How do you know if you have plateaued?

Kalikel

bibimazoon wrote: »

jezahb wrote: »

and right now for medical reasons I cannot exercise (have an appointment to see a pulmonologist as I cannot exert myself without my O2 levels dropping, likely because of the 2 bouts of pneumonia last year). I feel so stuck and getting frustrated.

Your O2 levels drop with minimal exertion???? I really think a physician should be monitoring your calories/exercise weight loss progress more so than this MFP board. Are you on medications, steroids?? Those can def cause a gain including water retention

She didn't say it was with minimal exertion. She said it was with exercise and that she's seeing a doctor.

jezahb

bibimazoon wrote: »

Your O2 levels drop with minimal exertion???? I really think a physician should be monitoring your calories/exercise weight loss progress more so than this MFP board. Are you on medications, steroids?? Those can def cause a gain including water retention

Pretty much what Kalikel said, it isn't with minimal exertion, it is with any exercise that would increase my respiratory rate. I have asthma and got pneumonia a couple times last year, so clearly my lungs are just not in great shape. I am seeing a doc in a week, specialists take a while to get in to see. I was on steroids though for my last bout of pneumonia in March, and the weight gain caused by them is what originally made me take up dieting again as I gained 10 lbs and was miserable. So I am very familiar with the side effects of steroids unfortunately.

shell1005 wrote: »

Neither of those sites actually talk about the science or research behind the set point theory. It has been bandied about for decades, however it has rarely to my knowledge been backed up by actual studies. I believe this is because it is just that...a theory, but not anything that has actually been proven to exist for the average person without medical issues.

Theory in this context is scientific theory, which is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". I won't argue about the validity of those studies, as that tends to go around in circles as, again as Kalikal and I said, the science of weight loss is basically ALL theories because we don't understand it. Metabolic rates can be guessed at for most people, but they differ greatly and so therefore does success at weight loss. I don't see anyone using the "set point" as an excuse to not continue to lose weight, I sure as heck am not, I am just saying that it seems something changed and while eating the same amount of calories I have stalled out on lbs lost. I proposed set weight as a possible explanation, my body has slowed its metabolic rate which is why I am not longer losing the 1-2 lbs a week I was before. I am not giving up, not even going to cheat again because as I said multiple times I did it and it felt terrible.

babylovers

I recently had the same thing happen to me yesterday I posted a subject the same as yours and it was very hurtful because I had people come on there "that knew they were right no exception" they wasn't nice about it when I talked about weather I thought it was true advice or not. Either way people can be so rude. You might not want to ask for help again it really can tear someone down.

Sued0nim

Stalls are a fact in weight loss

Plateaus are rare and generally due to issues with logging but can only be identified after a set time which is why you see 6-8 weeks repeated so often

Water weight has huge impact on scale weight

Scientific theory is not the same as peer reviewed studies or double blind clinical trials - try using google scholar rather than google

A diet break can help after a decent amount of time losing ...leptin and psychological benefits

And asthma, and pneumonia, from personal experience is an *kitten*!

Kst76

I have found I never have had weeks on weeks of no weightloss. I eat much calories one day, little the next day. I just make sure I stay within my calories for the week. I don't obsess with 1300 a day and never go over that. I eat "junk" everyday but I also eat very healthy most days. I eat 2200 calories one day and 1200 one day and 1650 one day and so on. To me...if my weight get stuck one week or two, I'm do something to get it going again. It has never been a problem for me..ever.

Kalikel

Fwiw, I kept going to the doctor complaining about my lack of energy and inability to exercise and got nowhere. I had a loser doctor, lol. He'd say I should exercise MORE and I'd have more energy. He tried putting me on anti-depressants. He got mad when I said I really thought it had to be thyroid because I had EVERY symptom in spades. No, he said, he'd tested for that and I didn't have a thyroid issue. I needed to eat less and exercise more.

We went back and forth over it several times on several visits. I gave up and figured there was something wrong with me that couldn't be detected. But I knew I wasn't lazy and I knew I wasn't depressed.

My thyroid was so ginormous that it had grown through my chest, was smooshing my lungs and had pushed my trachea over so air had trouble getting through to the lungs that were too crowded to perform their best, anyway. That's also why I'd gag and cough all the damn time, which my doctor literally blew off with a puff of air through his lips.

A new doctor showed up and I was in surgery less than two weeks later, including visits to an endo, cardiology clearance, seeing the surgeon and pre-testing. They flew me threw all of it. The first thing the surgeon said to me when he came to see me after my surgery was, "I believe you had trouble breathing!" He went on about how ridiculously hard the surgery had been (and I felt sorry, like it was my fault, lol.) The surgeon was pissed OFF when he heard my tale of multiple visits, being told I didn't have a thyroid problem and the suggestion that I should take antidepressants. I saw the antidepressant thing make him tense, lol. That's when he asked for the guy's name and office location, lol. The meaner part of me hopes he gave that guy hell for putting me through it...and so that nobody else has to endure decades of BS.

I'm not suggesting that you have my issues. I'm pretty sure you don't! But...

I'm big on Second Opinions!

Never give up.

Kst76

+

Sued0nim

Kalikel wrote: »

Fwiw, I kept going to the doctor complaining about my lack of energy and inability to exercise and got nowhere. I had a loser doctor, lol. He'd say I should exercise MORE and I'd have more energy. He tried putting me on anti-depressants. He got mad when I said I really thought it had to be thyroid because I had EVERY symptom in spades. No, he said, he'd tested for that and I didn't have a thyroid issue. I needed to eat less and exercise more.

We went back and forth over it several times on several visits. I gave up and figured there was something wrong with me that couldn't be detected. But I knew I wasn't lazy and I knew I wasn't depressed.

My thyroid was so ginormous that it had grown through my chest, was smooshing my lungs and had pushed my trachea over so air had trouble getting through to the lungs that were too crowded to perform their best, anyway. That's also why I'd gag and cough all the damn time, which my doctor literally blew off with a puff of air through his lips.

A new doctor showed up and I was in surgery less than two weeks later, including visits to an endo, cardiology clearance, seeing the surgeon and pre-testing. They flew me threw all of it. The first thing the surgeon said to me when he came to see me after my surgery was, "I believe you had trouble breathing!" He went on about how ridiculously hard the surgery had been (and I felt sorry, like it was my fault, lol.) The surgeon was pissed OFF when he heard my tale of multiple visits, being told I didn't have a thyroid problem and the suggestion that I should take antidepressants. I saw the antidepressant thing make him tense, lol. That's when he asked for the guy's name and office location, lol. The meaner part of me hopes he gave that guy hell for putting me through it...and so that nobody else has to endure decades of BS.

I'm not suggesting that you have my issues. I'm pretty sure you don't! But...

I'm big on Second Opinions!

Never give up.

well I hoped you lodged an official complaint against your initial doctor

because really primary care (in the UK we call them general practitioners and I really believe that's because they generally know nothing about specific conditions) should be a stepping stone to expert advice

SezxyStef

jezahb wrote: »

Wow, cool. Good to know this supportive environment is only supportive if you don't dare have any controversial opinions and just do what everyone says with no questions asked. Ever heard you attract more bees with honey than vinegar? Being rude and posting telling me that essentially I have no idea what I am talking about, that I shouldn't even bother posting, and that I haven't lost enough weight to apparently "qualify" to know what I am talking about doesn't exactly seem supportive or helpful to me. It is rude, anyone here who felt like I wasn't listening to the right advice could have said so in a much less offensive way. How it was put was just plain disrespectful to me and RUDE.

Also do you guys fail to see that in your apparent agreement you actually disagree. A good portion of you are telling me it isn't a plateau and is just water weight, and the other half are saying that it is simply a CICO equation and if I am not losing I must be inaccurately logging (which isn't the case, I weight everything that goes in my body and am obsessive about it). Jesus, I cannot even stand how rude people are being in this thread about this issue.

well apparently you have all the answers...so why did you ask the question????

and if you are so sure of your logging accuracy open your diary (won't hold my breath for that) because it's about more than just weighing your food...it's about consistently logging and choosing correct entries.

Support <> blind affirmation of incorrect information...such as set point.

You haven't lost weight for a while and asked for information as to why...those that have lost a lot of weight gave you advice...water retention, CICO etc....which btw go together....they aren't in contrast to each other.

And to end this post...you are the only one cursing, you are the only one attacking so you are the one being rude.

daniwilford

I do not know anyone in these forums personally only by watching what they post and the sites they reference when offering advice. I have no private agenda, I am not going to write a book but I have read a great many of them. The MIT paper, "Set Point Theory", sites 'Adapted from Integrative Group Treatment for Bulimia Nervosa by Helen Riess, M.D. and Mary Dockray-' as it's only source. They are extrapolating on a study of people being treated for an eating disorder, to support their theory.

Seibert_Scott

So last week, according to MFP, I ate 4600 fewer calories than I need or was allowed. I'm trying to lose 1 lb a week. I didn't lose an ounce last week. In fact, I gained .1 lbs. WTH? I'm honest about what I eat and the exercise I do if not very conservative with the exercise and with the foods I eat. I've logged every day for over 100 days. I'm down 18 lbs, but lack of results like this are hard to accept and continue. I'm getting frustrated.

DeguelloTex

Seibert_Scott wrote: »

So last week, according to MFP, I ate 4600 fewer calories than I need or was allowed. I'm trying to lose 1 lb a week. I didn't lose an ounce last week. In fact, I gained .1 lbs. WTH? I'm honest about what I eat and the exercise I do if not very conservative with the exercise and with the foods I eat. I've logged every day for over 100 days. I'm down 18 lbs, but lack of results like this are hard to accept and continue. I'm getting frustrated.

Did you see the graph I posted on the first page of this thread?

BWBTrish

SezxyStef wrote: »

TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »

daniwilford wrote: »

I am so grateful for people who continue to post the truth even when they might be labeled as "Nasty". These tough skinned people are continually calling people out who offer incorrect advice. If you search through threads you see the same people consistently combating misinformation with facts, science, and success to back up what they say.

Amen
You are right..i noticed lately that my attitude is/was changing in...I dont care..why should i post. People dont want/like to hear the truth.
Why should i go in ridiculous discussion while an OP dont want to hear it anyway.

@daniwilford you are soooo right!

For myself... i dont know Still in the backing off mood and let them discover and figuring it out them self.

I did that too for a while...it's nice to take a break and come back.

lol nah i just give up on such threads...i lose weight fine, and know how it works. Why should i worry about people who ask something and then when you try to help are as stubborn as *** and know everything better?
After all i am the one losing weight every week in a row, not them...so i let them in their own world.

done my bit, gave them the info how it works. Good enough for me

jezahb

Quote from academic paper done by two very reputable PhD's

In contrast to weight gain, a 10% weight loss resulted in decreased energy expenditure beyond what was expected of a 10% loss in body weight.53 Also different from weight gain, both resting and non-resting energy expenditure decreased after weight loss. With the 10% loss, the body is now more metabolically efficient, requiring less energy than before at rest, as well as expending less energy during exercise. This protects against additional weight loss.

another from same article

This so-called set-point theory of body weight regulation has been slowly developed over a number of years and backed by a plethora of experimental approaches.

Link to article: http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/3/166.full

Another academic, reputable article on European PubMed: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/6695117

So while CICO does count, numerous studies have shown that the amount of calories out changes as we lose weight and our bodies adjust our resting energy expenditure. This doesn't mean we are screwed, will never lose weight, but it does mean that the simple CICO method based on a stable BMR may not be accurate for the majority of obese people. It is able to be overcome with exercise and strict adherence to diet, but it is slow going and difficult. How is admitting that worthy of the amount of irritation and denial I am being met with here?

daniwilford

I understand changes in BMR with loss of weight, both fat and lean muscle. What I have yet to see evidence of, is how eating more will help one lose weight or under eating would cause one to gain fat or lean muscle. Perhaps I misunderstood OP.

BWBTrish

jezahb wrote: »

Quote from academic paper done by two very reputable PhD's

In contrast to weight gain, a 10% weight loss resulted in decreased energy expenditure beyond what was expected of a 10% loss in body weight.53 Also different from weight gain, both resting and non-resting energy expenditure decreased after weight loss. With the 10% loss, the body is now more metabolically efficient, requiring less energy than before at rest, as well as expending less energy during exercise. This protects against additional weight loss.

another from same article

This so-called set-point theory of body weight regulation has been slowly developed over a number of years and backed by a plethora of experimental approaches.

Link to article: http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/3/166.full

Another academic, reputable article on European PubMed: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/6695117

So while CICO does count, numerous studies have shown that the amount of calories out changes as we lose weight and our bodies adjust our resting energy expenditure. This doesn't mean we are screwed, will never lose weight, but it does mean that the simple CICO method based on a stable BMR may not be accurate for the majority of obese people. It is able to be overcome with exercise and strict adherence to diet, but it is slow going and difficult. How is admitting that worthy of the amount of irritation and denial I am being met with here?

so when you know it all...why do you ask here?
You dont seem to believe any of us..who are losing weight.

Leaves thread, there is only so much closed minded i can handle.....

SezxyStef

jezahb wrote: »

Quote from academic paper done by two very reputable PhD's

In contrast to weight gain, a 10% weight loss resulted in decreased energy expenditure beyond what was expected of a 10% loss in body weight.53 Also different from weight gain, both resting and non-resting energy expenditure decreased after weight loss. With the 10% loss, the body is now more metabolically efficient, requiring less energy than before at rest, as well as expending less energy during exercise. This protects against additional weight loss.

another from same article

This so-called set-point theory of body weight regulation has been slowly developed over a number of years and backed by a plethora of experimental approaches.

Link to article: http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/3/166.full

Another academic, reputable article on European PubMed: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/6695117

So while CICO does count, numerous studies have shown that the amount of calories out changes as we lose weight and our bodies adjust our resting energy expenditure. This doesn't mean we are screwed, will never lose weight, but it does mean that the simple CICO method based on a stable BMR may not be accurate for the majority of obese people. It is able to be overcome with exercise and strict adherence to diet, but it is slow going and difficult. How is admitting that worthy of the amount of irritation and denial I am being met with here?

You have derailed your own thread congrats...it is against the ToS actually to take an OP and turn the discussion into something else.

Again you asked for help as to why you weren't losing weight but again you have all the answers so have at...I am done here

but before I sign off on this here are some parts of the articles you "missed"

This article does not minimize the role of personal will and commitment in achieving long-term weight loss...
<snip>
In contrast, combined with the message that long-term weight loss is difficult but achievable,
<snip>
may induce more individuals to become committed to making lasting lifestyle changes to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

<snip>
In one study, a group of overweight women (average BMI ∼ 29 kg/m2) were kept on a low-calorie diet for a period of time until their BMI decreased to < 25 kg/m2, the defined upper range of what is considered normal weight.26
<snip>
It is unclear at present how long the larger-than-expected decrease in energy expenditure will persist after weight loss. Perhaps the body will eventually adjust to the new weight, and it will be easier to maintain the reduced weight. Indeed, some investigators have reported that, in sustained weight loss, changes in energy expenditure eventually stabilized and were not larger than expected.55,56

<snip>
In summary, regulation of body weight involves complex signaling systems and compensatory changes in appetite and metabolic efficiency. Current evidence points to the existence of a set point that makes weight loss or gain progressively difficult. However, as with most biological systems, there is likely to be an upper and a lower limit for how much metabolic efficiency can change. As long as energy expenditure exceeds that of intake, a decrease in body weight must occur. That can be stated with absolute certainty.

So basically the study you linked mainly used mice and other animals and basically said yes your BMR slows (which we all know) as you lose weight but you just have to compensate for that..

In other words...no you can't eat as much food as you used to be able to or you will regain the weight...

It doesn't prove "set point"...it actually debates it...

But like @TheOwlhouseDesigns I am out you didn't need to ask ....you read the book of all...(thinks of her 20 something son who read it too)

jezahb

Whatever, pointless arguing with you. A couple of you derailed MY thread by essentially getting pissy pants because I chose which poster to respond to (free country and last time I checked I had that right) and accusing me of "only hearing what I want to". That is especially funny since you, SexyStef, clearly didn't read my last post or any of my posts and took only what you needed from them to get all defensive and irritated. I said

This doesn't mean we are screwed, will never lose weight, but it does mean that the simple CICO method based on a stable BMR may not be accurate for the majority of obese people. It is able to be overcome with exercise and strict adherence to diet, but it is slow going and difficult.

and your "come back" was the quote the article I posted THAT SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.

SezxyStef wrote: »

This article does not minimize the role of personal will and commitment in achieving long-term weight loss...
<snip>
In contrast, combined with the message that long-term weight loss is difficult but achievable,
<snip>
may induce more individuals to become committed to making lasting lifestyle changes to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

<snip>
In one study, a group of overweight women (average BMI ∼ 29 kg/m2) were kept on a low-calorie diet for a period of time until their BMI decreased to < 25 kg/m2, the defined upper range of what is considered normal weight.26

Also, nice shaming attempt. My diary is private because that is my choice, I don't care for my friends and family on here to know every bite of food I eat. How does having it open even prove accuracy anyways? I could totally mess up and say I had 1 TBSP of PB when I had 3, and someone seeing that on my open log does exactly zero to "show" that.

SezxyStef wrote: »

and if you are so sure of your logging accuracy open your diary (won't hold my breath for that) because it's about more than just weighing your food...it's about consistently logging and choosing correct entries

So done with this thread. Requesting it be closed.

Thanks those of you who actually suggested ideas like Trendweight graph and shared their own approaches to weight stalling out, and reassured me that it happens sometimes without it being "bad logging". It was helpful.

PAV8888

I was with you that adaptive thermogenesis probably occurs with prolonged periods of eating at a deficit (and with larger deficits). I was certainly not with you when you contemplated short periods of eating at maintenance to counteract that.

But, I just cannot even comprehend why you would pick the words "tablespoon", and "peanut butter" and put them together in a sentence that is supposed to convey that you log your food accurately.