What's the flaw in this regimen? [long plateau]
Options
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
The way to do that is through upping her TDEE through activity.
Metabolic adaptation is usually a function of decreased activity (NEAT) in people who've been dieting a very long time. As a consequence of moving more, you can then eat more. Just blithely suggesting someone eat more is only half the advice needed here.
Well said!1 -
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to disagree with the advice you've been given here. If you've been stuck at your weight, you've been eating at maintenance.
I think the niggle with you is your calculation of net calories.
Calculating calorie burns, especially for lifting, is really a tough thing to estimate.
While I wouldn't recommend necessarily dropping your calories for calculation purposes, I'd recommend dropping your intake slightly, especially since you're not getting much cardio (which tends to give you more calories to eat back). Drop your intake just 100 calories a day and see if that gets you moving again.
The idea is that this maintenance you mention is not normal maintenance. The idea is break homeostasis and reset her metabolism back from this new norm she has been at for a while while consuming very low calories.
OP clearly demonstrated her calculated intake through carefully weighing and measuring and eating back some exercise cals.
Going lower than 1000 - 1200 is very bad advice.
She's not eating lower than 1000-1200. Since calculations of exercise calories are merely estimates, I'm ignoring her net calories and going by gross intake. She's eating 1300-1400. I'm advising her to eat 1200-1300.
The breaking homeostasis and metabolism resetting and everything? I know that sounds like it's a very appealing idea, but it just doesn't happen. Bodies don't work that way. That's dieting woo.
^^^^ This.
The process is a rather simple one. If you're stuck in a plateau, you can:
1) Eat less
2) Move more
3) A bit of both.
4) Continue to maintain
#3 is the way to go for you, OP. You've indicated a desire to get leaner. You've been calculating net calories which still gives you some wiggle room in the CI portion of the equation. Add a bit more cardio to the CO side at the same time and you *will* get the scale moving again.
Understand that the closer you get to goal, the less of a margin for any error exists, so make doubly sure your logging is really tight.
And btw, congratulations on having come this far. You"ve done well!
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
The way to do that is through upping her TDEE through activity.
Metabolic adaptation is usually a function of decreased activity (NEAT) in people who've been dieting a very long time. As a consequence of moving more, you can then eat more. Just blithely suggesting someone eat more is only half the advice needed here.
Instead of lowering calories down yet again, she could add muscle and also increase TDEE. I agree with you on that. I was suggesting maintaining, building muscle and then cut again. Just continuing on a deficit will make it difficult to gain back muscle loss.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
The way to do that is through upping her TDEE through activity.
Metabolic adaptation is usually a function of decreased activity (NEAT) in people who've been dieting a very long time. As a consequence of moving more, you can then eat more. Just blithely suggesting someone eat more is only half the advice needed here.
Instead of lowering calories down yet again, she could add muscle and also increase TDEE. I agree with you on that. I was suggesting maintaining, building muscle and then cut again. Just continuing on a deficit will make it difficult to gain back muscle loss.
She's been stalled for 6-7 months. Recomp is a loooooong process and muscle building a very, very long game at maintenance for women. She'd basically be spinning her wheels doing a recomp at this point. Actually, she's effectively BEEN doing recomp for 6-7 months.
She'd be better off increasing her movement and seeing if that helps. If she can't increase her movement, she can cut her calories. Or try a combination of both.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
The way to do that is through upping her TDEE through activity.
Metabolic adaptation is usually a function of decreased activity (NEAT) in people who've been dieting a very long time. As a consequence of moving more, you can then eat more. Just blithely suggesting someone eat more is only half the advice needed here.
Instead of lowering calories down yet again, she could add muscle and also increase TDEE. I agree with you on that. I was suggesting maintaining, building muscle and then cut again. Just continuing on a deficit will make it difficult to gain back muscle loss.
She's been stalled for 6-7 months. Recomp is a loooooong process and muscle building a very, very long game at maintenance for women. She'd basically be spinning her wheels doing a recomp at this point. Actually, she's effectively BEEN doing recomp for 6-7 months.
She'd be better off increasing her movement and seeing if that helps. If she can't increase her movement, she can cut her calories. Or try a combination of both.
Yes. Increasing movement will help.0 -
I'm not saying reverse dieting is the only way. But it is helpful for some people who have been restrictive dieting for too long.2
-
Can you explain what your concept of "reverse dieting" is? Eating more to lose weight?I'm not saying reverse dieting is the only way. But it is helpful for some people who have been restrictive dieting for too long.
And your observation of restrictive dieting does not apply to the OP. She's clearly been eating at maintenance levels for 6-7 months now.1 -
@43501 - have you had your thyroid function checked lately? Just something to rule out as an underactive thyroid that is going unmedicated can negatively impact your weight loss efforts.
2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Can you explain what your concept of "reverse dieting" is? Eating more to lose weight?I'm not saying reverse dieting is the only way. But it is helpful for some people who have been restrictive dieting for too long.
And your observation of restrictive dieting does not apply to the OP. She's clearly been eating at maintenance levels for 6-7 months now.
Her maintenance level is too low. She can up the maintenance level by maintaining, recomp, and upping calories gradually for lasting results. Then when she cuts calories she won't be so low and can comfortably lose again. Or not. It is just a different method. There are plenty of other ones. I'm not saying my success is the only one! But it is good to look at all of the possibilities.1 -
I'd agree with upping calories gradually. The fact that you are maintaining now doesn't mean you can't maintain eating more. As you up calories you will, consciously or not, up your non-exercise activity and TEF. I can maintain at 2450 but while cutting I'll get to the point where it takes me getting to 1600 to lose a pound a week, which implies a 2100 maintenance level. TDEEs are not static and cannot always line up with the 3500/lb loss rate.
This matches with my experience.
I was at another prolonged plateau before this. At that time I was eating 1400 a day (compared to my current 1000 - 1200 target). Dropped from 65kg to 61kg and just sat there at 61 forever, until I asked "hey, what am I doing wrong here" and a bunch of bodybuilders said "cut your calories more".
Then I dropped some more and I'm stuck again. So, yeah, whatever my "maintenance" is seems to flux a little bit and it makes pinning down exact numbers and targets difficult.
Has anyone read this? OP was at 1400. Cut calories and is at currently 1000-1200 target. What next? Cut down again? I think not.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
I know its now "in" to say that "eat more lose more" is hogwash, but the numbers are pretty easy to run to show that a small woman eating at sufficient deficit can in fact lower their metabolism to the point where she'll stall out at 1000-1200 calories.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So you're advocating that a 5ft 3" individual should be netting below 1000 Cal a day to demonstrate commitment and see things through? Because she is currently doing what? Not demonstrating courage and commitment by trying to fix her metabolically adapted body?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My advice to you is to take a diet break, and then reassess your goals. Do you want to weigh less and be really lean? If the answer is yes, the break might give you the push you need to come back with enough commitment to see through sticking to a slightly lower intake. If not, you can always come back from the break and do recomp and stay your current weight.
She's not metabolically adapted. She's eating at maintenance.
That maintenance level is too low and needs mending.
I know its now "in" to say that "eat more lose more" is hogwash, but the numbers are pretty easy to run to show that a small woman eating at sufficient deficit can in fact lower their metabolism to the point where she'll stall out at 1000-1200 calories.
Exactly. I'm not even a small woman (almost 5'8") and managed to stall out at 1200-1300. I was beside myself and people accused me of lying. But I can tell you that it happened for real in spite of careful weighing and sticking to the program.1 -
I'd agree with upping calories gradually. The fact that you are maintaining now doesn't mean you can't maintain eating more. As you up calories you will, consciously or not, up your non-exercise activity and TEF. I can maintain at 2450 but while cutting I'll get to the point where it takes me getting to 1600 to lose a pound a week, which implies a 2100 maintenance level. TDEEs are not static and cannot always line up with the 3500/lb loss rate.
This matches with my experience.
I was at another prolonged plateau before this. At that time I was eating 1400 a day (compared to my current 1000 - 1200 target). Dropped from 65kg to 61kg and just sat there at 61 forever, until I asked "hey, what am I doing wrong here" and a bunch of bodybuilders said "cut your calories more".
Then I dropped some more and I'm stuck again. So, yeah, whatever my "maintenance" is seems to flux a little bit and it makes pinning down exact numbers and targets difficult.
Has anyone read this? OP was at 1400. Cut calories and is at currently 1000-1200 target. What next? Cut down again? I think not.
I am unclear what the confusion is.. This low calories are her new norm maintenance.. right? Which way too little.. even for me and I am 3/4" taller.
I was in this exact same situation. I went to the doctor for my issues. I was eatig little and exercising and stalled for 3 1/2 months., but I also developed some side effects. I had no choice but to up calories cause my metabolism was shut down, my thyroid was messed up and cortisol and other adrenal hormones were through the roof or caving in. I had blood work done that told my story
Anyone advocating that any person that does not fit the 4'8 - 5'4", small and fairly lean and sedentary category should never be eating 1200 calories let alone 1000. For those that fit this category MUST Increase movement, activity and exercise to eat more in MFP is how to beat it..
And on the moving.. I agree that moving more is always a great idea in any circumstance not just this one, who is to disagree that moving is a bad thing ever? not me..
1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Can you explain what your concept of "reverse dieting" is? Eating more to lose weight?I'm not saying reverse dieting is the only way. But it is helpful for some people who have been restrictive dieting for too long.
And your observation of restrictive dieting does not apply to the OP. She's clearly been eating at maintenance levels for 6-7 months now.
Her maintenance level is too low.
How can her maintenance level be too low if she's actually maintaining her current weight? That's the part that's scientifically counterintuitive.
0 -
If by chance, OP were to up calories and get out of this deficit short term and she were to drop weight that could be masked by a whole host of issues related to water retention as in female hormones, leptin, grehlin, cortisol throid (all these lovely hormones that make us tick) etc.. all get put back into balance..
So she is still not at her regular maintenance level we a talking about, her weight loss is masked by a whole lot of stress. I am hoping this might be case after a week.
So she were to just increase for a min of 3 days and she loses then this will tell the whole story.0 -
Just by glancing at your post.. you're not eating enough and start exercising in some capacity and you'll see a change.0
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Can you explain what your concept of "reverse dieting" is? Eating more to lose weight?I'm not saying reverse dieting is the only way. But it is helpful for some people who have been restrictive dieting for too long.
And your observation of restrictive dieting does not apply to the OP. She's clearly been eating at maintenance levels for 6-7 months now.
Her maintenance level is too low. She can up the maintenance level by maintaining, recomp, and upping calories gradually for lasting results. Then when she cuts calories she won't be so low and can comfortably lose again. Or not. It is just a different method. There are plenty of other ones. I'm not saying my success is the only one! But it is good to look at all of the possibilities.
Recomping is a very long process. You are making a couple of assumptions here. The first one is that you're going to put on a significant amount of muscle during recomp. The second is that this amount of muscle is going to be of a great enough amount to generate enough metabolic activity to give you significantly more calories to eat. The third is that she will have patience enough to do this after stalling for 6 to 7 months.
I disagree with all of your assumptions. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get super jacked during recomp and muscle is really not all that metabolically active.3 -
elisa123gal wrote: »Just by glancing at your post.. you're not eating enough and start exercising in some capacity and you'll see a change.
Glance again - the OP is exercising. Extensively.0 -
OP, try listening to this podcast, especially from about 27:40 on, when they are discussing stalled weight loss. It may be helpful/insightful.
http://www.irakinutrition.com/podcast/podcast-with-lyle-mcdonald-1/3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions