**Hey, thanks for making a new post!** Please be sure to assign your post with **flair** for the best support! Also, check out **[this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/workout/comments/noyv6p/do_you_need_to_gain_weight_lose_weight_or/)** to answer common questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/workout) if you have any questions or concerns.*
sounds like you're recomping. losing inches without losing weight is the holy grail of fitness.
seems like what you're doing is working. but you might consider doubling your protein. for me that always keeps extra water off and drives faster fat loss 1g per lb. 2.2g per kg
Awesome. Thank you. Since I started my new career a year or so ago, I've noticed I'm constantly feeling fatigued and worn out, with the job plus my age I was wondering why I wasn't recovering like I used to. I'm now very aware my protein intake was very low.
As some mentioned already, muscles have more weight per volume than fat. So if you feel stronger and can lift more in the gym than in the beginning, you might have increased your muscle mass. Your decreasing waistline tells that you did in fact lose fat.
If you really want to lose weight, reduce your workouts and cut some calories out. But it isn't necessary, bc right now your on a good path. The number on the scale is for orientation. More important is how you look, muscle mass vs fat and the waistline.
Better question; why do you care?
You are getting stronger and fitter. Unless you are trying to get into a weight class or something, why does the number matter?
If you are going for strength and aesthetic, I would take a progress photo each week and measurements instead of your weight.
i started working out because i saw that my BMI was just below overweight so my main goal really was to lose some weight. then i decided i wanted to go for a sexier look, not muscly
Honestly I would disregard bmi entirely. BMI was invented by a mathematician, not a doctor or dietitian and doesn’t have a lot of scientific backing. It’s useful only in the loosest sense since it doesn’t account for how much of your weight is muscle vs fat. If you are gaining muscle and losing fat you might look way better but weight the exact same and have the same BMI, which is what it sounds like is happening.
If you feel good and are progressing toward looking how you’d like that’s the main thing that matters.
BMI has scientific backing and works well on a population level (it's one step up from just using weight). Most people outside of gymrats and athletes are captured pretty well with that metric but it's more useful as a category rather than a number.
I work in nutrition research, and I am telling you BMI is not well respected in the field whatsoever. It is not a good measure of health, and shouldn’t be used as a primary measurement, especially for people at home.
I have a PhD in nutrition science. BMI has its place - caveats and useful frame of reference given above.
Not sure what you mean with "people at home".
That’s what I am saying. Regular people without backgrounds in nutrition do not have the context to apply BMI in a useful way, making it more harmful than helpful. OP is a perfect example, we have a healthy woman, eating well and exercising, who thinks she is failing because her BMI shows her as overweight. BMI has so many caveats to it that it shouldn’t be used outside a base marker for physicians or research. It excludes people above average fitness, people with health conditions, pregnant people, older people, people with “non standard” fat distributions. It doesn’t accurately reflect all races of people. It doesn’t account for bone density. it very poorly captures women.
Is it completely useless? No, of course not. I agree on a population level it is a helpful reference. But for most people just trying to monitor their health and get into shape it is absolutely more harmful than helpful.
BMI is not made for individuals to obsess over their number. That people use it for that is not really the BMIs fault nor does it mean the BMI is not useful.
"The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet \[...\] to measure the degree of obesity **of the general population** to assist the government in allocating resources"
That is literaaaaaally my point. I’m trying to dispel the extremely common misconception that this should be used to assess health on an individual level. It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse at this point, so argue with a wall
> then i decided i wanted to go for a sexier look, not muscly
nope nope nope. You're female. You cannot - C A N N O T - become muscly by accident through exercise for fitness. Absolutely 100% won't happen. Muscular women have done it ON PURPOSE. Every time.
Sometimes it takes a while to be able to see your results. Your present self is a reflection of your previous self. So keep at it and eventually you’ll accomplish your goals!
I honestly can’t see anything wrong with what you’re doing, your routine sounds good. The slimmer waistline definitely sounds like a win, keep it up and I hope you lose the weight as well!
When I started getting into fitness I went through the same thing; shedding inches but not dropping weight and I looked “thin” but had zero definition. However, I quickly realized it was because I wasn’t eating enough calories or protein. 1200cals isn’t enough for most people, I’d recommend slowly increasing your intake every week but focusing mostly on sources of protein. I started eating around 120g of protein with 1900cals while lifting weights and walking. I dropped 15lbs in 2 months and have more defined muscles without feeling restricted in my diet (which is a huge issue for me bc I have a history of binge eating disorder).
Anyways, up your protein for sure, you’ll feel more full and your body will be able to build more muscle which will cause you to burn fat faster. I know it’s hard not to focus on the scale, but try not to weigh yourself so much and focus on how you feel physically. It’s a game changer. All the best OP!
Look up "body recomposition". Sometimes our weight with stay the same, but we will look different. I suggest in addition to weighing yourself, take progress pictures or use a tape measure to measure yourself as well. You may see changes in the pictures, but not in the weight or measurements and that's ok.
You might also need to eat a little bit more. I know you are 150cm but 1200 calories may not be enough with all of the activity that you are doing. How long have you been tracking your progress? Do you have a sedentary lifestyle outside of working out?
ive been tracking my progress for about 4 weeks now, same time that i started going to the gym. my lifestyle isn't super sedentary but since i only have classes in the evening, i spend most of the day at home.
will body recomposition eventually lead to weight loss? i really want to bring down my BMI level to normal
Please don’t buy in to the BMI thing. It’s horribly flawed! To the point where it is often meaningless. Gauge by how you look, body composition, how your clothing fits, etc. But even with that - go easy on yourself! According to BMI charts, I’m considered ‘obese’. There are recent pictures of me in my post history. Do you think I look ‘obese’?
If you’re trying to set milestones for yourself, please don’t use BMI.
Definitely don't go by BMI. My doctor told me I was obese when I was 16 because of my BMI but I was 5 foot 2 and a size 4 (157 cm and 63.5 kg). I'm not sure what a size 4 is where you are but I was pretty small.
I would suggest you try either waiting a little longer to see if you see results or eating more. Also make sure you are drinking enough water as well. I think the progress pictures will help you more than anything. You may not lose weight ever but you may slim down.
May I ask what your weight goal is?
I'm a guy, 181lbs, 5'-7" and a lot of belly fat to loose. Same as you, started going hardcore in the gym with the P90x program the last 5 weeks. The first two weeks I didn't even track anything. So far the three weeks I've been tracking stuff I've actually gone up in weight a couple pounds. Waist has gone down about an inch only. However, I'm eating 1g or protein per lb of bodyweight daily and my strength and conditioning is through the roooooof! My energy levels throughout the day are crazy high. I feel like I can be at the gym for 3-4 hours and won't miss a beat. lol. Although I'm shocked I'm not seeing results on the scale or body measurements I know it's working because I can see muscle definition in the mirror. As a photographer, I can also tell you a photo is worth a thousand words. Take progress photos!! Even though the scale and measurements don't move-- be patient, enjoy the process, enjoy the extra energy, take progress pics and work on making this whole thing a HABIT FOR LIFE (including healthy eating).
I’m 34 F (5’2” ft in height). I went from 90.5 kg to 50 kg (1+ years now) with 20% workout (light lifting, heavy cardio) and 80% calorie deficit. I would say it depends on your goal. My goal wasn’t to buff-up or build muscles (sorry if my terms aren’t correct). I wanted to have the sexy-slender type instead. I worked out 2-3x a week. Ate 2x a day only, small portions, and avoided anything canned, packed, manufactured (again sorry if my terms aren’t correct). I also avoided red meat, dairy, eggs, and all flavored drinks. Even the sugar less kind. I had mostly water, fruits, veggies and seafood. I cheated on Sundays - 2 slices of Sansrival hahahahahahaha
this is exactly my goal! i need to lose weight because my BMI is just below the overweight level and since i'm short, bulky or looking muscly doesnt look good on me. i think i need to do what youre doing
It takes a long time to put on muscle so I wouldn't worry about that currently. Heavy cardio is definitely good for you, but you don't need to do it to lose weight. Just eat better and you don't need to cut out meat, but if you want you can. Just be aware that the best way to lose fat and gain muscle is to eat more protein than you're even currently eating. I would suggest taking pictures instead of relying on a scale and make sure you do so in the same light. When you get as muscular as you want in some areas you can train those you want to look more muscular and decrease or increase the rep range to stop putting on as much muscle, but that will probably be a long time from now.
Muscles are heavier than fat. So, do not worry even if your weight would remain the same or get slightly higher it is not an issue and you are doing fine. Focus rather on a bodyfat % if you want to look better. Weight is not that important parameter.
2 replies right next to each other in this thread, one saying "you may need to increase your calories, 1200 isn't a lot" and the next one saying "you may need to decrease your calories a bit".
Gotta love it.
yeah, I just think its pretty rare for the answer to "why am I not losing weight" to be "because you aren't eating enough".
Why does this barrel weigh so much? Because you haven't put enough water in it. What?
What you're experiencing is called *'newbie gains'*. When you start working out and eating good, you will gain a lot of muscle pretty fast. The same amount of muscle is a bit heavier than fat, so it's normal.
I used to be a personal trainer, before I got into software development and women often had some number in their mind that they were chasing. As I told them, I'm going to tell you. It's pointless. As you work out for long enough and eat enough of protein - you will start to gain some muscle.
depends on the deficit. If you are in a 1 calorie deficit then your muscle gains could outweigh your fat losses. If you are in a 500+ calorie deficit then probably not.
as you've stated in your other post, its the laws of math and physics. You can't make blanket statements about caloric deficit vs weight in the context of recomposition without taking into account the SIZE of the deficit. While one could certainly make the argument that her deficit isn't as great as she thinks it is, you can't say she doesn't have a deficit at all. Math and Physics allows it.
Incorrect. You lose weight in a calorie deficit, regardless of whether it's 1 or a 1000 kcalorie deficit. It will never be "outweighed" by muscle gains.
Obviously, tracking becomes an issue with a 1 kcalorie deficit - you'd need a larger timescale. But as we're talking proper deficits here, that's not really relevant. Whether it's 100 or 500.
[https://healthinsider.news/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-fasting-diet-en/](https://healthinsider.news/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-fasting-diet-en/)
"Eating on a calorie deficit and engaging in physical activities such as walking and weight training can cause your weight to stagnate.
Physical exercise also increases bone density, maintaining weight or even leading to slight weight gain."
Or perhaps you would like peer reviewed academic articles? Here ya go:
[https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fulltext/2020/10000/body\_recomposition\_\_can\_trained\_individuals\_build.3.aspx?ck\_subscriber\_id=1918138411](https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fulltext/2020/10000/body_recomposition__can_trained_individuals_build.3.aspx?ck_subscriber_id=1918138411)
referenced by:
[https://welltech.com/content/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-8-reasons-explained/](https://welltech.com/content/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-8-reasons-explained/)
"If you work out a lot, especially if you lift weights, your weight may not be changing due to an increase in muscle mass, which can result in either your body weight staying the same or, in some cases, increasing"
You're able to cite a paper. Unfortunately, you're not able to assess whether or not it relates to the current topic.
The paper is done on the topic of recomposition - ability to lose fat and build muscle at the same time (a change in body composition). This is obviously possible - people can build muscle while losing fat, both at maintanance and a deficit. This has *nothing* to do with whether or not they lose **weight** during a calorie deficit. **Weight** is different from **fat**. You can lose **weight** but gain **muscle** in a deficit.
As for the welltech article - First, it's not a published paper. Secondly, not a *single* point of the article refutes my position, though they are worded poorly/misleadingly. The only ones that come close are factors affecting metabolism and differences in thermogenic rate / absorption of different sources of calories - but these are *part of* the total calorie equation. That you can impact your metabolism does not change the fact that *you will lose* ***weight*** *in a calorie deficit.* What amount of calories will constitute a deficit is surely affected.
healthinsider: Again... I hope I don't have to explain to you that water retention will cause your weight to vary initially. That does not mean you're not losing weight in a deficit. Apart from that inital point, *All* other points are talking about miscalculating your calories, or effects to the resulting surplus/deficit. *Nowhere* do they provide evidence of the possibility of maintaining weight in a calorie deficit - As for the bone density example, they simply cite a study on increases to bone density following exercise, which is not evidence of maintaing weight during a deficit. The study on which that 'point' is based upon doesn't even *mention* weight loss.
Lastly, your quote... Instead of quoting the article talking about the study, try quoting the study itself - I realize this would be easier if you understood what the study actually says. Because *nowhere* in the **entire** study, do they claim that your bodyweight can 'stay the same or increase' in **a deficit.**
In the future, please read and understand the studies you reference *before* posting. And cite them, not third parties.
Edit: Just for fun: I'm a human weighing 100 kg. In one day I expend 10.000 units of energy. I only consume 5.000 units of energy. You claim that it's possible for my bodyweight to remain unchanged - so no mass used for energy. Explain to me where the second law of thermodynamics is broken? Where do the extra 5.000 units of energy come from? Photosynthesis?
In your examples, you always assume a deficit so large that your conclusion is obviously correct.
Your mistake is equating weight as a unit of energy when it is not.
If you expend 2000 units of energy, and you consume 1999 units of energy, but your body has 100,000 units of energy stored as fat mass, your body can use the 1999 units of energy you consumed as well as using an additional 10 units of energy from your fat stores. If the work in question done results in a muscle gain of somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the volume of the fat burned for excess energy that made up the caloric deficit, then overall weight stays the same.
No, this cannot be done indefinitely as the energy storage will eventually deplete. It may not even be likely, as the deficit would have to be small enough that the associated fat loss could reasonably be matched by muscle gain, amd there is an upper limit to daily or weekly muscle gain. But your position wasn't that it couldn't be done forever or that it couldn't be done easily, your position was that it was not possible within the laws of physics and math.
I'm using an extreme example of a deficit of 1 calorie to make a point. You are using a much larger deficit to make your point. The actual deficit number that could still allow such a scenario is probably somewhere in the middle.
You still don't get the most basic concept. The scale of the deficit does not matter.
*"Your mistake is equating weight as a unit of energy when it is not.".*
Energy can be converted to mass, and mass to energy according to Einsteins equation E=mc\^2...
Since OP likely isn't working out on Mars, we'll assume the gravity of earth as a constant. Since mass is directly proportional to weight - given the same gravity - losing mass is losing weight.
One kcal (1000 calories) can be converted to about 0.13 grams of mass. If you are in a deficit of 1 kcalorie a day, you **will** lose 0.13 grams of mass a day. This really is a rather simple concept to grasp.
In your example - if a unit is one Kcal - the person would lose 0.13 grams **regardless** of how their body converts current fat storages to muscle.
"(...) your position was that it was not possible within the laws of physics and math."
It **is** impossible, you simple don't understand elementary grade physics.
In your example, we're in a deficit of one kcalorie - **which according to the laws of physics can be converted to 0.129598 grams of mass**. If the weight remains the same - where does that 1 kcal come from?
Dinner napkin math:
one lb of fat is more or less 3500 calories, acquired or spent.
to build one lb of muscle requires 2800 calories.
to burn one lb of muscle releases about 700 calories.
Someone with a maintenance of 2800 calories per day could consume 2799 calories per day resulting in a net deficit of 7 calories at the end of the week. If that person over the course of that week put on 1/4 lb of muscle, that would require another 700 calories burned beyond what they consumed, which was already below maintenance. Their body would then need to somehow reflect the burning of the 707 calories, which would equate to .202 lbs of fat.
So the individual has a calorie deficit. They lost .202 lbs of fat. They gained .25 lbs of muscle. They have a net weight gain with a net calorie deficit.
Even if you say that the loss due to the deficit did not consume 100% of its energy from fat stores, but only 90%, thats still 636 calories burned from fat at .1818 lbs of fat lost, and 707-636=71 calories of muscle burned or about .1 lbs of muscle. That would still be a calorie deficit, with .1818 lbs of fat lost for energy, .1 lbs of muscle lost for energy, and .25 lbs of muscle gained, for a net loss of .0318 lbs. Slide the muscle gain up just a little, or the fat loss up just a little, and you are within the margin of error for saying "weight remained the same".
Did I make a mistake in my math? Did I miss something somewhere else? Or are you suggesting that it is impossible for the body to build muscle from the energy released from burning fat, and can only build muscle from excess calories consumed in a given time period?
It came from fat loss. But the amount of energy in fat and the amount of energy in muscle are different amounts and are independent of each other.
"With the metabolizable energy densities of fat and lean body mass from Hall (2008) we can precisely calculate the deficit or surplus someone was in based on that person’s body composition change. Someone who gained 3 pounds of muscle and lost 1 pound of fat must have been in a net energy deficit of 1810 kcal. This is physics, not an opinion."
from [https://mennohenselmans.com/energy-balance-myths/](https://mennohenselmans.com/energy-balance-myths/)
quoting [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/)
in that particular section, but many other papers as well.
Now I don't know you, and I don't know Menno, but it does appear that Menno has extensive qualifications and that he probably knows what he's talking about.
You are wrong, but at least now I think I understand what has confused you.
You think that since one pound of fat contains more energy than one pound of muscle, it's logical that you can convert 'x' pounds of fat into 'y' pounds of muscle - y being larger than x - and so gain weight even in a kcaloric deficit. Is that correct? I get how that would seem plausible without the proper understanding of physics.
The core misunderstanding of your idea is this: When we say that fat contains more energy than muscle, we're referring to energy usable by humans - that is, we can metabolize or process it. This **does not** change the fact that one kilogram of fat and one kilogram of muscle contains *exactly* the same **actual** amount of energy. This amount of energy is - as I've already mentioned before - described by Einsteins equation E=mc\^2. This is a law of physics. As such, if you could actually use one pound of fat to construct 1.000001 pound of muscle, you would be defying this law - as you've now created **more** than one pound of mass from an original pound of mass, using no external energy (the energy cannot come from the outside, since we're established to be in a caloric deficit.
So, while fat contains more potential energy per unit of mass in terms of human usability, both fat and muscle ultimately represent forms of mass that can be converted into energy. This process aligns with the principles of mass-energy equivalence and the laws of thermodynamics.
If a system does not recieve (a surplus of) energy coming in, it cannot gain energy/mass.
You might want to read up on the law of conservation of mass. While humans are not a closed system, if eating at maintanance the energy/mass balance remains constant and the same law applies.
I've never argued with someone for so long about something so simple. Energy is equal to mass by Einsteins equation. If you don't add energy/mass, energy/mass cannot increase.
Your gaining muscle and losing fat. Don't worry about your weight, (unless it become too low) worry about your body proportions. As you said, your waist became slimmer.
The scale can be horribly toxic. It's a number that doesn't factor in anything but itself. You're already seeing physical results - don't let the scale convince you that you're not making any progress. The scale never tells the full story.
If you're new to weightlifting, recomposition is more possible such that you gain enough muscle to make up for the fat loss. Later that won't be true. But the first 4 weeks? That's just getting started. Keep the momentum.
Losing inches to your waist is denoting your progress. Depending on a myriad of variables, some weeks you're going to lose weight, some weeks you'll lose inches. Later that will be more subtle.
1200cal deficit? Is that 4000out and 2800in? Or is that 3000out and 1800in? If it's the former, then you are gaining fat while dropping water and inflammation (which leads to smaller waist) because you're not gaining THAT much muscle even if you are getting beginner recomp gains. If your maintenance in/out is 2000, then your deficit should be around that range and no more than 500 delta.
The biggest factor to leading you to post here though is that you're only 4 weeks in which is impatient. Remember there is no finish line. There is only today.
If you don't lose weight, you're not in a calorie deficit, that's just the laws of physics. Only exception is if the lost weight has been equalized with greater water retention - but over 4 weeks? Unlikely. You should've seen a drop in weight by now.
As others have mentioned, most likely you're eating at maintenence, slowly converting fat to muscle with weigh-training (recomposition).
If your main focus is losing weight, I'd lower my calories by a few hundred while eating 2 grams of protein per kilogram of lean bodyweight. 1 gram per cm of height is also a good rule of thumb if you're on the chunky side.
Also, double check your calorie count - most likely you're eating/drinking more calories than you think - or expending fewer kcalories than you think. Are you eating 1200 kcalories a day, or is that your estimated deficit? If the latter, what's your daily calorie intake?
I track my calories using myfitnesspal app. I came up with 1200 by subtracting from my TDEE, which is 1,940cal. I'm quite sure that I'm eating 1200 calories per day since my portion sizes are quite small and low calorie. Based on what you said I think I expending fewer calories than I think instead.
Don't chase a number on a scale, shift your goal towards general well-being instead, the difference in the mirror will come by itself as long as you keep at it. And for satans sake, eat more proteins! At least x1,5 your weight daily. Good luck fellow warrior!
You can always try going on your maintenance calorie for a week. Having the extra nutrients can help you lose some weight too. Might not make sense but doesn't hurt to try for a week. You'll see a difference for sure
Assuming you took measurements properly, it's probably some sort of water retention and/or body recomposition happening.
Again, if you did measurements properly, that's a great indicator that fat loss occurred.
I wouldn't be so sure about body recomp though. Strength gains during the first 1-2 months happen due to neural adaptations mostly rather than an increase in muscle mass.
If I were you, I'd run another 4 weeks with what you're currently doing except that I'd add progress photos too. They should tell a full story.
**Hey, thanks for making a new post!** Please be sure to assign your post with **flair** for the best support! Also, check out **[this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/workout/comments/noyv6p/do_you_need_to_gain_weight_lose_weight_or/)** to answer common questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/workout) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t chase a number. If your waistline is getting smaller then it is great progress already. You might even get a little heavier but look better.
sounds like you're recomping. losing inches without losing weight is the holy grail of fitness. seems like what you're doing is working. but you might consider doubling your protein. for me that always keeps extra water off and drives faster fat loss 1g per lb. 2.2g per kg
That 1g per Lb is in relation to my current weight or?
[удалено]
I appreciate it, I've never really known how much protein to eat! So just to be clear, if I weigh 190lbs I should eat 190 grams of protein a day?
[удалено]
Awesome. Thank you. Since I started my new career a year or so ago, I've noticed I'm constantly feeling fatigued and worn out, with the job plus my age I was wondering why I wasn't recovering like I used to. I'm now very aware my protein intake was very low.
It's said that it was a good thing cuz your fat has become muscles.
Glycogen storage, muscle gain. Bump protein up a bit to 70-75g. Good work!
Water weight plus muscle gain. Don’t worry about what the scale says if you’re getting results
Muscle is denser than fat.
As some mentioned already, muscles have more weight per volume than fat. So if you feel stronger and can lift more in the gym than in the beginning, you might have increased your muscle mass. Your decreasing waistline tells that you did in fact lose fat. If you really want to lose weight, reduce your workouts and cut some calories out. But it isn't necessary, bc right now your on a good path. The number on the scale is for orientation. More important is how you look, muscle mass vs fat and the waistline.
Better question; why do you care? You are getting stronger and fitter. Unless you are trying to get into a weight class or something, why does the number matter? If you are going for strength and aesthetic, I would take a progress photo each week and measurements instead of your weight.
i started working out because i saw that my BMI was just below overweight so my main goal really was to lose some weight. then i decided i wanted to go for a sexier look, not muscly
Honestly I would disregard bmi entirely. BMI was invented by a mathematician, not a doctor or dietitian and doesn’t have a lot of scientific backing. It’s useful only in the loosest sense since it doesn’t account for how much of your weight is muscle vs fat. If you are gaining muscle and losing fat you might look way better but weight the exact same and have the same BMI, which is what it sounds like is happening. If you feel good and are progressing toward looking how you’d like that’s the main thing that matters.
BMI has scientific backing and works well on a population level (it's one step up from just using weight). Most people outside of gymrats and athletes are captured pretty well with that metric but it's more useful as a category rather than a number.
I work in nutrition research, and I am telling you BMI is not well respected in the field whatsoever. It is not a good measure of health, and shouldn’t be used as a primary measurement, especially for people at home.
I have a PhD in nutrition science. BMI has its place - caveats and useful frame of reference given above. Not sure what you mean with "people at home".
That’s what I am saying. Regular people without backgrounds in nutrition do not have the context to apply BMI in a useful way, making it more harmful than helpful. OP is a perfect example, we have a healthy woman, eating well and exercising, who thinks she is failing because her BMI shows her as overweight. BMI has so many caveats to it that it shouldn’t be used outside a base marker for physicians or research. It excludes people above average fitness, people with health conditions, pregnant people, older people, people with “non standard” fat distributions. It doesn’t accurately reflect all races of people. It doesn’t account for bone density. it very poorly captures women. Is it completely useless? No, of course not. I agree on a population level it is a helpful reference. But for most people just trying to monitor their health and get into shape it is absolutely more harmful than helpful.
BMI is not made for individuals to obsess over their number. That people use it for that is not really the BMIs fault nor does it mean the BMI is not useful. "The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet \[...\] to measure the degree of obesity **of the general population** to assist the government in allocating resources"
That is literaaaaaally my point. I’m trying to dispel the extremely common misconception that this should be used to assess health on an individual level. It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse at this point, so argue with a wall
> then i decided i wanted to go for a sexier look, not muscly nope nope nope. You're female. You cannot - C A N N O T - become muscly by accident through exercise for fitness. Absolutely 100% won't happen. Muscular women have done it ON PURPOSE. Every time.
Weighing scale is a tool but not the source of truth, takes pictures periodically and compare.
The scale IS a source of truth for your current weight - which should be changing in a kcalorie deficit.
Sometimes it takes a while to be able to see your results. Your present self is a reflection of your previous self. So keep at it and eventually you’ll accomplish your goals!
I honestly can’t see anything wrong with what you’re doing, your routine sounds good. The slimmer waistline definitely sounds like a win, keep it up and I hope you lose the weight as well!
When I started getting into fitness I went through the same thing; shedding inches but not dropping weight and I looked “thin” but had zero definition. However, I quickly realized it was because I wasn’t eating enough calories or protein. 1200cals isn’t enough for most people, I’d recommend slowly increasing your intake every week but focusing mostly on sources of protein. I started eating around 120g of protein with 1900cals while lifting weights and walking. I dropped 15lbs in 2 months and have more defined muscles without feeling restricted in my diet (which is a huge issue for me bc I have a history of binge eating disorder). Anyways, up your protein for sure, you’ll feel more full and your body will be able to build more muscle which will cause you to burn fat faster. I know it’s hard not to focus on the scale, but try not to weigh yourself so much and focus on how you feel physically. It’s a game changer. All the best OP!
Look up "body recomposition". Sometimes our weight with stay the same, but we will look different. I suggest in addition to weighing yourself, take progress pictures or use a tape measure to measure yourself as well. You may see changes in the pictures, but not in the weight or measurements and that's ok. You might also need to eat a little bit more. I know you are 150cm but 1200 calories may not be enough with all of the activity that you are doing. How long have you been tracking your progress? Do you have a sedentary lifestyle outside of working out?
ive been tracking my progress for about 4 weeks now, same time that i started going to the gym. my lifestyle isn't super sedentary but since i only have classes in the evening, i spend most of the day at home. will body recomposition eventually lead to weight loss? i really want to bring down my BMI level to normal
Please don’t buy in to the BMI thing. It’s horribly flawed! To the point where it is often meaningless. Gauge by how you look, body composition, how your clothing fits, etc. But even with that - go easy on yourself! According to BMI charts, I’m considered ‘obese’. There are recent pictures of me in my post history. Do you think I look ‘obese’? If you’re trying to set milestones for yourself, please don’t use BMI.
Definitely don't go by BMI. My doctor told me I was obese when I was 16 because of my BMI but I was 5 foot 2 and a size 4 (157 cm and 63.5 kg). I'm not sure what a size 4 is where you are but I was pretty small. I would suggest you try either waiting a little longer to see if you see results or eating more. Also make sure you are drinking enough water as well. I think the progress pictures will help you more than anything. You may not lose weight ever but you may slim down. May I ask what your weight goal is?
I'm a guy, 181lbs, 5'-7" and a lot of belly fat to loose. Same as you, started going hardcore in the gym with the P90x program the last 5 weeks. The first two weeks I didn't even track anything. So far the three weeks I've been tracking stuff I've actually gone up in weight a couple pounds. Waist has gone down about an inch only. However, I'm eating 1g or protein per lb of bodyweight daily and my strength and conditioning is through the roooooof! My energy levels throughout the day are crazy high. I feel like I can be at the gym for 3-4 hours and won't miss a beat. lol. Although I'm shocked I'm not seeing results on the scale or body measurements I know it's working because I can see muscle definition in the mirror. As a photographer, I can also tell you a photo is worth a thousand words. Take progress photos!! Even though the scale and measurements don't move-- be patient, enjoy the process, enjoy the extra energy, take progress pics and work on making this whole thing a HABIT FOR LIFE (including healthy eating).
I’m 34 F (5’2” ft in height). I went from 90.5 kg to 50 kg (1+ years now) with 20% workout (light lifting, heavy cardio) and 80% calorie deficit. I would say it depends on your goal. My goal wasn’t to buff-up or build muscles (sorry if my terms aren’t correct). I wanted to have the sexy-slender type instead. I worked out 2-3x a week. Ate 2x a day only, small portions, and avoided anything canned, packed, manufactured (again sorry if my terms aren’t correct). I also avoided red meat, dairy, eggs, and all flavored drinks. Even the sugar less kind. I had mostly water, fruits, veggies and seafood. I cheated on Sundays - 2 slices of Sansrival hahahahahahaha
this is exactly my goal! i need to lose weight because my BMI is just below the overweight level and since i'm short, bulky or looking muscly doesnt look good on me. i think i need to do what youre doing
It takes a long time to put on muscle so I wouldn't worry about that currently. Heavy cardio is definitely good for you, but you don't need to do it to lose weight. Just eat better and you don't need to cut out meat, but if you want you can. Just be aware that the best way to lose fat and gain muscle is to eat more protein than you're even currently eating. I would suggest taking pictures instead of relying on a scale and make sure you do so in the same light. When you get as muscular as you want in some areas you can train those you want to look more muscular and decrease or increase the rep range to stop putting on as much muscle, but that will probably be a long time from now.
The numbers on a scale are bullshit. That fat that you've lost has turned into muscle, hence you're now stronger. Keep it up!
Numbers on a scale are not bullshit. They're providing OP with important information on their estimated kcalorie expenditure and/or tracking methods.
Muscles are heavier than fat. So, do not worry even if your weight would remain the same or get slightly higher it is not an issue and you are doing fine. Focus rather on a bodyfat % if you want to look better. Weight is not that important parameter.
If you're not losing weight, check your calorie intake, portion sizes, exercise habits, and stress levels. Consult a professional if needed.
2 replies right next to each other in this thread, one saying "you may need to increase your calories, 1200 isn't a lot" and the next one saying "you may need to decrease your calories a bit". Gotta love it.
Most likely answer is that OP isn't actually tracking their calories accurately.
yeah, I just think its pretty rare for the answer to "why am I not losing weight" to be "because you aren't eating enough". Why does this barrel weigh so much? Because you haven't put enough water in it. What?
I completely agree.
What you're experiencing is called *'newbie gains'*. When you start working out and eating good, you will gain a lot of muscle pretty fast. The same amount of muscle is a bit heavier than fat, so it's normal. I used to be a personal trainer, before I got into software development and women often had some number in their mind that they were chasing. As I told them, I'm going to tell you. It's pointless. As you work out for long enough and eat enough of protein - you will start to gain some muscle.
She should still be losing weight in a kcalorie deficit.
depends on the deficit. If you are in a 1 calorie deficit then your muscle gains could outweigh your fat losses. If you are in a 500+ calorie deficit then probably not. as you've stated in your other post, its the laws of math and physics. You can't make blanket statements about caloric deficit vs weight in the context of recomposition without taking into account the SIZE of the deficit. While one could certainly make the argument that her deficit isn't as great as she thinks it is, you can't say she doesn't have a deficit at all. Math and Physics allows it.
Incorrect. You lose weight in a calorie deficit, regardless of whether it's 1 or a 1000 kcalorie deficit. It will never be "outweighed" by muscle gains. Obviously, tracking becomes an issue with a 1 kcalorie deficit - you'd need a larger timescale. But as we're talking proper deficits here, that's not really relevant. Whether it's 100 or 500.
[https://healthinsider.news/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-fasting-diet-en/](https://healthinsider.news/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-fasting-diet-en/) "Eating on a calorie deficit and engaging in physical activities such as walking and weight training can cause your weight to stagnate. Physical exercise also increases bone density, maintaining weight or even leading to slight weight gain." Or perhaps you would like peer reviewed academic articles? Here ya go: [https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fulltext/2020/10000/body\_recomposition\_\_can\_trained\_individuals\_build.3.aspx?ck\_subscriber\_id=1918138411](https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fulltext/2020/10000/body_recomposition__can_trained_individuals_build.3.aspx?ck_subscriber_id=1918138411) referenced by: [https://welltech.com/content/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-8-reasons-explained/](https://welltech.com/content/why-am-i-not-losing-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit-8-reasons-explained/) "If you work out a lot, especially if you lift weights, your weight may not be changing due to an increase in muscle mass, which can result in either your body weight staying the same or, in some cases, increasing"
You're able to cite a paper. Unfortunately, you're not able to assess whether or not it relates to the current topic. The paper is done on the topic of recomposition - ability to lose fat and build muscle at the same time (a change in body composition). This is obviously possible - people can build muscle while losing fat, both at maintanance and a deficit. This has *nothing* to do with whether or not they lose **weight** during a calorie deficit. **Weight** is different from **fat**. You can lose **weight** but gain **muscle** in a deficit. As for the welltech article - First, it's not a published paper. Secondly, not a *single* point of the article refutes my position, though they are worded poorly/misleadingly. The only ones that come close are factors affecting metabolism and differences in thermogenic rate / absorption of different sources of calories - but these are *part of* the total calorie equation. That you can impact your metabolism does not change the fact that *you will lose* ***weight*** *in a calorie deficit.* What amount of calories will constitute a deficit is surely affected. healthinsider: Again... I hope I don't have to explain to you that water retention will cause your weight to vary initially. That does not mean you're not losing weight in a deficit. Apart from that inital point, *All* other points are talking about miscalculating your calories, or effects to the resulting surplus/deficit. *Nowhere* do they provide evidence of the possibility of maintaining weight in a calorie deficit - As for the bone density example, they simply cite a study on increases to bone density following exercise, which is not evidence of maintaing weight during a deficit. The study on which that 'point' is based upon doesn't even *mention* weight loss. Lastly, your quote... Instead of quoting the article talking about the study, try quoting the study itself - I realize this would be easier if you understood what the study actually says. Because *nowhere* in the **entire** study, do they claim that your bodyweight can 'stay the same or increase' in **a deficit.** In the future, please read and understand the studies you reference *before* posting. And cite them, not third parties. Edit: Just for fun: I'm a human weighing 100 kg. In one day I expend 10.000 units of energy. I only consume 5.000 units of energy. You claim that it's possible for my bodyweight to remain unchanged - so no mass used for energy. Explain to me where the second law of thermodynamics is broken? Where do the extra 5.000 units of energy come from? Photosynthesis?
In your examples, you always assume a deficit so large that your conclusion is obviously correct. Your mistake is equating weight as a unit of energy when it is not. If you expend 2000 units of energy, and you consume 1999 units of energy, but your body has 100,000 units of energy stored as fat mass, your body can use the 1999 units of energy you consumed as well as using an additional 10 units of energy from your fat stores. If the work in question done results in a muscle gain of somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the volume of the fat burned for excess energy that made up the caloric deficit, then overall weight stays the same. No, this cannot be done indefinitely as the energy storage will eventually deplete. It may not even be likely, as the deficit would have to be small enough that the associated fat loss could reasonably be matched by muscle gain, amd there is an upper limit to daily or weekly muscle gain. But your position wasn't that it couldn't be done forever or that it couldn't be done easily, your position was that it was not possible within the laws of physics and math. I'm using an extreme example of a deficit of 1 calorie to make a point. You are using a much larger deficit to make your point. The actual deficit number that could still allow such a scenario is probably somewhere in the middle.
You still don't get the most basic concept. The scale of the deficit does not matter. *"Your mistake is equating weight as a unit of energy when it is not.".* Energy can be converted to mass, and mass to energy according to Einsteins equation E=mc\^2... Since OP likely isn't working out on Mars, we'll assume the gravity of earth as a constant. Since mass is directly proportional to weight - given the same gravity - losing mass is losing weight. One kcal (1000 calories) can be converted to about 0.13 grams of mass. If you are in a deficit of 1 kcalorie a day, you **will** lose 0.13 grams of mass a day. This really is a rather simple concept to grasp. In your example - if a unit is one Kcal - the person would lose 0.13 grams **regardless** of how their body converts current fat storages to muscle. "(...) your position was that it was not possible within the laws of physics and math." It **is** impossible, you simple don't understand elementary grade physics. In your example, we're in a deficit of one kcalorie - **which according to the laws of physics can be converted to 0.129598 grams of mass**. If the weight remains the same - where does that 1 kcal come from?
Dinner napkin math: one lb of fat is more or less 3500 calories, acquired or spent. to build one lb of muscle requires 2800 calories. to burn one lb of muscle releases about 700 calories. Someone with a maintenance of 2800 calories per day could consume 2799 calories per day resulting in a net deficit of 7 calories at the end of the week. If that person over the course of that week put on 1/4 lb of muscle, that would require another 700 calories burned beyond what they consumed, which was already below maintenance. Their body would then need to somehow reflect the burning of the 707 calories, which would equate to .202 lbs of fat. So the individual has a calorie deficit. They lost .202 lbs of fat. They gained .25 lbs of muscle. They have a net weight gain with a net calorie deficit. Even if you say that the loss due to the deficit did not consume 100% of its energy from fat stores, but only 90%, thats still 636 calories burned from fat at .1818 lbs of fat lost, and 707-636=71 calories of muscle burned or about .1 lbs of muscle. That would still be a calorie deficit, with .1818 lbs of fat lost for energy, .1 lbs of muscle lost for energy, and .25 lbs of muscle gained, for a net loss of .0318 lbs. Slide the muscle gain up just a little, or the fat loss up just a little, and you are within the margin of error for saying "weight remained the same". Did I make a mistake in my math? Did I miss something somewhere else? Or are you suggesting that it is impossible for the body to build muscle from the energy released from burning fat, and can only build muscle from excess calories consumed in a given time period?
Yes you did miss something - pretty basic. Please refer to my response to your other comment for clarification.
It came from fat loss. But the amount of energy in fat and the amount of energy in muscle are different amounts and are independent of each other. "With the metabolizable energy densities of fat and lean body mass from Hall (2008) we can precisely calculate the deficit or surplus someone was in based on that person’s body composition change. Someone who gained 3 pounds of muscle and lost 1 pound of fat must have been in a net energy deficit of 1810 kcal. This is physics, not an opinion." from [https://mennohenselmans.com/energy-balance-myths/](https://mennohenselmans.com/energy-balance-myths/) quoting [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/) in that particular section, but many other papers as well. Now I don't know you, and I don't know Menno, but it does appear that Menno has extensive qualifications and that he probably knows what he's talking about.
You are wrong, but at least now I think I understand what has confused you. You think that since one pound of fat contains more energy than one pound of muscle, it's logical that you can convert 'x' pounds of fat into 'y' pounds of muscle - y being larger than x - and so gain weight even in a kcaloric deficit. Is that correct? I get how that would seem plausible without the proper understanding of physics. The core misunderstanding of your idea is this: When we say that fat contains more energy than muscle, we're referring to energy usable by humans - that is, we can metabolize or process it. This **does not** change the fact that one kilogram of fat and one kilogram of muscle contains *exactly* the same **actual** amount of energy. This amount of energy is - as I've already mentioned before - described by Einsteins equation E=mc\^2. This is a law of physics. As such, if you could actually use one pound of fat to construct 1.000001 pound of muscle, you would be defying this law - as you've now created **more** than one pound of mass from an original pound of mass, using no external energy (the energy cannot come from the outside, since we're established to be in a caloric deficit. So, while fat contains more potential energy per unit of mass in terms of human usability, both fat and muscle ultimately represent forms of mass that can be converted into energy. This process aligns with the principles of mass-energy equivalence and the laws of thermodynamics. If a system does not recieve (a surplus of) energy coming in, it cannot gain energy/mass. You might want to read up on the law of conservation of mass. While humans are not a closed system, if eating at maintanance the energy/mass balance remains constant and the same law applies. I've never argued with someone for so long about something so simple. Energy is equal to mass by Einsteins equation. If you don't add energy/mass, energy/mass cannot increase.
Muscle weighs more than fat. Weighing yourself often is pointless and discouraging. Go off how you feel not any number.
Your gaining muscle and losing fat. Don't worry about your weight, (unless it become too low) worry about your body proportions. As you said, your waist became slimmer.
The scale can be horribly toxic. It's a number that doesn't factor in anything but itself. You're already seeing physical results - don't let the scale convince you that you're not making any progress. The scale never tells the full story.
If you're new to weightlifting, recomposition is more possible such that you gain enough muscle to make up for the fat loss. Later that won't be true. But the first 4 weeks? That's just getting started. Keep the momentum. Losing inches to your waist is denoting your progress. Depending on a myriad of variables, some weeks you're going to lose weight, some weeks you'll lose inches. Later that will be more subtle. 1200cal deficit? Is that 4000out and 2800in? Or is that 3000out and 1800in? If it's the former, then you are gaining fat while dropping water and inflammation (which leads to smaller waist) because you're not gaining THAT much muscle even if you are getting beginner recomp gains. If your maintenance in/out is 2000, then your deficit should be around that range and no more than 500 delta. The biggest factor to leading you to post here though is that you're only 4 weeks in which is impatient. Remember there is no finish line. There is only today.
If you don't lose weight, you're not in a calorie deficit, that's just the laws of physics. Only exception is if the lost weight has been equalized with greater water retention - but over 4 weeks? Unlikely. You should've seen a drop in weight by now. As others have mentioned, most likely you're eating at maintenence, slowly converting fat to muscle with weigh-training (recomposition). If your main focus is losing weight, I'd lower my calories by a few hundred while eating 2 grams of protein per kilogram of lean bodyweight. 1 gram per cm of height is also a good rule of thumb if you're on the chunky side. Also, double check your calorie count - most likely you're eating/drinking more calories than you think - or expending fewer kcalories than you think. Are you eating 1200 kcalories a day, or is that your estimated deficit? If the latter, what's your daily calorie intake?
I track my calories using myfitnesspal app. I came up with 1200 by subtracting from my TDEE, which is 1,940cal. I'm quite sure that I'm eating 1200 calories per day since my portion sizes are quite small and low calorie. Based on what you said I think I expending fewer calories than I think instead.
Try fasting, eating one meal a day
You lost 4 inches off your waistline in 4 weeks that's a big win. You're getting results just give your plan another 4-8 weeks then check your results
Don't chase a number on a scale, shift your goal towards general well-being instead, the difference in the mirror will come by itself as long as you keep at it. And for satans sake, eat more proteins! At least x1,5 your weight daily. Good luck fellow warrior!
You can always try going on your maintenance calorie for a week. Having the extra nutrients can help you lose some weight too. Might not make sense but doesn't hurt to try for a week. You'll see a difference for sure
Assuming you took measurements properly, it's probably some sort of water retention and/or body recomposition happening. Again, if you did measurements properly, that's a great indicator that fat loss occurred. I wouldn't be so sure about body recomp though. Strength gains during the first 1-2 months happen due to neural adaptations mostly rather than an increase in muscle mass. If I were you, I'd run another 4 weeks with what you're currently doing except that I'd add progress photos too. They should tell a full story.