Can't loose any more weight.
Replies
-
How short term are they? How long is a 'plateau'? It's not forever, either.
My response directly above explains where I am coming from with this. I would say, yes, water retention can cause weight fluctuations, as can waste, food in the body, stress, and other factors, but those things are short-term. The water retention disappears.WalkingAlong wrote: »It can be related to water weight. He's talking about a more extreme case here with the 'whoosh' but it happens.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html/
Of course it can be due to lax logging. Or perfect logging but metabolic adaptation. But to imply it is always due to lax logging is a little presumptuous, I think.
I didn't say plateaus were always due to inaccurate logging, but I'll bet it's the most common cause.
I've had water retention last for months, unless I was gaining LBM. It happens often to people who up their exercise intensity. This is from a Lyle McDonald book:
"...some studies suggest that there will be less weight loss if exercise is included during the diet but this is sort of misleading. The reason is that, in beginning exercisers, exercise can cause an increase in LBM/muscle mass and this affects the amount of total weight that is lost. Less weight will be lost but only because LBM is being gained (or less LBM is being lost). I suspect that this is why some rapid weight loss centers actively recommend against exercise: they want to generate the greatest scale weight drops and that means avoiding anything that spares of increases LBM. "0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »
Whoa.Plateau is another word for eating g to much.
That's one ugly assumption you're making. Not everyone sticks to their daily count, some cheat; but to assume everyone who's plateau'd is lying is just plain ignorant and stupid. You're using your ignorance to emphasize destructive habits.
If someone is cheating then they're cheating and lying to themselves. If someone is sticking to their calorie plan, with a deficit, they'll eventually break through the plateau. As I'm always saying, weight is one of the worst ways to measure progress.
I never said, nor did I imply, that anyone is lying. I said plateau is another word for eating too much, which it is. That does not mean someone is lying, it means they are miscalculating.
If you're not losing weight, It's not assumed you are eating too much, it's a fact.
No it's not a fact - your body adjusts to your work out and it's no longer as challenging as it used to be therefore requires your body to expend less energy to complete it. This happens a lot with those who have, say, 75+ lbs to lose. Plateaus happen, not from overeating but because your body adjusts to things and you have to change it up and shock your body.
If you only have 20ish lbs to lose, maybe that's different but plateaus happen and it's not a fact that we're eating too much, it's a fact that everyone's body is different and reacts to things differently.
Actually, by that theory, it would still be a case of eating too much...by not adjusting down the calorie goal as the energy expenditure goes down. The calories out portion of the equation is reduced until it matches the calories in portion, and the person is then eating at maintenance.
Personally, I don't believe that the body can "adjust" to an exercise routine to the point that it makes a significant impact on energy expenditure. If you speak to a marathon distance runner or biker, they have to eat an astonishing amount of calories to fuel their activities. Their intake and expenditure is not significantly off from having years of practice.
I know for me and the exercise routine I have I notice it gets easier over time and then I have to kick it up a notch - I know I'm not dropping the amount of caloric expenditure it takes by a huge amount but it's still easier than it was at the beginning, that's why I believe our bodies get somewhat used to it.
Maybe it's food for OP, maybe it's amount of exercise that's causing it - I'm not watching 24/7 so I don't know but there's something she's doing (or not doing) to cause this.
0 -
eldamiano that would be why I explained and agreed that in most situations the supposed plateau has quite an easy explanation. Its quite clear you are bothering to read what I typed so its pointless trying to discuss with you. Heh@common sense.
What lemurcat just pointed out about the definition of plateau and people having a different idea from each other is the same nonsense that happens all the time on these forums about clean eating.
0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »
Whoa.Plateau is another word for eating g to much.
That's one ugly assumption you're making. Not everyone sticks to their daily count, some cheat; but to assume everyone who's plateau'd is lying is just plain ignorant and stupid. You're using your ignorance to emphasize destructive habits.
If someone is cheating then they're cheating and lying to themselves. If someone is sticking to their calorie plan, with a deficit, they'll eventually break through the plateau. As I'm always saying, weight is one of the worst ways to measure progress.
I never said, nor did I imply, that anyone is lying. I said plateau is another word for eating too much, which it is. That does not mean someone is lying, it means they are miscalculating.
If you're not losing weight, It's not assumed you are eating too much, it's a fact.
No it's not a fact - your body adjusts to your work out and it's no longer as challenging as it used to be therefore requires your body to expend less energy to complete it. This happens a lot with those who have, say, 75+ lbs to lose. Plateaus happen, not from overeating but because your body adjusts to things and you have to change it up and shock your body.
If you only have 20ish lbs to lose, maybe that's different but plateaus happen and it's not a fact that we're eating too much, it's a fact that everyone's body is different and reacts to things differently.
Actually, by that theory, it would still be a case of eating too much...by not adjusting down the calorie goal as the energy expenditure goes down. The calories out portion of the equation is reduced until it matches the calories in portion, and the person is then eating at maintenance.
Personally, I don't believe that the body can "adjust" to an exercise routine to the point that it makes a significant impact on energy expenditure. If you speak to a marathon distance runner or biker, they have to eat an astonishing amount of calories to fuel their activities. Their intake and expenditure is not significantly off from having years of practice.
I know for me and the exercise routine I have I notice it gets easier over time and then I have to kick it up a notch - I know I'm not dropping the amount of caloric expenditure it takes by a huge amount but it's still easier than it was at the beginning, that's why I believe our bodies get somewhat used to it.
Maybe it's food for OP, maybe it's amount of exercise that's causing it - I'm not watching 24/7 so I don't know but there's something she's doing (or not doing) to cause this.
What happens is that your body adapts to handle the stress better. It might produce more blood vessels, strengthen your heart, increase your ability to clear lactic acid from your muscles, etc. How it adapts depends on your exercise. So, the same exercise feels easier over time.
But, you have to increase your efficiency to do the work in order to decrease calorie burn, and the bodies adaptations aren't doing that. So, you either drop weight to reduce work, or you improve your technique.
There was a study that followed Lance Armstrong from age 21-28 (he was winning the Tour de France from age 27-32). Over seven years, his non-weight-related total improvement in efficiency was 8%. For an elite athlete. Over 7 yrs of training (with a hit, I'm sure, during cancer treatments). Given that, I don't think that you or anyone else really needs to worry much about adapting to the exercise.
You do need to be careful about calculating calorie burns as your weight changes - has a much bigger effect.0 -
But Lance Armstrong started out with almost super-human VO2 max, as tested in his teens. And our muscles aren't adapted to some routines at all, like his were to cycling by age 21. He was already an elite athlete with little room to improve.
The typical MFPer is probably a former couch potato new to exercise, don't you think?0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »
Whoa.Plateau is another word for eating g to much.
That's one ugly assumption you're making. Not everyone sticks to their daily count, some cheat; but to assume everyone who's plateau'd is lying is just plain ignorant and stupid. You're using your ignorance to emphasize destructive habits.
If someone is cheating then they're cheating and lying to themselves. If someone is sticking to their calorie plan, with a deficit, they'll eventually break through the plateau. As I'm always saying, weight is one of the worst ways to measure progress.
I never said, nor did I imply, that anyone is lying. I said plateau is another word for eating too much, which it is. That does not mean someone is lying, it means they are miscalculating.
If you're not losing weight, It's not assumed you are eating too much, it's a fact.
No it's not a fact - your body adjusts to your work out and it's no longer as challenging as it used to be therefore requires your body to expend less energy to complete it. This happens a lot with those who have, say, 75+ lbs to lose. Plateaus happen, not from overeating but because your body adjusts to things and you have to change it up and shock your body.
If you only have 20ish lbs to lose, maybe that's different but plateaus happen and it's not a fact that we're eating too much, it's a fact that everyone's body is different and reacts to things differently.
Actually, by that theory, it would still be a case of eating too much...by not adjusting down the calorie goal as the energy expenditure goes down. The calories out portion of the equation is reduced until it matches the calories in portion, and the person is then eating at maintenance.
Personally, I don't believe that the body can "adjust" to an exercise routine to the point that it makes a significant impact on energy expenditure. If you speak to a marathon distance runner or biker, they have to eat an astonishing amount of calories to fuel their activities. Their intake and expenditure is not significantly off from having years of practice.
I know for me and the exercise routine I have I notice it gets easier over time and then I have to kick it up a notch - I know I'm not dropping the amount of caloric expenditure it takes by a huge amount but it's still easier than it was at the beginning, that's why I believe our bodies get somewhat used to it.
Maybe it's food for OP, maybe it's amount of exercise that's causing it - I'm not watching 24/7 so I don't know but there's something she's doing (or not doing) to cause this.
What happens is that your body adapts to handle the stress better. It might produce more blood vessels, strengthen your heart, increase your ability to clear lactic acid from your muscles, etc. How it adapts depends on your exercise. So, the same exercise feels easier over time.
But, you have to increase your efficiency to do the work in order to decrease calorie burn, and the bodies adaptations aren't doing that. So, you either drop weight to reduce work, or you improve your technique.
There was a study that followed Lance Armstrong from age 21-28 (he was winning the Tour de France from age 27-32). Over seven years, his non-weight-related total improvement in efficiency was 8%. For an elite athlete. Over 7 yrs of training (with a hit, I'm sure, during cancer treatments). Given that, I don't think that you or anyone else really needs to worry much about adapting to the exercise.
You do need to be careful about calculating calorie burns as your weight changes - has a much bigger effect.
I was about to post that last line. The body's adaptation doesn't have nearly as much impact as weight loss. I think "plateaus" often result from people forgetting to adjust calories in downward as they lose weight.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »But Lance Armstrong started out with almost super-human VO2 max, as tested in his teens. And our muscles aren't adapted to some routines at all, like his were to cycling by age 21. He was already an elite athlete with little room to improve.
The typical MFPer is probably a former couch potato new to exercise, don't you think?
Your VO2 max has nothing to do with the bodies' efficiency at performing work (physics definition of work). It's a measure of your maximum rate of oxygen consumption and has to do with your endurance capacity during aerobic exercise.
Improvements in technique are what improve work efficiency. For the most part, the largest percent improvements in efficiency are done in the first couple of sessions as people learn the basic movements. After that, improvements in technique are generally minimal unless the person is deliberately making a concentrated effort to so. Like training to become an elite athlete in their sport. And even then, acknowledged as one of the hardest working people in the sport, Lance only managed to improve 8% in 7 years. And I suppose some of that improvement may have been on some kind of 'enhancement' as well - no idea if he was doing that during the earlier stage of his career.
Re: bolded - I wouldn't go that far. Plenty of people on here who have done some kind of exercise all of their lives. Or started a program, stuck to it for a while, stopped, and are now picking it back up again. Don't know if they're a majority or a minority. I'm sure there is a significant portion of MFPers that are new to exercise, though.
Repeated edits: because typos are a problem today, I guess
0 -
Keep in mind, also, MFP is also set up for weight gains...plenty of lifelong athletes use it for the purpose.0
-
I find that when my weight has stalled, my inches go down. Maybe you should incorporate other measurements into the mix so that you can stay motivated to continue.0
-
Are you eating back your exercise calories ? If so, how much of it ?0
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »
Whoa.Plateau is another word for eating g to much.
That's one ugly assumption you're making. Not everyone sticks to their daily count, some cheat; but to assume everyone who's plateau'd is lying is just plain ignorant and stupid. You're using your ignorance to emphasize destructive habits.
If someone is cheating then they're cheating and lying to themselves. If someone is sticking to their calorie plan, with a deficit, they'll eventually break through the plateau. As I'm always saying, weight is one of the worst ways to measure progress.
I never said, nor did I imply, that anyone is lying. I said plateau is another word for eating too much, which it is. That does not mean someone is lying, it means they are miscalculating.
If you're not losing weight, It's not assumed you are eating too much, it's a fact.
No it's not a fact - your body adjusts to your work out and it's no longer as challenging as it used to be therefore requires your body to expend less energy to complete it. This happens a lot with those who have, say, 75+ lbs to lose. Plateaus happen, not from overeating but because your body adjusts to things and you have to change it up and shock your body.
If you only have 20ish lbs to lose, maybe that's different but plateaus happen and it's not a fact that we're eating too much, it's a fact that everyone's body is different and reacts to things differently.
You're missing the point I believe. Sure, if a plateau is a weight stall over a considerable period of time, the happen. But.....
Setting medical conditions aside, if your weight is staying the same over a long period of time, ie stalled if you are trying to lose, the amount of calories you take in equals the amount you expend. This happens because you are eating the same amount of calories as you burn, thus you are eating too much in order to lose weight.
Your activity has lessened.
You have not adjusted your calories for weight loss.
You have miscalculated some calories.
You're forgetting to log.
You're eyeballing portions because you've got it down.
There are countless ways to not realize why you are plateauing, because it's all very unintentional.
This does not apply to our normal fluctuations in weight or medical conditions.
It all seems so simple to me because when my weight stalled during weight loss, careful attention to CICO helped me alleviate those issues and get back on track.
I
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions