Can't loose any more weight.
Options
Replies
-
No. You are wrong. Plateau is a make believe word used by someone who is eating at maintenance level contrary to their beliefs. People 'break through their plateau' as you put it, because they start eating at a deficit. There is no magic wall put up by some wicked witch that physically puts a wall or adds hidden calories to stop you from losing the pounds....
As weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible to go through a plateau until the body decides it wants to move down or up . Just because you are eating at a deficit doesnt mean it instantly translates into downward movement. It may be the person is eating at maintenance, but it may also be the bidy is adjusting as well.
plateau
a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.
A plateau is used in weight loss terms to define lack of weight loss despite supposed consumption to a calorie deficit. This does not exist.
I currently eat at a maintenance level. It is my intention. Does that mean that I am on a permanent 'weight loss plateau' given the state of no change? Please use some common sense.0 -
To those saying a plateau isn't a real thing, I have experienced a 3-4 week plateau twice during my 82 pound loss for reasons I believe are NOT caused by a lack of caloric deficit (I've also had plateaus because I was messing up, but I understood that was my fault). In both cases, I had made some changes in my exercise and/or eating routine that I believe led to a period of adjustment in my body, where it was holding on to weight for a while and then BOOM dropped it like a rock around week 4. I think probably what happened is that I was losing fat slowly all along--say a pound a week--but was having some water weight gain obscuring that. Then suddenly my body decided to un-bloat and I lost about 4 pounds in a few days... and thereafter lost at a normal pace. The first time, it was because I began a weight training regimen after having only done cardio for a long time. There might've been some newbie muscle gain mixed in there to also slow my loss, but probably it was water from muscles healing since I was at at caloric deficit.
The second time was after I bought a Fitbit and suddenly increased my daily activity level and also my caloric intake by about 500 calories a day. After gaining a few pounds and then hanging there for a few weeks I was starting to think that my Fitbit burns were wildly overestimated and that I was actually eating at a surplus. So I dropped my calories and had one of those "whoosh" weeks where I lost not only what one would expect based on my reduced calories that week.... but also a few more pounds along with it. Again, I think I was holding on to water weight as my body adjusted to the increased calories and activity, then let it all go at once. I'm now eating at the higher level that previously caused my stall but losing at a rate that matches my tracking.
I'm not sure if this applies to the OPs case since it sounds like there have been no major changes to the routine... but I just wanted to make the point that a plateau isn't always just someone screwing up and not eating at deficit. Sometimes activity changes, food changes, hormone fluctuations, taking certain medications, etc. introduce "noise" into one's weight loss data as they make the body hold onto water. When that happens you just have to hang in there for a while and trust that you know what you are doing (assuming, of course, that you actually do... ). Eventually it all evens out.
NOW.... if after a several weeks the "whoosh" doesn't come and the stall persists, I would start to look for other causes. And it never hurts to tighten up on one's tracking even if that isn't the cause of a stall, since it is easy for sloppiness to slip in over time. I agree with those who are saying that OP might be overestimating how much is eaten and it is just now getting to a weight where it is catching up with you (as your margin of error slims). I've had problems losing weight in the past and gotten really discouraged because of lack of loss, created in part by failure to properly read labels and measure/weight things. Learning portion control and how to accurately measure portions is something that has allowed me to get down as low as I am right now (which is skinny for me... but overweight for most people ha ha) where I've stalled and failed before. I was making this mistake not realizing I was doing it and not being willfully ignorant or lying the way some posters act like people are being. I sincerely just thought I knew what I was doing and it was only after going on a weight loss program with pre-portioned food for a while (Nutrisystem) that I realized how wacky my perception of a normal portion was. When I got this insight, I started measuring for the first time and reading labels more carefully and had some "a ha" moments where I realized what I had been doing. Like eating 400 calorie "portions" of nuts!!! I was also making some wacky portion overestimation with rice, pasta, starchy vegetables, and alcohol (apparently a full wine glass isn't just one portion... go figure....).0 -
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.
0 -
In for loose.0
-
You are at a healthy weight. It can takes years to lose weight when you are at a healthy weight and fit. Also, if you are only eating 1200 calories and being that active, your body is not getting the amount of fuel it needs. Eat back your exercise calories and be happy with your body.
0 -
So weight is one of the worst ways to measure weightloss? ok...
Weight loss as the sole goal is good-intentioned but it not favorable and generally is the strategy utilized by the ill-informed with near-sighted short-term goals to change their appearance. People focusing on permanent lifestyle changes to be healthy should avoid hanging their hopes and dreams up on a simple machine that can't even be used to legally weigh purchase and trade products (its a disclaimer that comes with scales). Its too far from accurate and too imprecise a science for people to cling on to it so closely.
Completely wrong.
Losing weight is the number one marker for increasing overall health in an obese/overweight person. The rest of your statement about scales is just silly. They mark a trend and that's what we need them to do.
0 -
no weight loss/plateau can be just water retention, etc which is why a number on a scale is not how I judge my progress. I do weigh weekly as like an indicator with a slow downward trend what I want to see--but I am much happier with strength gains, balance, stamina, lack of pain in knees etc. Weight is just 1 indicator of progress, albeit a pretty good one.0
-
0
-
This +1.
The amount of wrongness on this thread is disturbing.
No. You are wrong. Plateau is a make believe word used by someone who is eating at maintenance level contrary to their beliefs. People 'break through their plateau' as you put it, because they start eating at a deficit. There is no magic wall put up by some wicked witch that physically puts a wall or adds hidden calories to stop you from losing the pounds....
As weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible to go through a plateau until the body decides it wants to move down or up . Just because you are eating at a deficit doesnt mean it instantly translates into downward movement. It may be the person is eating at maintenance, but it may also be the bidy is adjusting as well.
plateau
a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.
A plateau is used in weight loss terms to define lack of weight loss despite supposed consumption to a calorie deficit. This does not exist.
I currently eat at a maintenance level. It is my intention. Does that mean that I am on a permanent 'weight loss plateau' given the state of no change? Please use some common sense.
Err no it depends the context in which they use it rather than your personal presumption.
As the weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible that the body can be adjusting until it decides to move down again. In your example your weight loss can be described as having plateaud or stabilised but there would be an obvious reason behind it. Id agree with you if it was linear and what you consumed was instantly reflected on the scales but it isnt.
Whether or not the OP has hit a plateau is different from what the reasons were behind it. It may be the vast majority of times on this forum people going on about hitting a plateau and it being a big mystery, is not actually a big mystery and is normally due to eating at maintenance due to inaccurate logging or measuring, overstimation of exercise burns etc
There is also the fact that many peoples ideas differ on what they adjudge to be a plateau. If it was several weeks then I would be looking at the way they were logging and the simple math. If it was only a week, then I wouldnt be worried and assume it was the body adjusting, all things being equal.
Heh@ the common sense comment and you. You know what you can do.
0 -
Non-linear weight loss is not the same thing as having no movement in the scale for weeks and weeks. Really, it's two different things.
No. You are wrong. Plateau is a make believe word used by someone who is eating at maintenance level contrary to their beliefs. People 'break through their plateau' as you put it, because they start eating at a deficit. There is no magic wall put up by some wicked witch that physically puts a wall or adds hidden calories to stop you from losing the pounds....
As weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible to go through a plateau until the body decides it wants to move down or up . Just because you are eating at a deficit doesnt mean it instantly translates into downward movement. It may be the person is eating at maintenance, but it may also be the bidy is adjusting as well.
plateau
a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.
Eating at maintenance equals a plateau. It does not mean the person is cheating, lying about what they are eating, or whatnot, it just means that something has changed outside of themselves and they need to look at the equation of calorie intake and calorie output. That's it. Sometimes it's difficult to find what has changed and to make adjustments.
0 -
Since getting a Withings scale and using Trendweight, I can see where many people think they're plateaued but really aren't, too. If your weight bounces within say a 5 lb. range (pretty normal) and you lose maybe .5 lbs/week, also normal, it's hard to see it happening with just spot weight measurements and memory.0
-
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.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »To those saying a plateau isn't a real thing, I have experienced a 3-4 week plateau twice during my 82 pound loss for reasons I believe are NOT caused by a lack of caloric deficit (I've also had plateaus because I was messing up, but I understood that was my fault). In both cases, I had made some changes in my exercise and/or eating routine that I believe led to a period of adjustment in my body, where it was holding on to weight for a while and then BOOM dropped it like a rock around week 4. I think probably what happened is that I was losing fat slowly all along--say a pound a week--but was having some water weight gain obscuring that. Then suddenly my body decided to un-bloat and I lost about 4 pounds in a few days... and thereafter lost at a normal pace. The first time, it was because I began a weight training regimen after having only done cardio for a long time. There might've been some newbie muscle gain mixed in there to also slow my loss, but probably it was water from muscles healing since I was at at caloric deficit.
The second time was after I bought a Fitbit and suddenly increased my daily activity level and also my caloric intake by about 500 calories a day. After gaining a few pounds and then hanging there for a few weeks I was starting to think that my Fitbit burns were wildly overestimated and that I was actually eating at a surplus. So I dropped my calories and had one of those "whoosh" weeks where I lost not only what one would expect based on my reduced calories that week.... but also a few more pounds along with it. Again, I think I was holding on to water weight as my body adjusted to the increased calories and activity, then let it all go at once. I'm now eating at the higher level that previously caused my stall but losing at a rate that matches my tracking.
I'm not sure if this applies to the OPs case since it sounds like there have been no major changes to the routine... but I just wanted to make the point that a plateau isn't always just someone screwing up and not eating at deficit. Sometimes activity changes, food changes, hormone fluctuations, taking certain medications, etc. introduce "noise" into one's weight loss data as they make the body hold onto water. When that happens you just have to hang in there for a while and trust that you know what you are doing (assuming, of course, that you actually do... ). Eventually it all evens out.
NOW.... if after a several weeks the "whoosh" doesn't come and the stall persists, I would start to look for other causes. And it never hurts to tighten up on one's tracking even if that isn't the cause of a stall, since it is easy for sloppiness to slip in over time. I agree with those who are saying that OP might be overestimating how much is eaten and it is just now getting to a weight where it is catching up with you (as your margin of error slims). I've had problems losing weight in the past and gotten really discouraged because of lack of loss, created in part by failure to properly read labels and measure/weight things. Learning portion control and how to accurately measure portions is something that has allowed me to get down as low as I am right now (which is skinny for me... but overweight for most people ha ha) where I've stalled and failed before. I was making this mistake not realizing I was doing it and not being willfully ignorant or lying the way some posters act like people are being. I sincerely just thought I knew what I was doing and it was only after going on a weight loss program with pre-portioned food for a while (Nutrisystem) that I realized how wacky my perception of a normal portion was. When I got this insight, I started measuring for the first time and reading labels more carefully and had some "a ha" moments where I realized what I had been doing. Like eating 400 calorie "portions" of nuts!!! I was also making some wacky portion overestimation with rice, pasta, starchy vegetables, and alcohol (apparently a full wine glass isn't just one portion... go figure....).
Naa, water weight is an overrated excuse, simply because you dont hold on to it for months on end. Plateaus are make-believe.-1 -
No. You are wrong. Plateau is a make believe word used by someone who is eating at maintenance level contrary to their beliefs. People 'break through their plateau' as you put it, because they start eating at a deficit. There is no magic wall put up by some wicked witch that physically puts a wall or adds hidden calories to stop you from losing the pounds....
As weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible to go through a plateau until the body decides it wants to move down or up . Just because you are eating at a deficit doesnt mean it instantly translates into downward movement. It may be the person is eating at maintenance, but it may also be the bidy is adjusting as well.
plateau
a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.
Sorry, I just have to say something about the bolded item.
The body does not "decide" whether it wants to lose weight. It doesn't "decide" to move up or down. It has no decision-making abilities whatsoever. It follows the laws of thermodynamics. If there is an energy imbalance, a calorie deficit or surplus, then weight is lost or gained. Period.
The reason weightloss isn't linear is because water is also gained or lost, separate from actual bodyweight. Water can be retained for a variety of reasons, including hormonal fluctuations, increased sodium consumption, muscle repair from an increase or change in activity level, or *gasp* eating too few calories.
When boxers purge their water before weigh-in, they can lose over 10 lbs. and sometimes nearly 20 lbs. I think that's enough water to mask some pretty significant losses in actual bodyweight, and if you're set for losing a pound per week, you could see the scale stall or even go up for weeks, while still losing body mass and doing everything right.
So, first, check that you're doing everything right. Make sure both your calories in and your calories out are correct. If you are, then you can chalk it up to water, and either wait it out or take steps to release it. Often, eating at maintenance for a few days, or taking a few days off from your routine, will cause the water to release and you'll drop 5 lbs overnight.0 -
This +1.
The amount of wrongness on this thread is disturbing.
No. You are wrong. Plateau is a make believe word used by someone who is eating at maintenance level contrary to their beliefs. People 'break through their plateau' as you put it, because they start eating at a deficit. There is no magic wall put up by some wicked witch that physically puts a wall or adds hidden calories to stop you from losing the pounds....
As weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible to go through a plateau until the body decides it wants to move down or up . Just because you are eating at a deficit doesnt mean it instantly translates into downward movement. It may be the person is eating at maintenance, but it may also be the bidy is adjusting as well.
plateau
a state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.
A plateau is used in weight loss terms to define lack of weight loss despite supposed consumption to a calorie deficit. This does not exist.
I currently eat at a maintenance level. It is my intention. Does that mean that I am on a permanent 'weight loss plateau' given the state of no change? Please use some common sense.
Err no it depends the context in which they use it rather than your personal presumption.
As the weight loss isnt linear then its quite possible that the body can be adjusting until it decides to move down again. In your example your weight loss can be described as having plateaud or stabilised but there would be an obvious reason behind it. Id agree with you if it was linear and what you consumed was instantly reflected on the scales but it isnt.
Whether or not the OP has hit a plateau is different from what the reasons were behind it. It may be the vast majority of times on this forum people going on about hitting a plateau and it being a big mystery, is not actually a big mystery and is normally due to eating at maintenance due to inaccurate logging or measuring, overstimation of exercise burns etc
There is also the fact that many peoples ideas differ on what they adjudge to be a plateau. If it was several weeks then I would be looking at the way they were logging and the simple math. If it was only a week, then I wouldnt be worried and assume it was the body adjusting, all things being equal.
Heh@ the common sense comment and you. You know what you can do.
It is not a personal presumption. A weight loss 'plateau' even by your own admission is caused by eating at a calorie maintenance level. Eating at a maintenance level however does not equal a 'plateau'.
If you read the context of what people talk about, they expect to have lost weight due to their own beliefs that they are eating at a deficit, when they are not. You didnt look into this context while stating a dictionary definition of the word, hence lack of common sense.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »To those saying a plateau isn't a real thing, I have experienced a 3-4 week plateau twice during my 82 pound loss for reasons I believe are NOT caused by a lack of caloric deficit (I've also had plateaus because I was messing up, but I understood that was my fault).
I doubt anyone finds it difficult to believe that 3-4 week stalls happen (they definitely do, IMO, unrelated to calories). I think they are saying the definition of a plateau requires a longer stall.
I have no opinion on that; that's just my interpretation of the discussion.
I agree that if we are talking about a relatively short term stall like that any change is a good place to start, although it also can be part of the process. When I was farther from goal I'd lose consistently, now it seems to vary from week to week even when I do nothing differently.0 -
karenkasbi wrote: »yeah, I'm also stuck just like you. I've tried a lot of things and nothing seems to be working. (even increasing my calorie intake for a week). It's been two months now. I'm stuck at 128 pounds and the scale won't budge. This week, starting today, I'm gonna try to eat 700 calorie lunch (healthy, beans rice, protein) and skip dinner and have a handful of blackberries and maybe 90 calorie greek yoghourt instead, exercise and sleep. I think skipping dinner will help me lose weight.
I also have carrots as snack and a banana for breakfast so it will be around 1200 calories for the minimum daily intake.
Maybe you can replace some of the type of foods you are eating with vegetables.
Seriously???? You're advertising that you're skipping meals???
If you eat healthy and reasonably you're going to be fine - I think you're on your way to an unhealthy relationship with weight loss. Stop focusing on the weight and focus on the more important things like BF%, waist line, measurements, how you feel, etc. I weight 250lbs, I'm 5'9 and I have approx 38% BF, down from like 75% 2.5 years ago. Do you think someone who weighs 250lbs could have that kind of BF% . . . it's not always about weight, it just isn't. I think you need to some more evaluating of your plan and do not skip meals - that's really unhealthy and plays with your body's routine.0 -
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.0 -
Have you tried having "up" days on occasion to reset your metabolism? I can't eat the same number of calories every day, because my body adjusts to it. I have "up" days" (2100 calories ish) and "down" days (1700 calories) to shock my metabolism. Also, you might want to up your calories to compensate for all of the exercise you're doing.
Also, have you tried measuring yourself? You might be gain muscle, which is heavier than fat, and losing inches, but not weight.
Good luck!
You can't shock your metabolism that much in just one day . . . you'd have to give it like a week, at least and then restart it.
Sorry but no.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.
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.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions