Eat more to break your plateau!

chouflour

I don't think that I claimed people become special snowflakes and the laws of physics don't apply. And if you'll notice, I pointed out that the OP was eating less when he was losing weight. By about a pound a week. At his calorie counts, eating less is probably a better win than exercising more.

However, there's plenty of evidence (actual, real science) that improved technique can lower the caloric requirements for exercise. Cyclists improve their positioning on the bike (and develop the muscles to hold that position). They tweak saddle height, which helps them direct the force their muscles create to generate more power and less loss. Those both mean that an identical bike ride requires fewer calories. A novice swimmer expends more calories per lap, because they don't cut cleanly through the water. This is basic physics, not black magic.

Swaps of same-calorie exercises can also be effective for weight loss. Not because there's a magic effect on your muscles, but because of that same carelessness you mentioned. When you switch to a new exercise, you pay more attention to it. You log it more accurately It's kind of a cheap psychological trick, but there's no point in not milking it for what it's worth.

SLLRunner

chouflour wrote: »

I don't think that I claimed people become special snowflakes and the laws of physics don't apply. And if you'll notice, I pointed out that the OP was eating less when he was losing weight. By about a pound a week. At his calorie counts, eating less is probably a better win than exercising more.

However, there's plenty of evidence (actual, real science) that improved technique can lower the caloric requirements for exercise. Cyclists improve their positioning on the bike (and develop the muscles to hold that position). They tweak saddle height, which helps them direct the force their muscles create to generate more power and less loss. Those both mean that an identical bike ride requires fewer calories. A novice swimmer expends more calories per lap, because they don't cut cleanly through the water. This is basic physics, not black magic.

Swaps of same-calorie exercises can also be effective for weight loss. Not because there's a magic effect on your muscles, but because of that same carelessness you mentioned. When you switch to a new exercise, you pay more attention to it. You log it more accurately It's kind of a cheap psychological trick, but there's no point in not milking it for what it's worth.

You are correct, you didn't say anyone was a special snowflake. My comment comes from the fact that I've seen plenty of postings here where people try to pin weight loss stalls on anything other than eating too much.

That said, I appreciate your clarification and now see we agree that weight loss stalls come down to eating too much.

Marianna93637

My question is: I haven't been eating too much. I've stayed under my goal and have been regularly exercising, so why haven't I lost any weight in 3 weeks?
If you look at my diary it shows 400 calories over for today because I am trying out eating more for a couple of days and see what happens. Wrong or not, I have nothing to lose (kind of a pun, lol), I know I won't gain weight over it.

Sued0nim

Marianna93637 wrote: »

I'm in the same boat, and I have heard this same advice from many people, because it worked for them. I'm tempted to try it.

I started Nov. 23rd at 184 lb (I'm 41 y. old, female, 5'8") By December 15 I went down to 175.5 lbs. My calorie goal was 1400 which I usually stayed under, or maybe went over a little. I started walking 4-5 times / week about 20-40 minutes and did yoga once a week (started this workout on Nov. 23rd). Up until then I did very short walks with my dog, nothing that burnt a lot of calories.

Since Dec. 19 I haven't been working because I'm a teacher and I've been on winter break. I reduced my calories to 1300 and have been under every single day except for one, Christmas. I started jogging in addition to the walking (several times / week), take yoga once / week, and in the past 2-3 weeks I have taken 3 Zumba classes / week. I also joined a gym and did some weights, but that hasn't been consistent.
I weigh my food with a digital scale and I log every single bite.
I haven't lost anything, well, I did lose .5 lb a few days ago.

That's it. I know I've lost inches, because everything fits better, I can fit into clothes I couldn't before, my current jeans are too big. Even my face shows it.
But I have over 30 lbs to lose and I'm wondering when the scale will move again.
Several people said they took a few days with higher calories and the scale started moving. One friend who lost a lot, and consistently, said that she ate 6 days a week perfectly with 1 relaxing day every week and the scale kept going down.

I'm going to give it a try. I'm not going to pig out, I'm just going to eat about 300 more calories (all good stuff like lean meat, etc) and see what happens. I know I won't gain weight from it, but who knows, maybe the scale will move again?

I wouldn't increase calories hoping for weight loss - it doesn't work that way (although hitting maintenance for a few weeks then going back to defecit can)

If your measurements are changing you're dropping body fat, ignore the scale number ...weight loss isn't linear and the scale will catch up if you're in defecit

Look at how you're measuring your exercise calories too because if you're eating back 100% exercise calories based on MFP database that can be a mistake and you should cut back to 50-75%

SLLRunner

Marianna93637 wrote: »

My question is: I haven't been eating too much. I've stayed under my goal and have been regularly exercising, so why haven't I lost any weight in 3 weeks?
If you look at my diary it shows 400 calories over for today because I am trying out eating more for a couple of days and see what happens. Wrong or not, I have nothing to lose (kind of a pun, lol), I know I won't gain weight over it.

Do you weigh and log your food? Where do you get your calorie counts from?

Do you eat your exercise calories back and, if so, where do you get your exercise calories burns from?

You do not eat more to lose weight, but if you are eating too little raising your calories while staying in a deficit will better fuel your body.

Weight loss is not linear.

Sued0nim

Here Mariana - this is my almost daily tracking over the last 2 months, we have similar stats in age and height although I'm aiming for 165 at 0.5lb a week weight loss isn't linear, water weight from changing up exercise, hormones, sodium etc

Marianna93637

rabbitjb wrote: »

I wouldn't increase calories hoping for weight loss - it doesn't work that way (although hitting maintenance for a few weeks then going back to defecit can)

Well, isn't that the same thing? Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but raising my calories would be the same as sort of being at maintenance. Now I don't know how much my maintenance would be, but raising it from 1300 to 1600-1700 sounds about right. I don't want to do it for weeks though, just for a few days. Would I get results if I did it for weeks?
I'm confused.

I log everything I eat and I weigh my food. I believe I'm pretty accurate with logging. I get my exercise calories from 2 sources. For Zumba and Yoga from MFP - I understand it might overestimate. For running / jogging I get it from Mapmyrun, which uses my weight, and the distance over time, etc (you know how it works) so I believe that to be pretty accurate as well.
Yes, I do eat back a lot of my calories, not always all of them, but at least half or more. (I can't remember) I could start eating back less than half.

Sued0nim

Not the same thing, after extended calorie cuts there is some research that hormones like leptin can get depleted, the theory is eating at maintenance for 2 weeks can replenish hormones and when you return to defecit weight starts to drop again

But you've only been on this for 7 weeks since November and are talking of a plateau - a plateau is at least 6 weeks of non movement when calorie defecit is maintained

I think it is more likely the result of the way weight loss isn't linear and water weight fluctuations mask the numbers and christmas

keziak1

Marianna93637 wrote: »

I'm going to give it a try. I'm not going to pig out, I'm just going to eat about 300 more calories (all good stuff like lean meat, etc) and see what happens. I know I won't gain weight from it, but who knows, maybe the scale will move again?

come back and let us know?

Marianna93637

I will
And I don't mean I'm binge eating or pigging out. Yesterday's extra 400 calories came from a cube of smoked Gouda cheese (which I love and eat a few times / week) 2 yoghurts (1 is higher in calories so I haven't had it, but I love it), and I ended up not exercising, which was going to be just a long walk.
Today I am going to the gym, but I'll be eating more of my favorite and usual foods. I don't even have anything bad in the house to eat, no candy, cookies, chips, junk food, nothing. But now I can have my creamer with the coffee the way i want it lol and just eat a little more. And maybe a drink ? They're so high in calories, I hardly had a drink during the break. But school is starting tomorrow, so I need to celebrate (and pray my students won't drive me crazy, lol)

Mr_Knight

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

I read about it lately, but it made sense to me that the body would indeed get used to the same old same old so hence doing more or doing something different helped.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It takes X amount of energy to move a mass of Y pounds Z miles - that doesn't go down because you've done it a bunch of times before. As for lifting, the more you "get used to" it, the *more* you will burn for the same perceived effort, not less.

The notion that getting fitter means burning less for the same exercise is exactly backwards - fitness means being able to burn MORE calories in the same amount of time.

To the OP - you're either at maintenance, or losing slowly enough now that you're inside the error margins of your scale. In either case, you've already been very successful, so you already know what to do. :drinker:

Marianna93637

So those of you who say that a person must be eating at maintenance if they stopped losing weight - I strongly disagree with you.
-
This is why: I upped my calories for the last 2 days. Some of my friends said that it worked for them. My point is that I am 175 lb, until now I have been finishing every day right under 1300 calories. I deduct exercise, and I eat back most of it, so a lot of times I eat 1600 calories but exercise 400 etc. I know you're probably saying that the exercise calories are not accurate, logging is not accurate, etc (I use a food scale and I'm very careful).
So today I ate 1963 calories, deduct 251 exercise calories, I end up with 1712. Even if you don't deduct it, I'm at 1963, and MFP said when I completed the entry, that if i ate like this every day I would be at 171 lbs in 5 weeks. That means that at 1900 calories I would still be losing 1 lb / week.
So my maintenance calories must be higher than that. Even if not, there is NO way that i think I'm ending up with 1300 every day, but in reality it's over 1900. There is NO way I miscalculate 600 calories every single day. Therefore the problem is not that I'm eating at maintenance.

let me know if my thinking is wrong and why please.

SergeantSausage

By definition - I say again *DEFINITION* The caloric intake at which you neither gain nor lose weight is "maintenance"

If your weight is not moving, you are at maintenance. Regardless of any (mis)counting, projections on a random web site (even this one), charts, estimates, or calculations.

If your weight is stable and not moving, you are at maintenance calories.

Sued0nim

Marianna93637 wrote: »

So those of you who say that a person must be eating at maintenance if they stopped losing weight - I strongly disagree with you.
-
This is why: I upped my calories for the last 2 days. Some of my friends said that it worked for them. My point is that I am 175 lb, until now I have been finishing every day right under 1300 calories. I deduct exercise, and I eat back most of it, so a lot of times I eat 1600 calories but exercise 400 etc. I know you're probably saying that the exercise calories are not accurate, logging is not accurate, etc (I use a food scale and I'm very careful).
So today I ate 1963 calories, deduct 251 exercise calories, I end up with 1712. Even if you don't deduct it, I'm at 1963, and MFP said when I completed the entry, that if i ate like this every day I would be at 171 lbs in 5 weeks. That means that at 1900 calories I would still be losing 1 lb / week.
So my maintenance calories must be higher than that. Even if not, there is NO way that i think I'm ending up with 1300 every day, but in reality it's over 1900. There is NO way I miscalculate 600 calories every single day. Therefore the problem is not that I'm eating at maintenance.

let me know if my thinking is wrong and why please.

What MFP says and what happens are / can be different

By definition if you stop losing weight you are at YOUR maintenance and you need to cut from there .. but this is only if you have been sticking to it over a period of 6 - 8 weeks .. anything less may be a natural stall / non-linearity of weight loss

You can get as tied up in the numbers as you want - calculators can only ever give you an average estimate, calorie logging is only ever an estimate, exercise burn is only ever an estimate .. if your estimate results in you not losing weight over a period of 6-8 weights, those estimates for YOU are your maintenance and you need to CUT calories to lose

SETTEESPUD

Am I being thick here?
Surely as you lose weight, your calorific needs become lower too? And you need to be making adjustments accordingly?

sijomial

"Eat less to break your plateau!"
FIFY

With that duration of plateau you are eating at maintenance calories. Eat less or increase internsity or duration of exercise/activity to get you back into a calorie deficit.

mckennasihde

obscuremusicreference wrote: »

What size bikini do you wear currently, and are you losing inches?

ETA: I don't have any specific advice. I would change my exercise, get in more cardio to widen the deficit, but perhaps you've considered that.

HAHA yes this this this this

47Jacqueline

Your body will give up a plateau when it's good and ready. Eating too little will slow you down, so will eating too much. Exercising to little will slow you down, so will exercising too much.

Yes, your body does get used to a certain intake and activity level. When you get more fit, you burn less energy than when you started.

I don't know whether eating more will help break a plateau. I have a friend who swears by it. Increasing your intake to eating for a day or so at maintenance will certainly not hurt anything.

Exercise operates on the principle of specificity. The more you do something the better you get at that something, but it won't translate to something else. That's why cross-training is effective.

I don't wear a bikini, but I bet I'd look better in it than you.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kommodevaran

If setting a higher calorie goal makes you able to exercise more and adhere better to your eating plan, it makes sense to "eat more to lose more". But only then. Good advice gone myth through oversimplifying.

TimothyFish

The easiest way to break a plateau is to fast for a day or two and not go over your calorie goals the rest of the week.

As for eating more to lose weight, the only way that works is if eating more is to fuel your workout, so that you can exercise longer and harder.

SLLRunner

TimothyFish wrote: »

The easiest way to break a plateau is to fast for a day or two and not go over your calorie goals the rest of the week.

As for eating more to lose weight, the only way that works is if eating more is to fuel your workout, so that you can exercise longer and harder.

Fasting would be looking for a quick fix instead of taking accountability for eating more than you think you are. The only reason fasting would "break a plateau" is because you would be eating less calories than you burn.

SLLRunner

kommodevaran wrote: »

If setting a higher calorie goal makes you able to exercise more and adhere better to your eating plan, it makes sense to "eat more to lose more". But only then. Good advice gone myth through oversimplifying.

I know what you're trying to say, but this would only work if you are still in a calorie deficit. People who are plateauing are not in a calorie deficit. It's science.

yoovie

i think it's more rewarding to help someone with less to lose. It's harder. but I think you know what you need to do to get there. You'll be alright, even if it sucks sometimes.

Unknown

This content has been removed.