Can't lose weight on 1500 calorie diet

[crosswise]

@montexss No to all of it. It's as bare bones as you can imagine.

 

[elliott527]

@crosswise I have terrible ADHD , I usually need to read things twice for better understanding . I did not read this twice . From what I read , and from what my nutrition said if you ever truly go below the recommended minimum calorie intake your body may start losing muscle in certain situations. I would say talk to your doctor and a nutritionist. Get a scale. Meal prep. Get a food diary app and a fitness watch. Log everything before you eat it. It makes it much easier to do cal in vs cal out. If I have a day with a lot of coffee creamer I can take in over 500 cal just with coffee creamer.
I in fact was eating below the recommended wt was walking 10000 steps a day and stopped losing wt. I had to increase my exercise. I have a hormonal imbalance and apparently fluid retention. With these two issues I had to change what I was eating.
So while I agree calorie intake vs burned is the norm. Go see your Dr and discuss this with him if you are 100% positive you are logging things accurately.
I have learned so much from this group & gotten so much inspiration but at the end of the day if things aren’t adding up go see your doctor and a nutritionist.
I got a trainer. That’s a whole different discussion. If you get a trainer be careful. Anyone can say they are a trainer. Good luck to you and don’t get discouraged. Keep at it

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@crosswise I've been through similar, and I know you will staunchly get replies of "CICO" and "you're obviously doing it wrong", it's very frustrating!

I found Herman Pontzer's book "burn" quite enlightening. The gist of it is, yes CICO matters, but your CICO needs can adapt, and your body will always figure out a way to survive on the calories you give it. I think this is what people refer to as "starvation mode", but it's really just metabolic adaptation. It is strange that is started right away for you though, not after a period of time.

The next thing you might want to look into is caloric availability. Your body cannot extract all the calories from the food you eat. Think of sweetcorn - you might eat 100 calories of the stuff, but you definitely know a proportion of that isn't digested, as the evidence is visible. Consider how you could adjust the foods you eat to suit. 100 calories of nuts and 100 calories of chocolate are not the same.

The one final thing that can be worth considering is underlying issues, like gut health, nutrient deficiencies etc. I struggled with weight loss on a very restrictive diet, but discovered vitamin D deficiency and thyroid antibodies. When I started trying to address them, the weight started shifting on the same diet as previously.

 

[itrm]

@iamacountnotasaint

100 calories of nuts and 100 calories of chocolate are not the same.

Pontzer is a strong proponent of dietary CICO and even has a whole passage in Burn about book about how low carb/keto/paloe-type diets that tout enhanced weight loss due to the marconutrient profile have it all wrong.

The ENTIRE thesis of his book is that your body will adjust energy expenditure via downregulation of BMI/NEAT as an adaptation to physical activity/exercise. The discussion of "starvation mode" is used to illustrate this aspect of his research--not that your body enters into "starvation mode" due to a calorie deficit. The discussion occurs in the context of Kevin Hall's follow up research on the contestants in of the World's Biggest Loser" that posits that extreme, sustained levels of activity caused their body to downregulate their BMR/NEAT for so long that it essentially stayed that way, even after they returned to normal activity levels, making it EVEN harder for them to maintain their weight loss (which resulted from a combo of extreme caloric defecit and extreme, unsustainable levels of physical activity).

I'm not saying I agree or disagree w/ Pontzer, but you're mischaracterizing the central idea of the book.

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@itrm I didn't attribute caloric availability to Pontzer, if you wish to read more on it, it's mostly something I've seen covered by Dr Giles Yeo:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/20/giles-yeo-why-calories-dont-count-diet-interview

 

[itrm]

@iamacountnotasaint You referenced starvation mode in the paragraph where you discuss Pontzer, in the sentence immediately after you say what you think the gist of Pontzer's book, is and you describe it as a form of metabolic adaptation--the subject of Burn. Sure seems like you're attributing it to Pontzer. But thanks for clarifying.

In any case, I looked at the Yeo article you linked and not sure how any of that is applicable to OP who says he is eating lean chicken meat, rice and olive oil. You really think that his body is struggling to metabolize this simple three ingredient diet?

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@itrm I said metabolic adaptation seems to be what people are talking about when they cite "starvation mode", I didn't say it was Pontzer's term.

Caloric availability is about swapping your foods for less calorically available alternatives. It has nothing to do with how well/poorly OP metabolises the foods he currently eats, it's about swapping some of those e.g. rice calories for veggie calories, because your body absorbs them differently.

 

[itrm]

@iamacountnotasaint

Dr Giles Yeo:

Why would OP want to swap out the rice for the caloric equivalent in veggies? Won't that make the glucose/carbohydrate he's getting out of the food even "less available"? He's not getting the carbs from any other source. Or do you think that the rice in his super simple, whole food-based diet, is the source of his woes?

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@itrm

Won't that make the glucose/carbohydrate he's getting out of the food even "less available"?

That's the point. I also didn't say it was the source of his woes, merely suggested he might like to read into it and see about some swaps to see if it makes any difference.

 

[itrm]

@iamacountnotasaint If OP swapped out rice for veggies, he would effectively be on a zero carb diet, leaving his fat intake as his only energy macro. There are many reasons why this is less than ideal, especially if you're still training and trying not to lose muscle in a calorie deficit.

I'm curious, would you recommend that he try swapping out his fat intake (olive oil) for veggies, leaving carbs as his only energy source to "see if it makes any difference"?

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@itrm Again you've misread what I said. Key words:

swapping some of those e.g. rice

Veggies aren't carb free, I didn't say all, and I merely tried to clear up your confusion with an example.

 

[crosswise]

@iamacountnotasaint "I've been through similar, and I know you will staunchly get replies of "CICO" and "you're obviously doing it wrong", it's very frustrating!" - oh yes, I know.... which is why I am trying in this sub.

"100 calories of nuts and 100 calories of chocolate are not the same." - yea, that's what I am thinking as well... The CICO crowd will always point to the guy that lost weight by eating Twinkies, but I believe there is more to it.

"The one final thing that can be worth considering is underlying issues, like gut health, nutrient deficiencies etc. I struggled with weight loss on a very restrictive diet, but discovered vitamin D deficiency and thyroid antibodies. When I started trying to address them, the weight started shifting on the same diet as previously." - yeah, from other replies, I think it's time to go see a doc. Last time I had blood work, it was more than a year ago, but it was for the annual physical, so they don't look for everything other than what can be an immediate threat to your health.

 

[iamacountnotasaint]

@crosswise I mean, I did lose a lot of weight on 1200 calorie diet of exclusively UPF foods, so I don't doubt it's possible to lose weight on Twinkies alone, it's the longer term effect it has on you're body/metabolism that you need to consider.

As well as bloods, maybe consider stool tests too. I discovered a complete lack of a certain bacteria that regulates weight, and higher levels of some more commonly linked with obesity. Studies are starting to point to gut bacteria as being more important for weight loss than we previously realised.

 

[ol1100]

@crosswise How many calories do you burn per day? If you aren’t losing weight, or not at the rate you expect, you need to increase your calories burned and/or decrease your caloric intake.

 

[ecce]

@crosswise I would think you aren’t tracking properly also at 167 at your height you’re probably pretty lean already. I would do a bulk imo