Last ones...grrr!

HM2206

So long story short, I've lost most of the weight I wanted to lose. Most. I grew up on very healthy food and was slender all through my teens. Then I went to study abroad, and gained 22 lbs. After I came back home (Oslo, Norway) some of it adjusted naturally, but I was stiller bigger than I used to be.

So this summer I went on strict 1500 a day and successfully lost most of it. But now I'm struggling. I'm eating a lot of healthy fats and protein but I still feel I have to make an effort just to maintain. I've tried doing a smaller deficit, but even at 1700 a day, I'm hungry. I work out a couple of days a week at Barry's Bootcamp, which is a good workout, but the starvation is REAL after a session and I just feel like eating everything back.

I guess this is a natural process in a way, as I am not overweight per se and my body does not want to get skinnier. I am also 5"9.

So I am wondering if any of you successfully lost those 'vanity pounds', how did you go about it? Do I have to just face up to the fact that women who look like Candice Swanepoel (or so) actually go hungry to bed every night?

janejellyroll

How far are you from your goal? I'm not familiar with the person you're referencing, but even professional fitness models don't look that way ALL the time (they have specific routines they follow to look lean for photo sessions). But I do know that the closer you get to goal, especially if you want to target the lower end of your healthy weight, it can take a long time. If you lost most of it this summer, you're still in early days -- it's only October.

I reached my initial goal of 119 and am now maintaining at 113 -- but the journey from 119 to 113 was pretty slow. I used consistent logging, but I wasn't going to bed hungry. You mention that you're getting fat and protein, are you getting enough fiber?

malibu927

How are you ensuring you're eating 1500 calories? Yes, it does take a while to lose the final pounds, but you need to be precise in your logging.

segacs

Maybe at this point you don't actually need to lose more fat. Maybe those 'vanity pounds' are actually related to body composition, not scale weight. Look up recomp.

fitzman84

Sounds like you need a diet break. After you've been in a deficit for a long period of time your metabolism will adjust to the lower calories. I would up your calories for a week or two then go back to the 1500. The weight should start to come off again.

HM2206

malibu927 wrote: »

How are you ensuring you're eating 1500 calories? Yes, it does take a while to lose the final pounds, but you need to be precise in your logging.

It's not really a logging problem. The problem is I find it impossible to stick to 1500 - and even at 1700 I am very hungry. So I have been eating up to 2000 lately (which is merely maintenance).

segacs

Henny2206 wrote: »

It's not really a logging problem. The problem is I find it impossible to stick to 1500 - and even at 1700 I am very hungry. So I have been eating up to 2000 lately (which is merely maintenance).

If you're determined to stick to 1500, you may need to change what you eat for 1500 to add more filling foods like lean protein and healthy fat, and fewer "empty" calories.

But if you're down to the last few pounds and maintenance for you is 2000, then 1500 (1lb/week) is too aggressive a goal right now anyway. Try dropping your pace to 0.5lbs/week, which is more appropriate for those last few pounds anyway. That will give you 1750 calories at deficit, which, if you eat there consistently, should keep you less hungry.

HM2206

segacs wrote: »

Henny2206 wrote: »

It's not really a logging problem. The problem is I find it impossible to stick to 1500 - and even at 1700 I am very hungry. So I have been eating up to 2000 lately (which is merely maintenance).

If you're determined to stick to 1500, you may need to change what you eat for 1500 to add more filling foods like lean protein and healthy fat, and fewer "empty" calories.

But if you're down to the last few pounds and maintenance for you is 2000, then 1500 (1lb/week) is too aggressive a goal right now anyway. Try dropping your pace to 0.5lbs/week, which is more appropriate for those last few pounds anyway. That will give you 1750 calories at deficit, which, if you eat there consistently, should keep you less hungry.

I eat a lot of eggs, avocado and lean meat. I'll allow myself some little things though to not go crazy but I get quite a bit protein and healthy fats.

I'm wondering if I should think about calories more than overall health. For example, I take a tablespoon of fish oil each morning - for skin, hair and health - and I have as long as I can remember. But that's 135 calories that doesn't really fill me up even though they're healthy and I could have had solid foods instead. I'm a little reluctant to skip it, but maybe I should?

Liftng4Lis

Are you using a food scale?

HM2206

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

Are you using a food scale?

Yes

segacs

The fish oil thing is mostly a myth, anyway. It's been debunked by scientific research, and really is just a marketing tactic by the supplement industry.

Do as you choose. But I doubt you'd see any ill effects to your health if you chose to skip it and use the 135 calories for food instead. You can always add a couple of servings of fish per week to your diet, which is going to be healthier than taking supplements anyway.

marissafit06

What's your goal weight?

starwhisperer6

Candice Swanepoel wishes she looked like Candice Swanepoel. Did you know that in the Victoria Secrets catalog they not only airbrush the normal things out, but they lengthen the neck, torso, and legs of the models? If you are aiming for an unrealistic goal then you cant obtain it and you will end up disheartened. Maybe start lifting? That close to your goal weight you will probably see more change if you work on that instead of the pounds.

HM2206

segacs wrote: »

The fish oil thing is mostly a myth, anyway. It's been debunked by scientific research, and really is just a marketing tactic by the supplement industry.

Which myth exactly do you mean is 'debunked' - the fact that pure fish oil contain omega-3 and vitamin D, or the fact that those nutrients have a positive effect on you?

I use a Norwegian brand that I know is certified.

segacs

Most recent studies suggest that the benefits from eating fish oil in food (i.e. in fish) aren't replicated via supplements. Certified, not certified, makes no difference.

But the supplement industry spends billions of dollars a year trying to convince you otherwise. And they aren't required to show any proof for their claims.

Read up and draw your own conclusions is all I'm saying.

(Here's a journalistic article... I usually don't like linking to journalism because medical journals are better sources, but this one has a pretty balanced summary and in interest of time it's a good starting point: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/fish-oil-claims-not-supported-by-research/?_r=0)

HM2206

segacs wrote: »

Most recent studies suggest that the benefits from eating fish oil in food (i.e. in fish) aren't replicated via supplements. Certified, not certified, makes no difference.

But the supplement industry spends billions of dollars a year trying to convince you otherwise. And they aren't required to show any proof for their claims.

Read up and draw your own conclusions is all I'm saying.

(Here's a journalistic article... I usually don't like linking to journalism because medical journals are better sources, but this one has a pretty balanced summary and in interest of time it's a good starting point: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/fish-oil-claims-not-supported-by-research/?_r=0)

Okay, I am talking about actual liquid fish oil, the type that is squeezed out of fish, that's what I mean by 'supplement'. Are you talking about pills / capsules? Because you have little control of what those contain.

Furthermore - I was not talking specifically of heart attack and stroke (like the article), but generally that the fats in fish are healthy.

segacs

All I'm saying is, you asked whether you should take those 135 calories that you use for the fish oil and use them for something else instead. You brought it up. I pointed out that most research seems to suggest that fish oil from supplements (whether they're in liquid or pill form) doesn't provide the same benefits as fish oil from food.

It's totally up to you. You can do whatever you feel comfortable with. I was just giving you the option of using those 135 calories elsewhere, since that seemed to be what you wanted to do. There probably won't be a negative impact on your health, and you may prefer to eat more food instead.

But hey, your calories, your call.

shinisize

So, honestly, your adult body does not finish filling out until 22-23 years old. I'm not talking about gaining unhealthy fat, I'm talking about the fact that womanly curves finish filling out years after puberty, bones don't finish putting on density until years after you think you are done growing, and many people continue to build muscle mass into their mid-20's. You are going to be heavier than your skinny teen self as an adult, and that is healthy. It might be time to take a break and focus on eating at maintenance, really nailing your workouts, and give yourself a few weeks to decide exactly what you want from your body. Recomp is something that is much easier hunger-wise, and you can always chose to go into a calorie deficit again in a few mon

HM2206

marissafit06 wrote: »

What's your goal weight?

130 pounds

vivmom2014

It doesn't have to be 2000 calories (maintenance) or 1500 (hungry) - why not go for something like 1800 calories? I'm 5'8" and have lost consistently (albeit slowly and unevenly) on 1800. I add cardio to earn more calories, but not everyday.

HM2206

vivmom2014 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be 2000 calories (maintenance) or 1500 (hungry) - why not go for something like 1800 calories? I'm 5'8" and have lost consistently (albeit slowly and unevenly) on 1800. I add cardio to earn more calories, but not everyday.

Yes I was thinking that, though sometimes I am hungry at 1800 as well...

I eat a lot of eggs, lean pork, chicken, avocado, beans. And I like carrots, onions and broccoli. Trying to eat more seafood, it's just very expensive here.

Any suggestions for other foods that really fill you up?

vivmom2014

Henny2206 wrote: »

I eat a lot of eggs, lean pork, chicken, avocado, beans. And I like carrots, onions and broccoli. Trying to eat more seafood, it's just very expensive here.

Any suggestions for other foods that really fill you up?

I don't eat meat, so I get protein from tempeh, seafood, beans, nuts, dairy, etc. (although no yogurt or cottage cheese, can't abide them) but I also feel full from carbs. And not just brown rice or whole wheat carbs, but white ones. Shocking, I know.

Soups are really filling, and calorie-wise they're often excellent. Same with stews - there are some good, hearty ones you can make in the Crockpot. Nachos, quesadillas, vegetable pizzas (with nuts on top, too), stir fry dishes served over rice. Veggie burgers - totally filling. I make all of this food at home, BTW. Restaurants are infrequent for me - I have to plan so many calories for them.

Kalikel

I vote Diet Break, too.

I think a lot of the frustration with slow weight loss is because we do everything right and the weight still isn't coming off. It's more the doing-everything-right part, though. Weighing and logging every little bite we take is annoying. It gets to be too much and then, when the weight loss stalls, we are like, "Argh!"

A diet break relieves you of the burden of weighing/logging, gives you an opportunity to learn to eat without logging and when you go back to losing, the weight comes off again. That's been my experience, anyway.