# Am I eating too little?



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

6.1
35
197 lbs 

Sedentary job
8000 steps a day 
4 hard gym sessions a week 
Spinning 3 x a week 
Uphill treadmill 3 x a week 

Cycle

Test 125mg
Tren 300mg
Var 100mg

Cals 2100 

230g protein (all natural. No shakes or bars)
55g fat
165 carbs 

Fats and carbs are all clean other than 120g of low cal vegan ice cream I have daily at 150 cals.

I can’t seem to get lower than 195.

I don’t know what’s going on man.


----------



## Oioi (Jul 25, 2016)

Are you bulking or cutting? Cutting I presume surly?


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

Oioi said:


> Are you bulking or cutting? Cutting I presume surly?


Yes. This is the loosing weight section so I wasn’t sure I had to add that.

I go up in cals and same thing. No weight loss.

I weigh all good track via MFP


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

If you have plateaued, you need to eat less or move more.

if you have been cutting a long time you might need a refeed day to get your metabolism going again (add a couple hundred grams of carbs)


----------



## andew10102 (Jan 10, 2022)

spinning? what the actual fook?


----------



## comp07974 (Dec 12, 2012)

I had a refeed day once a week where I basically had a cheat meal and continued to lose right up until the end of my cut. Makes sense to kick start your metabolism in my opinion.


----------



## PaulNe (Oct 29, 2020)

andew10102 said:


> spinning? what the actual fook?


Cotton candy mate. Full of sugar. No wonder the lad isn't losing weight


----------



## andew10102 (Jan 10, 2022)

PaulNe said:


> Cotton candy mate. Full of sugar. No wonder the lad isn't losing weight


I just looked at the dosages....guy must be dizzy


----------



## Djibril (Aug 14, 2009)

comp07974 said:


> I had a refeed day once a week where I basically had a cheat meal and continued to lose right up until the end of my cut. Makes sense to kick start your metabolism in my opinion.


I believe its been debunked, mentally they help for sure, but other then that, not really.

OP if you have a long way to go regarding your fat loss and you have been dieting a long time already, go back to maintenance calories for a week ( you could do a deload in your training if its been a while too to drop fatigue levels) then drop your calories again, if the scale doesnt move for a couple of weeks and you are not getting leaner while mantaining your weight, you have to drop the calories even more.

I personally like going aggresive with my cuts to get in and out fast so i would just drop the calories even more. The spinning aint helping your recovery at such low calories but you have a good amount of gear to hold on your muscle so if you really like that type of cardio, just keep at it.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

I'd expect you to still be losing weight consistently at 2,100 calories and that activity level.

Could it be that you're not tracking completely accurately e.g. not including sauces, cooking oils and so on?

Or have you recently adjusted your cycle/doses? Adding in the Anavar would probably cause a little shift in body weight.

How long have you stalled for and what's your median weight looked like each week during that time?


----------



## B88F (Mar 22, 2021)

Have you had your thyroid checked? You should still be losing weight at that, so unless you've got your maths wrong, i'd say there is something else going on with your body!


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Volta87 said:


> 6.1
> 35
> 197 lbs
> 
> ...


What are your goals?


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Volta87 said:


> Yes. This is the loosing weight section so I wasn’t sure I had to add that.
> 
> I go up in cals and same thing. No weight loss.
> 
> I weigh all good track via MFP


Well going up in calories won't make you lose weight.

As others have said, make a change. Eat less, move more.

What kind of cardio are you doing?


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

All natural’ protein but on test, tren and oxandrolone.

Don’t forget the ‘clean’ fats and carbs. 😅

How are protein shakes not natural you nugget.

do youput your carbs through the dishwasher before eating them?

this is an insight into how this guy isn’t losing weight. He’s clearly not doing what he thinks he is.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

So many experts on this thread and yet so little practical advice 🤦 

Take a read of this Re-Feed & Re-Lose if you've been dieting for a while it may explain your stall

My approach to weightloss is 8 weeks in deficit followed by 4 weeks at maintenance. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Uptonogood said:


> So many experts on this thread and yet so little practical advice 🤦
> 
> Take a read of this Re-Feed & Re-Lose if you've been dieting for a while it may explain your stall
> 
> My approach to weightloss is 8 weeks in deficit followed by 4 weeks at maintenance. Rinse and repeat.


Hard to give advice with so little info though.
Solid approach.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

What’s his BMR? Eat less than that = lose weight

not really that difficult. The guys here looking for excuses


----------



## Brian Multigym (Oct 2, 2021)

andew10102 said:


> spinning? what the actual fook?


I gather from reading the odd health magazine - It's a term for exercising on a static bike - "spinning" the wheel.


----------



## Protek5 (Apr 19, 2021)

As it's been mentioned previously you need to be tracking everything which you eat and any cooking oils, sauces etc. If your total calories include these then simply drop your total calorie intake for the day further? Say 100 calories then weigh yourself a week from now see how you get on.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

You fellas are harsh. To be fair, I’d be confused if I knew I was tracking accurately and wasn’t losing weight at that body weight/activity level. Just waiting for him to confirm if he’s definitely tracking everything and if he’s recently introduced new drugs of changed doses. That could well be it. I don’t think I’d fancy dropping calories much lower than 2,100. I’d rather add in some extra cardio/bump up daily steps to say 11-12,000 to see if that gets things moving again.


----------



## andew10102 (Jan 10, 2022)

Brian Multigym said:


> I gather from reading the odd health magazine - It's a term for exercising on a static bike - "spinning" the wheel.


I'm not "with it" anymore lol. 
I do spinning but on an actual bike....with head wind and everything


----------



## Alex12340 (Mar 22, 2021)

andew10102 said:


> I'm not "with it" anymore lol.
> I do spinning but on an actual bike....with head wind and everything


I believe hes reffering to a spin bike (the fancy ones in a gym) rather than a normal cardio bike you’d find


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

Some absolutely ridiculous comments in here. Sad to see really when I’m just asking for some advice. Instead you’re littered with abuse and assumptions.

I weigh and track everything that I eat to the grain other than oil. I don’t add oil it’s no more than 20 calls a day of spray oil. I also don’t add the 2 slashes of milk to morning tea

The flour and milk was for a quick parsley sauce I knocked up. I’m not saying it’s an ibbf diet. The overall macros are decent. 

Bare in mind I’m 6.1. Most trackers have me eating 2300/2600 to lose 1lbs a week.


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

DLTBB said:


> You fellas are harsh. To be fair, I’d be confused if I knew I was tracking accurately and wasn’t losing weight at that body weight/activity level. Just waiting for him to confirm if he’s definitely tracking everything and if he’s recently introduced new drugs of changed doses. That could well be it. I don’t think I’d fancy dropping calories much lower than 2,100. I’d rather add in some extra cardio/bump up daily steps to say 11-12,000 to see if that gets things moving again.



thanks for a sensible reply mate.

I assumed 8k steps and daily cardio was ok tbh 😂


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Volta87 said:


> thanks for a sensible reply mate.
> 
> I assumed 8k steps and daily cardio was ok tbh 😂


It is ok for sure but if your weight loss has stalled completely and you’re confident you’re tracking your calories accurately, the only real options you have other than drugs are reducing calories consumed or increasing calories burned. 2100 is already on the lower end so I’d look at burning a little more before dropping them further personally. Your call though.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

DLTBB said:


> It is ok for sure but if your weight loss has stalled completely and you’re confident you’re tracking your calories accurately, the only real options you have other than drugs are reducing calories consumed or increasing calories burned. 2100 is already on the lower end so I’d look at burning a little more before dropping them further personally. Your call though.


Not wishing to poo-poo on your clearly extensive experience but depending how long he's been dieting increasing the energy deficit via restriction or expenditure in this case may not be the best idea. If he's already been restricting for a prolonged period he may be best off taking a diet break, allowing his hormonal functions to reset and then enter deficit again. 

Dropping calories too far causes issues with micronutrient quota, hormone production, energy availability and ultimately makes managing rebound harder. Not a fan personally.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

The stats just don’t add up. There’s no way you won’t be losing at 2100 calories at 6’1 with that much training.

his BMR is probably around 2600-3000 with exercise taken into account.

he’s looking for excuses.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> The stats just don’t add up. There’s no way you won’t be losing at 2100 calories at 6’1 with that much training.
> 
> his BMR is probably around 2600-3000 with exercise taken into account.
> 
> he’s looking for excuses.


Unfortunately the human body doesn't work like that. It's not a combustion engine. It adapts to whatevers thrown at it by reducing BME & TDEE via methods that aren't always immediately obvious. Diet breaks are a recommend tool for good reason.

Also speaking of micro-nutrients; can't say for certain from looking at diet as that's only 2 days worth of food but if that is typical I would suggest you are probably deficient in a few areas which won't help with fat loss


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> Unfortunately the human body doesn't work like that. It's not a combustion engine. It adapts to whatevers thrown at it by reducing BME & TDEE via methods that aren't always immediately obvious. Diet breaks are a recommend tool for good reason.
> 
> Also speaking of micro-nutrients; can't say for certain from looking at diet as that's only 2 days worth of food but if that is typical I would suggest you are probably deficient in a few areas which won't help with fat loss


well he’s breaking the laws of thermodynamics then(impossible).

ive cut multiple times. I’ve always been strictly in a deficit and I’ve even lost 20+ kilos without going to the gym or doing cardio at all.

like usual, the guys either lying to himself and/or trying to find excuses. Not having enough vitamin d isn’t stopping him from losing weight.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> well he’s breaking the laws of thermodynamics dynamics then(impossible).
> 
> ive cut multiple times. I’ve always been strictly in a deficit and I’ve even lost 20+ kilos without going to the gym or doing cardio at all.
> 
> like usual, the guys either lying to himself and/or trying to find excuses. Not having enough vitamin d isn’t stopping him from losing weight.


Behave yourself, you damn fool. 

No-one can break the laws of thermodynamics. However the body can, will and does adjust its energy output based on the energy coming in - either by reducing NEAT, reducing intensity/expenditure during EAT (not always noticable as can happen slowly over a protracted period) or via hormonal shifts/slowing of other bodily processes/increasing efficiency of some bodily processes - this is all very well documented. 

Due to genetic variances some are more prone to this than others - you clearly are very lucky and are genetically able to lose fat easily. This isn't the same for everyone. Our bodies work in very different manners - there's a guy on here I speak to alot - he is 20kg+ heavier than me, 3% or so leaner and maintains on 2100kcals. I maintain on 4500kcals. Genetic and environmental variance is a huge factor. Don't go banging on about thermodynamics when you don't understand the inputs that influence the outputs 🤦

The guys come on asking for help, so help point him in the right direction. Don't be a shit **** about it.


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

Why I even bothered il never know.
Thanks for the help to those that managed to not be a presumptions fool.

Il up cardio and lower cals to 2050 and see if it helps.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> Behave yourself, you damn fool.
> 
> No-one can break the laws of thermodynamics. However the body can, will and does adjust its energy output based on the energy coming in - either by reducing NEAT, reducing intensity/expenditure during EAT (not always noticable as can happen slowly over a protracted period) or via hormonal shifts/slowing of other bodily processes/increasing efficiency of some bodily processes - this is all very well documented.
> 
> ...


you maintain on more because you burn more calories mate, simple as that.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Volta87 said:


> Why I even bothered il never know.
> Thanks for the help to those that managed to not be a presumptions fool.
> 
> Il up cardio and lower cals to 2050 and see if it helps.


Whats your bmr? How long have you been in a deficit for?

cutting calories by 50 is going to do sweet F A.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> you maintain on more because you burn more calories mate, simple as that.





JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> you maintain on more because you burn more calories mate, simple as that.


This is like talking to a brick wall with severe learning difficulties 🤦 

Yeah of course I maintain on more because I burn more - that's not the point.

Infact I can't even be arsed to try and explain it to you. I've posted links that show how the body reduces TDEE during prolonged diets, there's sufficient evidence that diet breaks are a key tool that most benefit from for effective dieting, I really can't be bothered doing any more leg work for you - Its OP I'm trying to help, not you 😂


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> This is like talking to a brick wall with severe learning difficulties 🤦
> 
> Yeah of course I maintain on more because I burn more - that's not the point.
> 
> Infact I can't even be arsed to try and explain it to you. I've posted links that show how the body reduces TDEE during prolonged diets, there's sufficient evidence that diet breaks are a key tool that most benefit from for effective dieting, I really can't be bothered doing any more leg work for you - Its OP I'm trying to help, not you 😂


That is the point. Calories in v calories out. OP isn’t burning enough calories, is he. It’s fvcking simple as that.

As you lose weight, your BMR goes down. Yes, well done einstein.

I’ve lost weight multiple times successfully. Shut the Fvck up thinking you’re a clever fvcker saying people have learning difficulties. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

you don’t even know his BMR or how long he’s been on a diet for you nugget.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

The guys BMR(no activity taken into account) is around 2000 calories.

he’s taking a relatively large amount of steroids.

Ever thought he’s losing fat and maintaining muscle, therefore not dropping on the scale?

micronutrients and long term dieting aren’t going to cancel out a 500+ calorie deficit.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> This is like talking to a brick wall with severe learning difficulties 🤦
> 
> Yeah of course I maintain on more because I burn more - that's not the point.
> 
> Infact I can't even be arsed to try and explain it to you. I've posted links that show how the body reduces TDEE during prolonged diets, there's sufficient evidence that diet breaks are a key tool that most benefit from for effective dieting, I really can't be bothered doing any more leg work for you - Its OP I'm trying to help, not you 😂


taking a break from dieting doesn’t do anything for your BMR either. Apart from raising it due to weight gain.


----------



## hmgs (Jul 25, 2013)

Volta87 said:


> up cardio


It’s all about energy systems; You’re probably going too hard at the cardio - ease up & try to keep to the lower end of the blue zone/zone 2… burn the fat and keep the glycogen for lifting.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

hmgs said:


> It’s all about energy systems; You’re probably going too hard at the cardio - ease up & try to keep to the lower end of the blue zone/zone 2… burn the fat and keep the glycogen for lifting.
> View attachment 216051


hes just eating cake in his sleep 😴


----------



## Robbie1981 (Dec 21, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> What’s his BMR? Eat less than that = lose weight
> 
> not really that difficult. The guys here looking for excuses


where has he made any form of excuses? He’s come on asking for help as he has stalled or plateaued, you really do offer fck all to this community


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> Whats your bmr? How long have you been in a deficit for?
> 
> cutting calories by 50 is going to do sweet F A.


I decided to carb up to maintenance last night. Ate a pos nutritional wise GU cake (sheer heaven) and had 200 calls of extra chicken

woke up and down 2lbs to 195

the body isn’t half weird.


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> That is the point. Calories in v calories out. OP isn’t burning enough calories, is he. It’s fvcking simple as that.
> 
> As you lose weight, your BMR goes down. Yes, well done einstein.
> 
> ...



see my post above. This isn’t true. I went to maintenance and dropped two ****ing lbs

My mantra to my chubby pals is cals in cals out. That simple. But **** me. I eat 500 more yesterday and lost two full lbs. 

I give up trying to underhand the human body


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> That is the point. Calories in v calories out. OP isn’t burning enough calories, is he. It’s fvcking simple as that.
> 
> As you lose weight, your BMR goes down. Yes, well done einstein.
> 
> ...


Yes deary, calories in Vs calories out is the formula we use to describe energy balance. Now help yourself to a cookie from the cookie jar and pipe the hell down. 

What you don't seem to appreciate I'd the body can and will manipulate the calories out portion of the equation in relation to calories in - given enough time all people undergoing calorie restriction will experience this however some experience it much quicker than others - a no I'm not talking about the reduction in BMR related to reduced weight; I'm talking about the adjustments the body makes to maintain homeostatis - some are much more prone to this than others. The body has a number of mechanisms of achieving this - the most obvious of which is reducing NEAT - during dieting phases some dieters becomes incredibly sluggish, less figity and less expend significantly less energy via NEAT. The body may also "slow" metabolism by reducing thyroid hormones, prioritise less energy to cell/tissue rejuvenation (this is why some experience hair shedding and poor skin quality during prolonged diets) and of course the down regulation of leptin. No 2 people experience these changes in the same way, to the same extent or in the same time frames. Those who shed fat easily appear to be less likely to undergo such shifts or have to "push the envelope" harder/longer before their body begins to adjust. 

What does this mean in practical terms? We'll take 2 people - same height, age, training plan and body comp. Through laboratory wizardy we managed to determine the both had identical BMRs and TDEEs and put them both on a 500kcal deficit. Person 1 may lose fat on this deficit for 8 or so weeks, possibly longer. Person 2 may match person 1 for first few weeks before weight loss begins to drastically slow and by week 8 has stalled completely. Person 2 experienced adaptations, person 1 did not.

No; taking a diet break should not increase body weight - body weight should remain stable. It simply allows hormonal systems associated with weight loss (thyroid, leptin, cortisol, adrenaline etc) to reset.

Current research is actually suggesting "diet sprints" of 2-4 weeks followed by a similar period at maintenance may be the most effective tool for longer term fat loss, reducing metabolic adaptations and preventing rebound. 

Yes; there is a possibility he is recomping due to the presence of anabolics. But that is NOT what you were suggesting - you came in giving it the Billy big balls calling him "lazy" and said he was "looking for excuses" - you had no reason to doubt what he said was true and instead of looking for possible answers you started behaving like an absolute thunder chunt. 

We don't need people like you round here, you uneducated bafoon.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

You’re talking about minute details that’s change things by single digit percentiles. 

The guys in what looks like a 750-1000 calorie deficit. If you’re in a deficit, you lose weight. It’s that simple. That kind of deficit you should be losing 1-2kg a week. 

stop needlessly complicating things. 

He’s either building muscle because of the steroids, or he’s telling porkies(or eating them). 

I’m not uneducated at all. That’s why I’ve done it multiple times successfully and haven’t made stupid cvnt excuses.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Robbie1981 said:


> where has he made any form of excuses? He’s come on asking for help as he has stalled or plateaued, you really do offer fck all to this community


he’s in a 500+ calorie deficit but isn’t losing weight. So he’s not telling us something, is he.

Reality is harsh and the truth hurts.

love to see you guys sub 10% BF physiques


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> You’re talking about minute details that’s change things by single digit percentiles.
> 
> The guys in what looks like a 750-1000 calorie deficit. If you’re in a deficit, you lose weight. It’s that simple. That kind of deficit you should be losing 1-2kg a week.
> 
> ...


No - in you these make small differences. Genetic variances are a thing. So peoples bodys fight for homeostatis way quicker and way harder.

Stop judging everyone off your own experience and start looking at real life examples, you absolute teaspoon.


----------



## Oioi (Jul 25, 2016)

Geoff Nippard went over some interesting and relevant research covering diet breaks etc. I'm not 100% this is the video where he covers the research but is likely worth a watch


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> No - in you these make small differences. Genetic variances are a thing. So peoples bodys fight for homeostatis way quicker and way harder.
> 
> Stop judging everyone off your own experience and start looking at real life examples, you absolute teaspoon.


A genetic variance isn’t going to stop you from conforming to the laws of thermodynamics. Get lost with your excuses

refeeds are a load of bollocks too.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> A genetic variance isn’t going to stop you from conforming to the laws of thermodynamics. Get lost with your excuses
> 
> refeeds are a load of bollocks too.


NOBODY IS SAYING THEY BREAK THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS YOU MORON 

THE BODY REDUCES EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INTAKE TO MAINTAIN EQUILIBRIUM - THIS ALL CONFORMS TO THERMODYNAMICS & THE CICO MODEL 

ITS ALL VERY WELL DOCUMENTED. YOURE JUST AN IGNORANT FOOL WHO HAS DONE 10 MINUTES OF RESEARCH, THINKS THEIR AN EXPERT AND THAT THEREFORE GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO BE ABUSIVE TO GENUINE PEOPLE ASKING FOR HELP.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

_e_


Uptonogood said:


> NOBODY IS SAYING THEY BREAK THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS YOU MORON
> 
> THE BODY REDUCES EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INTAKE TO MAINTAIN EQUILIBRIUM - THIS ALL CONFORMS TO THERMODYNAMICS & THE CICO MODEL
> 
> ITS ALL VERY WELL DOCUMENTED. YOURE JUST AN IGNORANT FOOL WHO HAS DONE 10 MINUTES OF RESEARCH, THINKS THEIR AN EXPERT AND THAT THEREFORE GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO BE ABUSIVE TO GENUINE PEOPLE ASKING FOR HELP.


Ooooo all in capitals, I definitely trust you now 😂

I’ve been “studying” and actually “doing” the gym since I was 14, that’s 19 years. I’ve had actual results multiple times over those years. I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve been obese and I’ve been sub 10% bodyfat and everywhere in between. 

You’re trying to suggest that your body will move your BMR up or down to create equilibrium, therefore not losing any weight.


if you’re in a large calorie deficit, you’re going to lose weight, END OF STORY.

You can’t prove otherwise because you’re talking shit out of your arse and need to go all capitals because I’ve hurt your feelings.

maybe go and actually do something in the gym then talk about it when you know better.


----------



## PaulNe (Oct 29, 2020)

To be honest @JohnnyBiggerton1986 is correct. It's basic science. If he's not losing weight he's eating too much. Neat will reduce metabolism but you can counteract this by staying active and neat isn't as significant as people are making out . 2100 calories in a 6 foot bloke would still make him lose weight even if he lay about all day but if he's training and doing stuff then the deficit would be higher. So instead of getting on your high horses and saying johnny is offering nothing to the forum. He's speaking the truth. If you're not losing weight then you're not in a deficit so either you eat less or you increase your calorie burn. As for you losing weight after a day of eating more @Volta87 that actually suggests that you're in a deficit because in a deficit you can hold onto water and have what you call a 'whoosh' which would happen anyway but can be brought on by eating more for a day or so


----------



## Volta87 (Dec 6, 2020)

PaulNe said:


> To be honest @JohnnyBiggerton1986 is correct. It's basic science. If he's not losing weight he's eating too much. Neat will reduce metabolism but you can counteract this by staying active and neat isn't as significant as people are making out . 2100 calories in a 6 foot bloke would still make him lose weight even if he lay about all day but if he's training and doing stuff then the deficit would be higher. So instead of getting on your high horses and saying johnny is offering nothing to the forum. He's speaking the truth. If you're not losing weight then you're not in a deficit so either you eat less or you increase your calorie burn. As for you losing weight after a day of eating more @Volta87 that actually suggests that you're in a deficit because in a deficit you can hold onto water and have what you call a 'whoosh' which would happen anyway but can be brought on by eating more for a day or so


My initial question was, am I eating too little maybe. Il try going to 2300 for a few days.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Fine, weigh yourself everyday, but He should only write down his weight once a week.

He’s focusing on the wrong things.

‘Clean carbs and fats’

‘only natural protein’

but on shitloads of PED

his mindset and knowledge is completely out of whack. This is why it’s obvious that he’s not doing what he thinks he is.

People need to be told the truth, doesn’t matter how much it hurts.


----------



## Alex12340 (Mar 22, 2021)

PaulNe said:


> To be honest @JohnnyBiggerton1986 is correct. It's basic science. If he's not losing weight he's eating too much. Neat will reduce metabolism but you can counteract this by staying active and neat isn't as significant as people are making out . 2100 calories in a 6 foot bloke would still make him lose weight even if he lay about all day but if he's training and doing stuff then the deficit would be higher. So instead of getting on your high horses and saying johnny is offering nothing to the forum. He's speaking the truth. If you're not losing weight then you're not in a deficit so either you eat less or you increase your calorie burn. As for you losing weight after a day of eating more @Volta87 that actually suggests that you're in a deficit because in a deficit you can hold onto water and have what you call a 'whoosh' which would happen anyway but can be brought on by eating more for a day or so


Havent been following the thread too closely but even @DLTBB mentioned , decrease calories in or increase calories burnt. Seems like the only logical thing to do. The massive debate about thermodynamics and science seems pointless to helping the OP find a solution to lose weight.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Volta87 said:


> My initial question was, am I eating too little maybe. Il try going to 2300 for a few days.


Mate, it’s ONE FVCKING DAY.

you’ve now edited your comment(he was asking someone to explain how he lost weight in one day) idiotic.

“I’m not losing weight, let’s up my calories”

you’re beyond help


----------



## PaulNe (Oct 29, 2020)

Volta87 said:


> My initial question was, am I eating too little maybe. Il try going to 2300 for a few days.


Eat your 2300 everyday. Weigh yourself every morning after a piss for the next 3 weeks and take a rolling average of what your weight is doing. If you're losing weight then great but if not you'll have to drop your calories further or increase your daily cardio. I would try and focus on increasing your activity through the day though. Alot of people like to count steps which over a course of a day will add up as I wouldn't want to drop calories much further. In fact I wouldnt personally go below 2800 for myself


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

A lot of high level coaches use regular re-feeds so there must be some logic in it. I know Dave Palumbo does it. He coached a lad I know and they included a large meal from McDonalds and a day above maintenance once a week or so. The lad came in absolutely peeled. And I know when I’ve been really lean in the past and the scale has stopped moving, a day at or above maintenance seemed to get the ball rolling again. I don’t know the science behind it, something to do with cortisol if I recall correctly. But I imagine it’s only of much use very deep in to a diet when you’re very lean. I don’t know what % OP is but can’t imagine he’s in single digits.


----------



## andew10102 (Jan 10, 2022)

Volta87 said:


> Some absolutely ridiculous comments in here. Sad to see really when I’m just asking for some advice. Instead you’re littered with abuse and assumptions.
> 
> I weigh and track everything that I eat to the grain other than oil. I don’t add oil it’s no more than 20 calls a day of spray oil. I also don’t add the 2 slashes of milk to morning tea
> 
> ...


I stand by what I said.


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

this is what this guy said 15 hours ago;

“Il up cardio and lower cals to 2050 and see if it helps.”

bow he’s saying he’s upping his calories to 2300.

this is why the guy can’t lose weight. He’s all over the place and doesn’t know what he’s doing.


----------



## Uptonogood (Feb 23, 2021)

PaulNe said:


> To be honest @JohnnyBiggerton1986 is correct. It's basic science. If he's not losing weight he's eating too much. Neat will reduce metabolism but you can counteract this by staying active and neat isn't as significant as people are making out . 2100 calories in a 6 foot bloke would still make him lose weight even if he lay about all day but if he's training and doing stuff then the deficit would be higher. So instead of getting on your high horses and saying johnny is offering nothing to the forum. He's speaking the truth. If you're not losing weight then you're not in a deficit so either you eat less or you increase your calorie burn. As for you losing weight after a day of eating more @Volta87 that actually suggests that you're in a deficit because in a deficit you can hold onto water and have what you call a 'whoosh' which would happen anyway but can be brought on by eating more for a day or so


In the typical person who trains 4-6 times per week NEAT is the most significant expenditure after BMR. Obviously if you are an elite level athlete or undertake 2-a-days you may be able to exceed NEAT with EAT but let's assume OP is probably somewhere within the average and therefore NEAT is the significant expense. 

You are quite correct if you're not losing weight you're not in deficit - so let's say you're maintaining on 2800kcals, you cut to 2300kcals and lose fat - for most people you will continue to lose fat at this deficit for a considerable period and will only need to lower cals by say a further 200kcals every 6-8 weeks as bodyweight reduces. In some dieters however their bodies quickly adapt to the reduced energy intake and may see a drastic reduction in fat loss within 3 weeks. To keep reducing 200kcals every 3 weeks you quickly reach a level of food intake that is unsustainably low - so instead you can return to maintenance (accounting for now lower body weight) reset for a few weeks then begin deficit again. For those who find they plateau quickly on any given deficit this is a game changing strategy which over the length of a cut (say 16 weeks) see far greater fat loss and much reduced "rebound" post cut.

@Johnny - I'm glad you have done all these things for yourself. I've done very similar things and can too shred fat very quickly and efficiently because that's how my body works. I can perform ludicrous amounts of endurance training and not lose muscle mass because I have high recovery capacity, naturally low cortisol and my energy systems are "fat adapted" - does this mean it will work for anyone else? No. You can't judge others based solely on your experiences.

Maybe I was rash to say you bring nothing to the forum but equally you had no right to call OP lazy, a liar or say is looking for excuses based off no evidence other than your own individual experience with fat loss and BMR estimators (which whilst a useful tool as a starting point in some cases, they are wildly inaccurate).


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Uptonogood said:


> In the typical person who trains 4-6 times per week NEAT is the most significant expenditure after BMR. Obviously if you are an elite level athlete or undertake 2-a-days you may be able to exceed NEAT with EAT but let's assume OP is probably somewhere within the average and therefore NEAT is the significant expense.
> 
> You are quite correct if you're not losing weight you're not in deficit - so let's say you're maintaining on 2800kcals, you cut to 2300kcals and lose fat - for most people you will continue to lose fat at this deficit for a considerable period and will only need to lower cals by say a further 200kcals every 6-8 weeks as bodyweight reduces. In some dieters however their bodies quickly adapt to the reduced energy intake and may see a drastic reduction in fat loss within 3 weeks. To keep reducing 200kcals every 3 weeks you quickly reach a level of food intake that is unsustainably low - so instead you can return to maintenance (accounting for now lower body weight) reset for a few weeks then begin deficit again. For those who find they plateau quickly on any given deficit this is a game changing strategy which over the length of a cut (say 16 weeks) see far greater fat loss and much reduced "rebound" post cut.
> 
> ...


You’re trying to be a scientist looking at the minutiae of details when in reality the OP isn’t doing what he thinks he is. The evidence is in what he says.

his mindset isn’t right and he clearly isn’t in a deficit. Simples

i don’t have a body different to anyone else. Mines very average genetically, like 99% of people(genetics is another excuse people use). The difference between me, you and others is that we dedicate ourselves to something and stay consistent. Something the OP is definitely not doing.


----------



## PaulNe (Oct 29, 2020)

@JohnnyBiggerton1986 and @Uptonogood why don't you 2 have a quick bum to make up for the arguing and be mates again. However if it is an intense bumming session do not count the calories burnt because NEAT will down regulate to account for it


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

PaulNe said:


> @JohnnyBiggerton1986 and @Uptonogood why don't you 2 have a quick bum to make up for the arguing and be mates again. However if it is an intense bumming session do not count the calories burnt because NEAT will down regulate to account for it


I’m bulking so I can’t be doing that today


----------



## Jeremybeadleshand (9 mo ago)

tried playing around with macro ratios for a week or two?
See if it gets the desired response?
Or even as already stated eat more for a short period of time for the body to reset?
Good luck!


----------



## Robbie1981 (Dec 21, 2021)

JohnnyBiggerton1986 said:


> he’s in a 500+ calorie deficit but isn’t losing weight. So he’s not telling us something, is he.
> 
> Reality is harsh and the truth hurts.
> 
> love to see you guys sub 10% BF physiques


lowest I have been was 12% so you won’t be seeing mine any time soon buddy


----------



## Oioi (Jul 25, 2016)

Volta87 said:


> My initial question was, am I eating too little maybe. Il try going to 2300 for a few days.


The thread is no longer about you mate. 

Personal arguments are far more important than answering you question or being helpful.


----------



## Oioi (Jul 25, 2016)

PaulNe said:


> @JohnnyBiggerton1986 and @Uptonogood why don't you 2 have a quick bum to make up for the arguing and be mates again. However if it is an intense bumming session do not count the calories burnt because NEAT will down regulate to account for it


Johnny is still sore after that Tesla salesman had his pants down


----------



## 134633 (10 mo ago)

Oioi said:


> Johnny is still sore after that Tesla salesman had his pants down


I’ll drive it full pelt into your anus if you don’t shut it


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)




----------

