Why has my weight loss stopped?

joelyont

Hi, I started counting calories and logging food two weeks ago. Now, I've lost 4kg, but the last few days no loss even though my diary says I should. Yesterday I had 1200 calories and exercised over 1500 by running 12km and no loss.
It's a bit disheartening.

rankinsect

joelyont wrote: »

Hi, I started counting calories and logging food two weeks ago. Now, I've lost 4kg, but the last few days no loss even though my diary says I should. Yesterday I had 1200 calories and exercised over 1500 by running 12km and no loss.
It's a bit disheartening.

Weight loss isn't at all linear. Some days you'll be down, others up, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Your body has all sorts of things inside it - water being a huge one - and every time you weigh, you have a slightly different amount of water.

True "plateaus" are periods of three or more weeks with no downward trend in weight loss. Everyone, even those aggressively losing weight, will have some days with upward measurements, but on the whole the trend is downward.

Anyhow eating 1200 calories and burning 1500 isn't a diet, it's starvation. If you're truly burning 1500 calories, you should be eating 1500 calories above what your goal is (so 2700 if your goal is to net 1200).

joelyont

But I'm not hungry. So is the calorie count from the running wrong? Or am I underestimating foods? We weigh most stuff. Something is clearly wrong. Perhaps I need to eat nearer 1500. But the maths doesn't add up does it?

markbme

The scale can be a deceiver and should never be your end all. Look at your body composition, inches lost, and how you are feeling. The weight loss will come, however if you stay stagnant at this weight for a while then it may be time to take off about a 100 calories or so and see how that works for you.
Goodluck

joelyont

Thanks, I've previously, though not using MFP, plateaued at 94kg, now it's 90. I know a few days might be too early to call it a plateau, but it seems like it.

rankinsect

joelyont wrote: »

But I'm not hungry. So is the calorie count from the running wrong? Or am I underestimating foods? We weigh most stuff. Something is clearly wrong. Perhaps I need to eat nearer 1500. But the maths doesn't add up does it?

Even if you're not hungry, malnourishing yourself is terrible for your body.

And the math works fine. Losing a pound of fat means you need a 3500 calorie deficit. If you were actually capable of weighing only the fat content of your body, you'd see a relatively linear rate of loss.

However, you're not weighing just your fat. You're weighing bone and blood and organs and all the other parts of your body that isn't fat. Water has zero calories, and you can gain or lose several pounds of water per day just because your body will gain or lose water depending on the balance of other atoms and molecules. A change in weight between two consecutive days is basically meaningless, since even aggressive fat loss is on the order of 0.3 pounds per day, whereas you can change by 4 or more pounds in water over the course of a single day. That's more than an order of magnitude higher. That's why you need to take readings every day for several weeks and then look at trends, not focus on a day to day shift.

Here's a real world example (mine) of what a month of aggressive weight loss actually looks like. Note there are lots of ups and downs, there are some relatively flat bits, there are times where it takes me a week to get back to a previous record low. That's mainly just water being either retained or expelled, it's not any failure of my dieting.

joelyont

Thanks, that's quite helpful Rankinsect. I mean, obviously a net loss of 4kg in two weeks is double my target, so if I didn't lose much for a week I guess it wouldn't matter as long as it does start up again. I got so excited by the loss initially I thought I would smash out my targets in record time. Anyway, today is a friends birthday, meal out and drinks and I've been trying to work out the best options to keep me near 2000 calories (I will run for at least 500). Instead I might just have a huge blow out and get back on it tomorrow.

joelyont

Rankinsect you lost 6kg in month?

JordisTSM

You should be eating a hell of a lot more than you are. 1200 calories is very low. It is considered to be the lowest level that a petite woman should be eating. You're a guy, 94kgs, and apparently very active, so should be able to lose comfortably at 1700-2000 calories per day (minimum). Eating only 1200 and having big burns on top of that is just asking for trouble.

Did you set the 1200 yourself? I would go back to the MFP setup and go through the guided setup, it should give you a lot more calories.

Then, give it a few weeks before deciding you're in a plateau. You have lost at a rate of 2kgs per week, whereas 1kg per week would be more realistic and sustainable.

As for the 4 day stall, I just went through a week of no loss, followed by 600gms overnight. We don't lose weight in a linear fashion. Just eat what MFP tells you, ensuring you are being as accurate as possible with weighing your food intake, and trust in the process. It does work.

joelyont

Thanks Jordis. MFP say 1510 per day, but 1200 is the minimum to close my diary. It's enough, or so I though. I can easily hit 1500 a day if I think being nearer 1500 will help in the long term. Today I'm going to have about 3500 anyway.

tiptoethruthetulips

So its a couple of days and you haven't lost weight? Our weight fluctuates on a daily basis but as long as the long term trend is down its all good. Weight fluctuates for various reasons: hormones, dehydration, re-hydration, exercise, fluid retention, volume of food eaten, etc etc.

No need to panic its just a normal bodily function.

callsitlikeiseeit

RoxieDawn

To quote @callsitlikeiseeit I give out this chart often to MFP members starting out and having trouble getting weight loss to start or their weight loss has stalled.

I second OP that you should eat what MFP tells you to eat, closer to the 1500 and not the min 1200 you are trying to do. However, if you stalled by eating this said 1200 calories and not weighing your food, you are eating closer to your maintenance calories than you think. You stated that you weigh "most" things. Well weighing some things and not others, will derail your deficit. Also, if you cook or prepare food with cooking oil, butter, use honey, condiments such as ketchup, mayo, creamer, etc.. these are calories not getting added to your diary.

Do some checking on what may be missing from the diary that you are eating and is not getting logged.

The flow chart above is pretty much 100% fool proof and two things make that happen, using the food scale (do not use measuring spoons and measuring cups) for everything and weighing all the missing calories I mentioned and not overestimating those 1500 calories burns and eating back too many of those calories.

CollieFit

You lost 4kg in two weeks which is good going. As others have said, weightloss isn't linear and it comes in peaks and troughs even though your eating and training may not change. Your body doesn't give two hoots about what your diary says it "should" do. I suspect after your 1500 calories run, which was only fuelled by 1200 calories, your body may be hanging on to some water. To expect to do a run last night and expect to see an immediate loss on the scale the very next day shows a real lack of understanding of how fat loss works.

Carry on training more than you're eating (i.e. never ever meeting even the basics of your BMR) and much of your loss will be from muscle as much as fat. That is not a desirable situation.

booksandchocolate12

joelyont wrote: »

But I'm not hungry. So is the calorie count from the running wrong? Or am I underestimating foods? We weigh most stuff. Something is clearly wrong. Perhaps I need to eat nearer 1500. But the maths doesn't add up does it?

Why does something have to be wrong? Why do you feel that if you're not hungry, you're eating too much or doing something wrong? Losing weight doesn't have to be about deprivation and hunger.

Did you even read @rankinsect's post? Weight loss is not linear. You are not going to lose weight every day, or even every week. If the overall trend, over time, shows that the number on the scale is going down, then you're good.

I will say, however, that yes, you should "weigh more stuff". All solids. Measure liquids in a measuring cup. Log everything.

Other than that, be patient. And maybe don't weigh yourself every day, if the normal fluctuations in body weight are going to freak you out. Stick to a once-a-week weigh in.

rankinsect

joelyont wrote: »

Rankinsect you lost 6kg in month?

Yes, approximately. It was about 2.5 lb/week which was 1% of my body weight at the time so that was my aim.

ralostaz2000

rankinsect wrote: »

joelyont wrote: »

But I'm not hungry. So is the calorie count from the running wrong? Or am I underestimating foods? We weigh most stuff. Something is clearly wrong. Perhaps I need to eat nearer 1500. But the maths doesn't add up does it?

Even if you're not hungry, malnourishing yourself is terrible for your body.

And the math works fine. Losing a pound of fat means you need a 3500 calorie deficit. If you were actually capable of weighing only the fat content of your body, you'd see a relatively linear rate of loss.

However, you're not weighing just your fat. You're weighing bone and blood and organs and all the other parts of your body that isn't fat. Water has zero calories, and you can gain or lose several pounds of water per day just because your body will gain or lose water depending on the balance of other atoms and molecules. A change in weight between two consecutive days is basically meaningless, since even aggressive fat loss is on the order of 0.3 pounds per day, whereas you can change by 4 or more pounds in water over the course of a single day. That's more than an order of magnitude higher. That's why you need to take readings every day for several weeks and then look at trends, not focus on a day to day shift.

Here's a real world example (mine) of what a month of aggressive weight loss actually looks like. Note there are lots of ups and downs, there are some relatively flat bits, there are times where it takes me a week to get back to a previous record low. That's mainly just water being either retained or expelled, it's not any failure of my dieting.

wowww...this graph came in the right time...also ur reply too...I was frustrated just the day before because after a week of dieting and expecting the scale to go down...unfortunately it was up by 0.3 kgs...I was soo frustrated that day and depressed...so it means normal to have many ups and downs but in over all the trend is down.
U had a great decrease on the 13 of Dec by the way....great work

MissusMoon

joelyont wrote: »

Hi, I started counting calories and logging food two weeks ago. Now, I've lost 4kg, but the last few days no loss even though my diary says I should. Yesterday I had 1200 calories and exercised over 1500 by running 12km and no loss.
It's a bit disheartening.

To be clear, you expected to lose weight since yesterday?