The dreaded plateau

thelastnightingale

After two glorious weeks in which I lost a lot of weight by eating whatever I felt like as long it was within 1,200 calories, my weight has stubbornly refused to go down at all in a third week. (And yes, I am weighing and logging religiously!)

I know I'm eating 1,200 calories and I have a typical deficit of c. 800 calories per day (I wear a sports watch which works out my burn for me), so you'd expect something to happen. It isn't. I'm not very active at all at the moment, so I'm definitely not gaining muscle.

Decreasing my calories doesn't seem like the best of ideas given I'm already at the low end of acceptable calorie intake, so I'm now thinking perhaps I need to focus more on what I'm eating within that 1,200 calorie limit. Any tips/advice? It's getting increasingly hard to stay motivated whilst the scales aren't budging! Should I try to increase my protein/carbs...?

harper16

One week isn't a plateau. Even if you are accurately weighing and logging everything that you eat perfectly. You might still have weeks where the scale remains unchanged, or even increases. Due to tons of other outside factors.

thelastnightingale

I weigh daily to see trends average out over time, and the downward curve has remained static over the last week, i.e. I'm not just comparing two readings 7 days apart. It's really disheartening, especially given how the weight seemed to come off so quickly at the start...

Lietchi

Has your weight not fluctuated at all the last week?

One week is too short to talk about a plateau, you could have more water weight (for example due to hormonal fluctuations, more carbs, more salt,... ) or more food waste in your system temporarily. Since you mention losing 'a lot of weight' the previous two weeks, some of that will have been water weight and your body could just be finding a new water weight balance.

Weight loss is not a linear journey, and one week of stalled weight loss is not sufficient grounds for making changes.

(Aside from that, I don't think 1200 calories is necessarily a good idea. You don't say how much weight you are looking to lose, but a 800 calorie deficit might be too aggressive.)

harper16

thelastnightingale wrote: »

I weigh daily to see trends average out over time, and the downward curve has remained static over the last week, i.e. I'm not just comparing two readings 7 days apart. It's really disheartening, especially given how the weight seemed to come off so quickly at the start...

Weight always seems to come off quickly at the start, and most of it is likely a decrease in water weight. If you have been exercising more you might have fluid retention that is masking any weight loss. Keep the focus and you'll see the results.

LivingtheLeanDream

A plateau is weight not changing for more than 4- 6 weeks - eating at calorie deficit eventually leads to weight loss.

1200 calories is minimum intake for a woman unless you're very short.

LivingtheLeanDream

thelastnightingale wrote: »

I weigh daily to see trends average out over time, and the downward curve has remained static over the last week, i.e. I'm not just comparing two readings 7 days apart. It's really disheartening, especially given how the weight seemed to come off so quickly at the start...

a week is not enough data, give it time.

thelastnightingale

@Lietchi It's gone up and down by 0.1lb, but yes, static. I've been incredibly well-behaved over the last week and seen no progress overall. I knew the weight loss in the first week was largely water and not to get used to such a drop, but I thought I could lose 2lb a week with such a low calorie limit. I need to lose about 50lb to get to a healthy weight, so quite a long road ahead.

@LivingtheLeanDream Yes, as well as being fat, I am very short. I had a play with the BMR calculator when I was started and was very miffed to see how many extra calories I could have if only I was a bit taller! Such is life...

I may not like what I'm hearing, but I promise I am listening, and I'm hearing you all tell me I'm being too damn impatient...

Lietchi

You mentioned a 800kcal deficit on average. That equates to 1,6lbs of weight loss per week (3500kcal per lb of bodyfat, approximately), not 2lbs. Which is still quite fast.

I don't have your problem of impatience though, I intentionally set myself a weight loss rate of 0.5lbs per week from the start (needing to lose almost 60 lbs), which I haven't seen anyone else do It's so much easier to stick to my calorie goal that way, and I've managed to lose 40lbs since starting in August. Not saying you should go as slow as me, but faster isn't necessarily better (unless there are medical reasons).

LivingtheLeanDream

What height are you out of interest? I'm a fellow shortie at 5ft 2, BMR for me is around 1192 but I'm active and can maintain my weight on 2000 cals.

thelastnightingale

@LivingtheLeanDream I'm only a couple of inches taller than you, but my BMR is around 1,565.

I can maintain on 2,000 (which makes sense, given that's apparently what I burn), but the trouble with that sort of limit is that it doesn't give a lot of leeway, and when I'm aiming for a 'high' calorie intake, I stop weighing, I eyeball food and I eat over, because what difference will it make? (Hey, at least I know myself well enough to know what my triggers for self-sabotage are...)

@Lietchi For me, I guess 1,200 feels more like a diet, and something I need to (and do) take seriously. If I set a limit of 1,400, that becomes 1,500, then suddenly 2,200 before you can blink.

There are some foods I can portion control, there are others I know I can't, so I just don't buy in at all. It's a bit like that with calorie limits - I know I can stick to a lower figure, but give me a more average figure and I'll fall off the wagon immediately.

LivingtheLeanDream

So you definately shouldn't be eating less than 1200 calories but every one of them has to be accounted for, not eyeballed... stick with the process because calories in > calories out leads to weight loss, it can take several weeks to show up on the scale though.

The thing is to find a way of eating that wont lead to any falling off the wagon, restricting calories too much usually makes it easier to fall.. (that was my experience until I saw the light LOL and went the sustainable route of slower loss, more calories = happier weight loss journey for me personally )

Lietchi

thelastnightingale wrote: »

@Lietchi For me, I guess 1,200 feels more like a diet, and something I need to (and do) take seriously. If I set a limit of 1,400, that becomes 1,500, then suddenly 2,200 before you can blink.

There are some foods I can portion control, there are others I know I can't, so I just don't buy in at all. It's a bit like that with calorie limits - I know I can stick to a lower figure, but give me a more average figure and I'll fall off the wagon immediately.

We're all wired differently, of course. But reading this makes me worried a bit... If you can only take your calorie goal seriously when it's low/when you are dieting, how will you maintain your goal weight once you reach it?

That's the thing about how I'm losing weight now, I'm basically eating the way I will eat when I reach my goal weight and being as active as I want to be at maintenance, except for that deficit of 250 calories. 'Diets' are temporary (hence why many people gain weight again after reaching their goal), whereas lifestyle changes and permanent (gradual) changes to the way we eat are more likely to give us the result we want: achieving and maintaining our goal weight.

The question of maintenance is still far away, but it can be interesting to think about it already. (But the first step is patience with the scale )

thelastnightingale

Lietchi wrote: »

We're all wired differently, of course. But reading this makes me worried a bit... If you can only take your calorie goal seriously when it's low/when you are dieting, how will you maintain your goal weight once you reach it?

I feel like that's Future Me's problem, and she'll be thin, so she's not getting any sympathy from Current Me.

1,200 is a lowish number for someone as fat as me, but will be more reasonable for someone as light as her. The lighter you are, the lower your BMR.

I suspect I'm going to have to log for life. I've been several stone lighter before and the problem is when I stop logging, the weight gradually creeps back on and then I'm here again.

One of my friends lost a life-changing amount of weight and still measures everything. I used to wonder what the point was, given he's thin now, but I'm starting to realise it's because if he doesn't log what he's eating, he knows he'll eat far too much without even realising.

thelastnightingale

LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »

So you definately shouldn't be eating less than 1200 calories but every one of them has to be accounted for, not eyeballed... stick with the process because calories in > calories out leads to weight loss, it can take several weeks to show up on the scale though.

The thing is to find a way of eating that wont lead to any falling off the wagon, restricting calories too much usually makes it easier to fall.. (that was my experience until I saw the light LOL and went the sustainable route of slower loss, more calories = happier weight loss journey for me personally )

If that's a current photo in your profile, you look bloody amazing and I hope to get there too someday.

I'm being somewhat realistic in that I know I won't get anywhere near my goal for at least 6 months, and up to 18 months, which is why the lack of weight loss spooks me. In my head, I am projecting what the consequence of that is, and it can add an alarming number of months onto the total journey.

I guess if I'm honest, one of my relatives is ill, and I'd like that person to know I'll be OK. We have some medical conditions that run in our family that could be made worse by being overweight, and I think it would be reassuring for them if I reduced my risk level.

AnnPT77

This is a good read:

https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations

I started MFP at a similar point to you (50 pounds to lose, more or less), back in 2015. It took the better part of a year to lose that. If you were losing well for 2 weeks, what you're seeing now is almost certainly water rebalancing. You're going to need patience to stay the course, and you'll see these periods where weight doesn't move much.

You have to do you, but I think you're not doing yourself any favors leaving your future self to figure out what she needs to do. IMO, weight loss is the time to experiment and practice skills we'll need in maintenance. Otherwise, we arrive at goal weight, and need to build a whole new routine. Very few women need to eat as little as 1200 calories to maintain. (I don't, even though 5'5", 129 pounds, sedentary, 64 years old - not even 1200 before exercise, let alone including exercise.)

Advice? Track as carefully as you can, adopt a sustainable routine for the many months this will take (including patience with scale weight). The easier you make the process for yourself, the likelier it is you'll stick with it long enough to reach goal . . . let alone maintain the loss.

BTW: Your sports watch isn't measuring your calorie burn. It's just estimating it, from things like movements, maybe heart rate, etc. They're close for most people, but they can be off a bit (high or low) for some people, or materially off for a very, very few. This is just how statistical averages work: If you're average, they're accurate. If you're not, they aren't. (Mine, a good brand/model that gives close estimates for most people, is howlingly far off for me, based on nearly 5 years of logging experience, and a year and a half plus of using the device. That's rare, but it happens.

Track carefully (food, exercise, weight), average your results over at least 4-6 weeks (use a duration that includes whole, not partial, menstrual cycles if you're a premenoplausal woman), then you'll have an idea whether your device is accurate for you, or not.

Best wishes!

LivingtheLeanDream

thelastnightingale wrote: »

LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »

So you definately shouldn't be eating less than 1200 calories but every one of them has to be accounted for, not eyeballed... stick with the process because calories in > calories out leads to weight loss, it can take several weeks to show up on the scale though.

The thing is to find a way of eating that wont lead to any falling off the wagon, restricting calories too much usually makes it easier to fall.. (that was my experience until I saw the light LOL and went the sustainable route of slower loss, more calories = happier weight loss journey for me personally )

If that's a current photo in your profile, you look bloody amazing and I hope to get there too someday.

I'm being somewhat realistic in that I know I won't get anywhere near my goal for at least 6 months, and up to 18 months, which is why the lack of weight loss spooks me. In my head, I am projecting what the consequence of that is, and it can add an alarming number of months onto the total journey.

I guess if I'm honest, one of my relatives is ill, and I'd like that person to know I'll be OK. We have some medical conditions that run in our family that could be made worse by being overweight, and I think it would be reassuring for them if I reduced my risk level.

Thanks, that photo was taken a few days ago

of course the lack of loss spooks you, it does that to us at times all but we have to think bigger picture and long term process, chipping away at the pounds bit by bit.
Really wishing you every success and also hoping your relative will be recover ok.

~Ruth