CICO huh?

ndj1979

after reading through this thread, I am going to agree with the sentiment that you have been netting too low of calories for too long. I would suggest adding a 100 calories a week back in until you stop losing, and eat at maintenance for about four to six months, and then slowly reverse back down into a small deficit of 250 calories and see if you start losing half pound per week.

ndj1979

cheryldumais wrote: »

I just want to say I feel your pain. I am having a similar issue and I believe it just comes down to genetics. Some people have higher metabolism than others and it sucks to be us. On the upside if there is ever a famine we will still be standing, lol. I have been on 1200 calories for a bit over a year. I've lost 73 pounds but in the last 4 months I've only lost 3. I haven't changed anything and in fact am moving more.

One comment about health issues, I have a low thyroid. I am medicated now but I was tested for years with nothing showing up. I personally believe that when you are low you learn to live in that space of comfort. When I was finally diagnosed I had been on a very long grueling trip and I thought I'd had a minor stroke. My doc tested and said he hadn't seen a thyroid that low in years. When they did ultrasound they found scar tissue so I know I was low for many years before it was discovered. So I said all that to say there could be something lurking in the background that they have missed.

Hang in there, some loss is better than none or a gain. I know that I will likely have to live on 1400 - 1500 calories for the rest of my life if I'm lucky as I still have 25 pounds to lose. I've finally made peace with that and that it may take time to get the rest of the weight off. I am so much better than I was that I can live with that.

to the bolded part..

1. Everyone's metabolism - barring medical condition like thyroid - is relatively the same. Some people think that they have a fast metabolism but they are really just highly active. Fast/slow/medium metabolism is a myth.
2. The reason that your weight loss has slowed is because you dropped 73 pounds (congrats!) and as you say you have not changed anything. You would also probably benefit from a diet break as well. Eventually your body will catch up to less calories and slow down the rate at which it burns off said calories.

cheryldumais

ndj1979 wrote: »

cheryldumais wrote: »

I just want to say I feel your pain. I am having a similar issue and I believe it just comes down to genetics. Some people have higher metabolism than others and it sucks to be us. On the upside if there is ever a famine we will still be standing, lol. I have been on 1200 calories for a bit over a year. I've lost 73 pounds but in the last 4 months I've only lost 3. I haven't changed anything and in fact am moving more.

to the bolded part..

1. Everyone's metabolism - barring medical condition like thyroid - is relatively the same. Some people think that they have a fast metabolism but they are really just highly active. Fast/slow/medium metabolism is a myth.
2. The reason that your weight loss has slowed is because you dropped 73 pounds (congrats!) and as you say you have not changed anything. You would also probably benefit from a diet break as well. Eventually your body will catch up to less calories and slow down the rate at which it burns off said calories.

Thanks for your input ndj1979. I appreciate the congratulaltions. As for item #1 I'm not an expert but I'm also not sure I agree. I think body composition has something to do with Metabolism. I very well may have lost some muscle mass which would lower my metabolism as experts say muscle burns more calories than fat and therefore I am not burning the same amount as someone who is a body builder. With that in mind some people genetically have different body make ups so I assume that their metabolisms would differ. I am not a scientist however and I'm sure there are others who know more on the subject. I based my response on comments made by people here my height and weight who are eating considerably more calories than I am and seem to be losing just fine. Even those who are basically the same age as myself and state they are sedentary. You may be correct and perhaps they are actually more active than I am. That leads me to #2 where you suggest a diet break. What is the purpose of that? My understanding was that they recommend that to reset metabolism. If everyone's metabolism is the same how can I reset it?

Actually I did in fact do a diet break and got some help from it. I am at least losing again even though it is slowly. As for my loss slowing down because I am smaller, I agree but my weight loss stopped suddenly not gradually. Thank you for your suggestions though I can use all the help I can get.

psuLemon

cheryldumais wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

cheryldumais wrote: »

I just want to say I feel your pain. I am having a similar issue and I believe it just comes down to genetics. Some people have higher metabolism than others and it sucks to be us. On the upside if there is ever a famine we will still be standing, lol. I have been on 1200 calories for a bit over a year. I've lost 73 pounds but in the last 4 months I've only lost 3. I haven't changed anything and in fact am moving more.

to the bolded part..

1. Everyone's metabolism - barring medical condition like thyroid - is relatively the same. Some people think that they have a fast metabolism but they are really just highly active. Fast/slow/medium metabolism is a myth.
2. The reason that your weight loss has slowed is because you dropped 73 pounds (congrats!) and as you say you have not changed anything. You would also probably benefit from a diet break as well. Eventually your body will catch up to less calories and slow down the rate at which it burns off said calories.

Thanks for your input ndj1979. I appreciate the congratulaltions. As for item #1 I'm not an expert but I'm also not sure I agree. I think body composition has something to do with Metabolism. I very well may have lost some muscle mass which would lower my metabolism as experts say muscle burns more calories than fat and therefore I am not burning the same amount as someone who is a body builder. With that in mind some people genetically have different body make ups so I assume that their metabolisms would differ. I am not a scientist however and I'm sure there are others who know more on the subject. I based my response on comments made by people here my height and weight who are eating considerably more calories than I am and seem to be losing just fine. Even those who are basically the same age as myself and state they are sedentary. You may be correct and perhaps they are actually more active than I am. That leads me to #2 where you suggest a diet break. What is the purpose of that? My understanding was that they recommend that to reset metabolism. If everyone's metabolism is the same how can I reset it?

Actually I did in fact do a diet break and got some help from it. I am at least losing again even though it is slowly. As for my loss slowing down because I am smaller, I agree but my weight loss stopped suddenly not gradually. Thank you for your suggestions though I can use all the help I can get.

Body composition would drive metabolism, as well as genetics. But most people do fall within a few hundred calories of each other. As an FYI


https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.

Tacklewasher

On the diet break, here is @sidesteel thread on it. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10481830/the-diet-break/p1

I took one for 10 days early this month and still ended up losing close to 8 lbs, so it didn't even slow me down.

AliceDark

cheryldumais wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

cheryldumais wrote: »

I just want to say I feel your pain. I am having a similar issue and I believe it just comes down to genetics. Some people have higher metabolism than others and it sucks to be us. On the upside if there is ever a famine we will still be standing, lol. I have been on 1200 calories for a bit over a year. I've lost 73 pounds but in the last 4 months I've only lost 3. I haven't changed anything and in fact am moving more.

to the bolded part..

1. Everyone's metabolism - barring medical condition like thyroid - is relatively the same. Some people think that they have a fast metabolism but they are really just highly active. Fast/slow/medium metabolism is a myth.
2. The reason that your weight loss has slowed is because you dropped 73 pounds (congrats!) and as you say you have not changed anything. You would also probably benefit from a diet break as well. Eventually your body will catch up to less calories and slow down the rate at which it burns off said calories.

Thanks for your input ndj1979. I appreciate the congratulaltions. As for item #1 I'm not an expert but I'm also not sure I agree. I think body composition has something to do with Metabolism. I very well may have lost some muscle mass which would lower my metabolism as experts say muscle burns more calories than fat and therefore I am not burning the same amount as someone who is a body builder. With that in mind some people genetically have different body make ups so I assume that their metabolisms would differ. I am not a scientist however and I'm sure there are others who know more on the subject. I based my response on comments made by people here my height and weight who are eating considerably more calories than I am and seem to be losing just fine. Even those who are basically the same age as myself and state they are sedentary. You may be correct and perhaps they are actually more active than I am. That leads me to #2 where you suggest a diet break. What is the purpose of that? My understanding was that they recommend that to reset metabolism. If everyone's metabolism is the same how can I reset it?

Actually I did in fact do a diet break and got some help from it. I am at least losing again even though it is slowly. As for my loss slowing down because I am smaller, I agree but my weight loss stopped suddenly not gradually. Thank you for your suggestions though I can use all the help I can get.

Metabolism really just means the number of calories your body uses to perform basic biological functions (breathing, digestion, blinking, etc.). Most people fall within a predictable range for their metabolic rate (excluding people with medical conditions that would impact their rate, like people with thyroid issues or PCOS). While muscle does burn more calories than fat, that increase is pretty negligible. By far, the biggest variable in terms of your total daily energy expenditure is your overall level of activity, which is separate from your metabolism.

DietPrada

Not sure I agree with the metabolism comment. My girlfriend and I used to live together. She was one inch taller than me. Same age. If anything I was more active than her - we both had office jobs but I used to get out and ride my horse. We at the same meals, but she snacked a lot more - always had lollies and stuff around. And yet she was lean as a racehorse and I was 100kg. Her parents were also lean people. My parents very large - even though my mum was always playing squash or something, and didn't eat a huge amount. So yes, I think genetics and individual metabolism is a factor. My ex-husband was the same - 6'2" and 71kg and ate like a horse. And he wasn't particularly active, certainly didn't exercise.

fitmom4lifemfp

OP, I will just say that I know how ya feel, girl.

blambo61

You have to lose at least what a deficit demands since the energy has to come from somewhere. Like others have said, your metabolism likely has slowed a lot and/or all the intake and activity number are off some.

psuLemon

EbonyDahlia wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the metabolism comment. My girlfriend and I used to live together. She was one inch taller than me. Same age. If anything I was more active than her - we both had office jobs but I used to get out and ride my horse. We at the same meals, but she snacked a lot more - always had lollies and stuff around. And yet she was lean as a racehorse and I was 100kg. Her parents were also lean people. My parents very large - even though my mum was always playing squash or something, and didn't eat a huge amount. So yes, I think genetics and individual metabolism is a factor. My ex-husband was the same - 6'2" and 71kg and ate like a horse. And he wasn't particularly active, certainly didn't exercise.

I am not sure what you can disagree with, you can look at what the actual science says about it above. But you have to remember, metabolism is only a part of the equation. There are still many other factors that can drive huge expenditure differences. And long term calorie suppression, especially if you have inadequate protein and little or no resistance training is only going to enhance adaptive thermogenesis, which will force your body to become more efficient. So between that natural occurrence of AT and changes in NEAT, TEF and TEA, it will explain why your results are the way they are.

ndj1979

EbonyDahlia wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the metabolism comment. My girlfriend and I used to live together. She was one inch taller than me. Same age. If anything I was more active than her - we both had office jobs but I used to get out and ride my horse. We at the same meals, but she snacked a lot more - always had lollies and stuff around. And yet she was lean as a racehorse and I was 100kg. Her parents were also lean people. My parents very large - even though my mum was always playing squash or something, and didn't eat a huge amount. So yes, I think genetics and individual metabolism is a factor. My ex-husband was the same - 6'2" and 71kg and ate like a horse. And he wasn't particularly active, certainly didn't exercise.

unless you were tracking what your husband or girlfriend were eating all the time, you have know way to know what their acutal intake was. Maybe they ate no breakfast, more at work, and then less at night? My point is that just because it is perceivedt hat someone "eats like a horse, or like a bird" does not make it so.

Your lack of weight loss boils down to one of these three..

1. Overestimating calorie burns
2. not accurately logging intake
3. some kind of un-diagnosed medical condition
4. Netting only 900 calories for a long period of time which has resulted in adaptive thermogenisis..

fitmom4lifemfp

ndj1979 wrote: »

unless you were tracking what your husband or girlfriend were eating all the time, you have know way to know what their acutal intake was. Maybe they ate no breakfast, more at work, and then less at night? My point is that just because it is perceivedt hat someone "eats like a horse, or like a bird" does not make it so.

Your lack of weight loss boils down to one of these three..

1. Overestimating calorie burns
2. not accurately logging intake
3. some kind of un-diagnosed medical condition
4. Netting only 900 calories for a long period of time which has resulted in adaptive thermogenisis..

Adaptive thermogenisis will always happen when you lose weight, period. It's normal. The more I read about it (and I have read a LOT of studies) the more I am convinced that it is exactly why so many people do not get expected results using sites that provide expected weight loss, using calculated TDEE's, BMR's and the like. The problem is, as I understand it, there are so many individual differences, it's impossible to nail down these numbers accurately for every individual. And if you have lost weight previously, (I am one of those) you are already working at a disadvantage - your NREE is likely lower than it was, and from the studies I have read, it may never get higher at your lower weight.
These articles, and other similar ones, have probably already been posted in this forum, and I know most people don't want to get into the science, but it is helpful, I think, to understand how much our bodies fight for every scrap of energy stores (fat). So while CICO is the real deal, determining what a person's "CO" number is, is sometimes a bit of a crap shoot.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/full/0803523a.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775

Just my two cents. Might only be worth a half cent.