cups of broccoli, because it wouldn’t fit in your stomach. Assuming you could, what would happen? A serving that large would contain so much fiber that very few of the calories would actually get absorbed. Those that did would get absorbed very slowly.

There’d be no blood sugar or insulin spike, no fatty liver, and no hormonal chaos. Your stomach would distend (which it doesn’t with soda; bloat from carbonation doesn’t count!), sending signals to your brain that you were full. There would be no triggering of the addiction reward center in the brain.^

If you want to read the entire article:
drhyman.com/blog/2015/02/13/focusing-calories-misses-bigger-picture-weight-health/

I eat carbs. I am losing weight by counting calories.

Low carb is unsustainable for most people in the long term. It's a fad. Like 99% of diet advice.

Not focusing on calories is why so many more people are becoming overweight. So much conflicting advice about eating high fat low carb etc.

Bruffian you are totally wrong. Low carb is not a fad ... Low carb is how we've eaten since man first walked upright. The low fat, low calorie way of eating has only been since the 70s (Google McGovern Report - a diet recommended by politicians and journalists) and look how well that's worked .. obesity is at the highest numbers it's ever been. It is the biggest failed experiment in the history of humanity.

If you eat low calorie eventually your metabolism will slow down. It's not my opinion, it's science, proven science. Google biggest loser reunion.

Having lost 8 stone 3 years ago and kept it off being 100% low carb I think I'm in a position to speak about it's virtues. Oh and I eat about 2000 calories a day, 70% of which is pure fabulous FAT.

Auchan you are arguing but actually saying more or less the same thing as Brufian.

When you low carb, you naturally lower your hunger and desire for food - generally sugary food which is high in calories. Yes I get the insulin response yada yada but essentially a low carb diet reduces calories.

I am an advocate of low carb, a total believe in all it's health benefits but at the end of the day, it is reduced calorie intake that reduces weight - you ARE effectively saying the same thing but getting yourself bent out of shape trying not to.

If you read pig to twig and anything from Michael Moseley they effectively say the same.

No a low carb diet doesn't reduce calories. As I said already I'm still eating between 1500 and 2000 calories a day. That's not low calorie unless I'm a 27 stone weightlifter (Spoiler - I'm not)

The difference is the metabolic effect of those calories. 200 calories of sugar causes a shit storm between insulin, the pancreas and the liver trying to deal with the high blood sugar. I don't eat carbs ergo don't get massive blood sugar spikes. My body takes the fat and burns it as ketone fuel, any glucose needed is made by my liver from my dietary and stored fat and proteins by a process known as gluconeogenesis. Fat, being more difficult to digest than carbs, keeps my metabolism high by the sheer effort of digesting it.

Think of it like this - if you earn 10k a year and spend 10k a year then get a pay cut of 5k you don't still continue to spend 10k (if you're smart). The body is exactly the same. It's goal is to keep you alive for as long as possible. Yes you will lose weight initially but two things will happen. Your metabolism slows so that you can only eat 800 calories a day (or whatever number you eat) otherwise you will regain and it can take years to recover if it does at all. Secondly your body will push your leptin levels up so that hunger eventually drives you to eat and you regain. Low calorie eating is not sustainable long term. Short term results don't equal long term health.

Slimming World and Weight Watchers are great examples of this. They make a huge amount of money from this cycle. Oprah Winfrey is a prime candidate for this merry go round. Her weight has fluctuated wildly for years because calorie counting and or low fat diets are unsustainable at best, hugely damaging to health at worst.

1500 - 2000 calories a days is by no means high calorie though. It is a perfect maintenance calorie intake for a woman. By eating low carb/high fat you can keep your calorie intake at this level without being hungry.

Low carb/high fat keeps you satisfied for longer and lowers calories .

If you were to eat 3,000 calories a day of low carb/high fat you would put on weight, no two ways about it.

I'm at these reports of horribly inaccurate calorie burns estimated by these apps! Before I got a FitBit I used to use Map My Walk, I've just looked on my Dashboard from that and the last walk I logged was over 10 miles and estimates 700 calories - 1000 calories from a 7 mile walk is madness! As you say, very dangerous indeed.

FWIW I never found that low carb = low calorie: if anything that's the danger of it, it's very high in calories from fat so if you "cheat", or ditch the diet but have become accustomed to huge portions of butter and full fat cream so keep eating them alongside carbs, you'll pile it on. The low calorie brainwashing is so intense that I think a lot of people take a while to not freak out about how many calories they are consuming on a low carb diet.