Thoughts on weight loss plateau for the petite lady!

tarap003

I'm a small framed 4' 11" tall lady and over the last two years I've lost 20lbs, I'm currently 144lbs, which is still officially overweight for my height and BMI, and would like to get down to somewhere between 120-110lbs. But for the past three months I've just stalled. so after reading up I've tried changing my cardio routine, I'm currently burning about 1500 calories a week in different types of cardio and my calorie intake is always, a relatively clean , c1000 a day mark. I have found in the past that keeping my carbs under 30 and my calories around the 800 mark and keeping my exercise burn the same do get the scales moving, but its unsustainable and i always creep back up the to the 144 mark.

I'm getting disillusioned now, I've read a few articles that say its harder when your petite because you actually need less energy than non-petite people, so I'm just wondering if anyone else has any advice, I'm keeping an accurate diary, so I'm just wondering if my petiteness is actually working against me and if anyone has any ideas how to break out of this plateau and lose my last 20 or so pounds? Thanks guys

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tarap003

Thanks for the reply, yes I do weigh all my food and for exercise I use a polar heart rate monitor, which has always served me well over the past two years, i've read the arguments for their accuracy, but i always found in the past that if its telling me i've burned 1500 cals, i should expect a pound or two weight loss that week in conjunction with my calorie deficit. but it's just stalled and left me a bit stumped.

IsaackGMOON

OP, open your diary so we can see your logging.

DeguelloTex

If you're stalled for three months, you're eating at maintenance.

tarap003

Diary is open! You mean I should be eating at less than I am ...not sure that's do-able!

DeguelloTex

Then you'll need to exercise more. If you haven't lost weight in three months, you're not eating at a deficit.

tarap003

Ok so all the calculators ive consulted say i need an intake of 1500-1800 a day and i've been aiming for the 1000 a day mark, so how much more of a deficit do you think is required to see some sort of result?

DeguelloTex

You're not eating 1000 a day or you'd be losing weight. You don't have any deficit, at all, or you'd be losing weight. That's what deficits do.

Liftng4Lis

tarap003 wrote: »

Ok so all the calculators ive consulted say i need an intake of 1500-1800 a day and i've been aiming for the 1000 a day mark, so how much more of a deficit do you think is required to see some sort of result?

The most common cause of a plateau, is inaccurate logging. How positive are you that you're logging accurately?

tarap003

I'm absolutely positive that I'm logging accurately and meticulously, I went a bit obsessive about it a while back and even have two sets of kitchen scales to make sure. In the mornings I set out my eating plan for the day and stick to it, there hasn't been a case of me not logging anything i've eaten. That's why i'm confused, and i've had friends who have said to me its because i'm little in stature it's harder, just wondering if there's any truth in that?

Marilyn0924

Are you consuming liquids other than water? Adding condiments? Sugar/cream in tea/coffee? Salad dressings? Sauces? Or is is just water and everything bone dry? Many times it comes up that because they are such small amounts it couldn't matter, but it does.

For the record, I'm not saying you aren't logging everything, but thought I'd put it out there as a possibility/oversight?

dhimaan

tarap003 wrote: »

I'm absolutely positive that I'm logging accurately and meticulously, I went a bit obsessive about it a while back and even have two sets of kitchen scales to make sure. In the mornings I set out my eating plan for the day and stick to it, there hasn't been a case of me not logging anything i've eaten. That's why i'm confused, and i've had friends who have said to me its because i'm little in stature it's harder, just wondering if there's any truth in that?

It has nothing to do with your stature. The laws of thermodynamics do not differentiate between tall people, short people, fat people or skinny people. It is the universal law. You have to be in a deficit to lose weight. If you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit.

That being said you can exercise more to increase your deficit however there still has to be a deficit with very tight logging.

DeguelloTex

tarap003 wrote: »

I'm absolutely positive that I'm logging accurately and meticulously, I went a bit obsessive about it a while back and even have two sets of kitchen scales to make sure. In the mornings I set out my eating plan for the day and stick to it, there hasn't been a case of me not logging anything i've eaten. That's why i'm confused, and i've had friends who have said to me its because i'm little in stature it's harder, just wondering if there's any truth in that?

If your logging is accurate, then your maintenance is 1000. That's the bottom line.

It's harder in that you have a lower TDEE than larger people, but a 250 deficit will get you half a pound a week just like it would for me.

Liftng4Lis

DeguelloTex wrote: »

tarap003 wrote: »

I'm absolutely positive that I'm logging accurately and meticulously, I went a bit obsessive about it a while back and even have two sets of kitchen scales to make sure. In the mornings I set out my eating plan for the day and stick to it, there hasn't been a case of me not logging anything i've eaten. That's why i'm confused, and i've had friends who have said to me its because i'm little in stature it's harder, just wondering if there's any truth in that?

If your logging is accurate, then your maintenance is 1000. That's the bottom line.

It's harder in that you have a lower TDEE than larger people, but a 250 deficit will get you half a pound a week just like it would for me.

Yes, I have to agree.

tarap003

For anyone interested here's some links to articles on weight loss and the smaller frame burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/1_Reason_For_Slow_Female_Fat_Loss.cfmhttp:// and sparkpeople.com/ma/Do-Petite-Women-REALLY-Need-1200-Calories-a-day?/7/1/21182541and strength-training-woman.com/weight-loss-for-petite-women.html

dhimaan

tarap003 wrote: »

For anyone interested here's some links to articles on weight loss and the smaller frame burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/1_Reason_For_Slow_Female_Fat_Loss.cfmhttp:// and sparkpeople.com/ma/Do-Petite-Women-REALLY-Need-1200-Calories-a-day?/7/1/21182541and strength-training-woman.com/weight-loss-for-petite-women.html

Yes it maybe more difficult because your TDEE is lower but you still need a deficit.

tarap003

Yes I hear what you're saying guys, but looking at my diary i'm sometimes hitting 600, 700 or 800 calories a day intake, so assuming it would be wrong to try to and survive on less than this, is my only option to exercise until i reach 0 net calories a day?

DeguelloTex

Not 0 net calories. A net deficit of some kind.

Also, 600-800 a day on a consistent basis would be a very bad idea indeed.

tarap003

Wouldn't a net calorie with an "-" before it mean i'm running on empty?

Coley88

Are you really and truly weighing absolutely everything you eat? Taking a peek at your dairy, you have a lot of foods that are always entered with the same weight. I mean, it's possibly that you are. I know with most of my snacks I pre portion baggies of them that are all the same weight. Most foods though usually fluctuate in weight.

DeguelloTex

Not a negative net deficit, either.

You want Goal - Food + Exercise to be about 0, since your deficit is built into your goal. But it has to be logged accurately.

macgurlnet

I'm on the app so I can't look at your diary right now. How old are you?

I'm 28, 5 feet even, and I can lose 0.5lb/week (averaged out over time) on 1500 calories. MFP gives me a goal of 1250 and I make sure I at least walk enough to earn 250 additional ones through exercise.

When I'm actively trying to lose, I cut way back on going out for food and weigh everything I possibly can to ensure accuracy, plus I shoot for leaving 100 calories to account for logging errors.

If you're 100% sure you are logging everything accurately, it's time for a doctor visit to rule out medical conditions that could be contributing.

~Lyssa

tarap003

Well thanks for all the responses, I am positive i'm logging correctly, there's no medical condition i've had that checked. So from your responses it seems that I'm going to have to accept that anything over 800 calories a day is putting me in maintenance. As I said before I have already lost 20lbs through consistent accurate logging and exercise, so i guess it makes sense now that lighter my energy requirements are less.

WickedPineapple

First, how long have you been on a plateau? Second, what exercises are you doing that you're burning 1500 calories per week? I'm 5'1" and have had many plateaus, all due to inaccuracy somewhere. One of them was due to the inaccuracy of my HRM (Polar FT4). My heart rate is naturally higher than most peoples during cardio, so I was getting inflated burns.

segacs

Agree with everyone else that you're probably overestimating your calorie burns. The heart rate monitors are notoriously inaccurate at estimating burns for anything other than steady-state cardio. And since you're quite petite (as am I, I'm 5'1") then the algorithms used, which are calculated for more average-sized folks, can sometimes be off for those of us a couple of standard deviations away from the mean.

I'd suggest trying the TDEE method for a while, instead of eating back exercise calories. Ignore "net" calories and try targeting a certain gross calorie amount for a while, e.g. 1200. If you eat at 1200 gross calories for 6 weeks, you should see the scale start to move again.

Both methods come to the same thing, in theory. In practice, I find that it's far too easy to eat back too many exercise calories if you're using that method.

tarap003

Thanks again for the responses, in response to the questions raised I've been in plateau for three months now, I have never eaten back calories and in all honesty I have never really understood the net calorie thing so I have been ignoring it. As for the heart rate monitor as I said in a previous reply I'm aware of the inaccuracies of them, but through a lot of trial and error I found over the past year or so that if the HRM was telling me that I had burned around 1500 cals that week in conjunction with a daily calorie intake of the minimum 1200 MFP was telling me to eat that I consistently lost a pound or so a week, I did this and consistently lost 20lb, but now I've stalled.

The cardio comes from walking the dog for an hour or more every day, which is the best I can do exercise-wise as I have three jobs and study which take up the rest of my time. Plus as I'm only currently eating between 800-1000 calories a day you would think there would be some kind of deficit there already!?

I did at one point test the theory that perhaps i was eating too few calories and upped my daily calories to about 1350 for about a month, but that resulted in me gaining back about 6lbs.

So I think the answer to my original question, given that everything was working until recently has to be that the daily intake of calories has to come down, either through not eating it or burning off the excess which seems harsh as 800 calories a day or less isn't very much at all. But it does kind of make sense that for sticking to 1200 or less for a prolonged period got me 20lb lighter but then there comes a point where you hit maintenance on that amount and it has to come down further to enable me to get rid of the last 10-15lbs.

segacs

You're only eating 800-1000 calories a day???

Whoa. Stop the presses. Ignore all the previous responses. Eat more.

KBmoments

DeguelloTex wrote: »

If you're stalled for three months, you're eating at maintenance.

This.

timrpm

Two possibilities:-

1) God has supplied you with an additional calorie supply because you're small, so it's impossible for you to lose weight.

2) You're not at a deficit of calories. Ruling out inaccurate logging, I'd suggest building in some high energy intervals into your cardio walking to which you maybe have acclimatised. Run/jog with the dog a few minutes at a time, recover, then run again? Do some hill work, speed walking up the hill?

MarcyKirkton

I'm small too....5'2", but no, it's not any different than for anyone taller. I have to hit a deficit just like a taller person does to lose. Now, is it harder? I guess, since I won't lose at a moderate amount of exercise and eating what this program suggests. We cannot discuss reality here, btw. Not allowed. But if you follow actual USDA guidelines, you'll be fine.

My extra calories come from coffee creamers, which add quite a lot in my world. I leave wiggle room for those. So I might say I'm eating 900 calories but in reality it's more like......1035.

And the weight comes off consistently. If you were losing before and you're not losing now, something has changed. That's your challenge......to figure it out.

Now, my theory is, and believe me, I use that term loosely.....My theory is that any type of exercise I do, I eventually figure out how to do it without burning as many calories. It's just how it goes. My body learns the moves and, voila, starts getting efficient. Next comes the......boy, this seems easier stage. Well, that's because it is. lol And, it's less effective at burning calories.

My theory is that we're hardwired to be that way. Otherwise, we have to kill too many lions.

Good luck!