Why do I not lose weight even though I eat like before weight gain?

MissPauling

Hello.

I have a question about weight loss that is probably more theoretical but I absolutely don't get it.

I have been 159 pounds for a few months (after a slow gain over 4 months from 143 pounds). I did not exercise during the time I weighed 159.

I then gained pretty rapidly (4 weeks) until I was at 169 pounds, and the culprits are very clear - I ate Ben & Jerrys and all kind of high caloric stuff, mostly bread and noodles, cake, and I ate too much.

Then I started exercising again (30-50 minutes, HIIT and weight training, 2-3 times a week) and eating like during the time I weighed 159 pounds, maybe even a bit better/less. Still no weight loss at all, for over a month now. Yes, I also measured the size of my body parts, it's also the same, even though I clearly cut back and did not overindulge like during those 4 weeks.

Why?

Why can my body preserve 169 pounds with the same amount of food it preserved 159 pounds?

And when I was 143 pounds I didn't eat so differently as well. It's not like my portion size super blew up or something or I ate completely different stuff. Actually I don't even know what was so different. The only thing really sticking out are the periods with clear weight gain because yes, there I ate high caloric stuff every day (the slow gain from 143 to 159 was slow because I was going from eating high caloric stuff for 2 weeks to eating like now for 2 weeks, back and forth, and the 2 bad weeks brought weight gain but the good weeks didn't bring weight loss)

Does anyone know why this is?

Also, would you recommend rapid cutting or keeping it slow?

tlflag1620

Unless you were weighing your portions on a scale, and are doing so currently as well, you can't say that nothing has changed. You don't need to eat a whole lot more in order to gain. A measley 100 cal per day over maintenance will result in a ten lb gain after a year. And when you are talking about calorie dense foods, it is all too easy to overeat, especially when eyeballing portions.

Gaining ten lbs in four weeks requires more obvious overeating, so, yes, you can easily identify the behavior that took you from 159-169. To lose weight you need to be in a deficit. Enter your current stats into MFP. Set it to lose a lb per week. Weigh and measure all your food and try to stay at the calorie number recommended. You can eat back some of your exercise calories (just be aware that calorie burns from exercise tend to be overestimated so you may want to start by only eating back half).

Exercise is helpful for maintaining muscle mass while you lose weight, but unless and until you have control over calories eaten, you will likely struggle to lose weight. It sounds like you are estimating portions, thereby not getting an accurate calorie count, and so you aren't losing. Try being more accurate with your intake. And then be patient.

quiksylver296

MissPauling

Hm. I came up with another possible reason. Maybe if I would have kept overeating, I would have gained much more. I thought 169 was where it ended, when actually this is just where I stopped overeating. Maybe if I had kept at it, I would have ended up with 200 pounds. And then my cutback was from gain to maintain, and not from gain to loss. Compared to before it is still a big cut but not enough to lose weight.

I'll track everything accurately and see where I go.

I don't know. I always have these moments where I could swear my body doesn't work the way it should and it needs a ridiculously small amount of calories compared to others, but oh well, without actual proof it could be just me as well.

lynn_glenmont

MissPauling wrote: »

Hm. I came up with another possible reason. Maybe if I would have kept overeating, I would have gained much more. I thought 169 was where it ended, when actually this is just where I stopped overeating. Maybe if I had kept at it, I would have ended up with 200 pounds. And then my cutback was from gain to maintain, and not from gain to loss. This is the only possible explanation I can come up with.

I'll track everything accurately and see where I go.

Yes, you would have continued to gain if you had continued eating the way you were when you gained 10 lbs in four weeks. That equates to roughly an extra 1500 calories a day above maintenance (ignoring any non-energy-related weight effects, such as retained water or the weight of food in your intestines). Your body does not need an extra 1500 calories a day to maintain an extra 10 lbs, especially an extra 10 lbs of fat (it's more on the order of an extra 50 calories a day). You could well have ended up around 450 lbs if you kept eating that much before your maintenance needs equaled that daily total. So, good on you for stopping.

The difference between maintenance at 159 and 169, all other things being equal, is so small that even with careful weighing and logging it would be easy to lose in unavoidable errors. If you weren't weighing and logging carefully, your comparison between what you were eating at 159 and 169 based merely on memory is highly unlikely to be able to identify the difference.

On top of that, the difference between maintenance at 159 and 169 is so small that the effect on the scales would take a long time to see -- for many months, even if your were eating maintenance calories for 159 lbs when you weighed 169, the change in weight would be lost in the noise of normal weight fluctuations.

red99ryder

On the bright side it sounds like you stopped gaining

Good luck

MissPauling

Hm I could really go to 450 lbs with "only" 1500 extra a day? It seems my perspective is extremely distorted because I thought I would have to eat much more for this. I guess I have no idea about amounts and what a human needs to maintain several states of weight. Of course I know the basics but the moment overweight is added I have no idea how it works anymore. There are plenty of overweight people stating that they don't even eat that much, and I would have counted myself to them when I was at for example 176 lbs. It simply didn't look or feel that much, but I guess the distorted view comes from terrible TV shows and ideas, not reality.

The difference between maintenance at 159 and 169, all other things being equal, is so small that even with careful weighing and logging it would be easy to lose in unavoidable errors. If you weren't weighing and logging carefully, your comparison between what you were eating at 159 and 169 based merely on memory is highly unlikely to be able to identify the difference.

Haha. Guess I'm over-/underestimating almost everything. But it is my biggest weakness, jumping to conclusions because of having a feeling of something.

Thanks for explaining and reminding me of the necessity of weighing and logging for clear results/facts!