I Just Keep Losing and Regaining the Same 2-3 Lbs!
lilcharmer214
Posts: 75 Member
Hi,
Looking for tips or advice.
I've had the same set goal to lose JUST 5 LBS for over 8-9 months now. I just wanted to get down to 125 lbs But seems like no matter what I cannot hit that number for anything.
I started morning jogging on 6/22, first at 1 mile, then 2 miles, then I come in and did 10-15 mins of work work, then upped that to 20 mins, M-F.
So far everything has tightened up around my arms and legs but the lower belly (34 inches), nothing. I should also note I am 22 months post-partum from having my youngest son and 2 c-section. I'm 42.
I am a pretty light eater and try and stick closely to a 1200 cal diet (I'm 5'1) and aim to drink 60-70 oz per day.
But every week, I lose 2-3 lbs and it immediately goes right back up. Frustrating.
I guess I am trying to figure out, if my goal is too unrealistic? Is this type of belly fat is really too stubborn, or may never go away or I just need more time (6-12 months).
I plan to keep at it. Thanks for reading. Also note the belly pic attached is my first-morning belly. Its twice this size by evening.
Looking for tips or advice.
I've had the same set goal to lose JUST 5 LBS for over 8-9 months now. I just wanted to get down to 125 lbs But seems like no matter what I cannot hit that number for anything.
I started morning jogging on 6/22, first at 1 mile, then 2 miles, then I come in and did 10-15 mins of work work, then upped that to 20 mins, M-F.
So far everything has tightened up around my arms and legs but the lower belly (34 inches), nothing. I should also note I am 22 months post-partum from having my youngest son and 2 c-section. I'm 42.
I am a pretty light eater and try and stick closely to a 1200 cal diet (I'm 5'1) and aim to drink 60-70 oz per day.
But every week, I lose 2-3 lbs and it immediately goes right back up. Frustrating.
I guess I am trying to figure out, if my goal is too unrealistic? Is this type of belly fat is really too stubborn, or may never go away or I just need more time (6-12 months).
I plan to keep at it. Thanks for reading. Also note the belly pic attached is my first-morning belly. Its twice this size by evening.
0
Replies
-
Losing the last little bit requires incredible patience and consistency. Your diary is closed, so I can't see it. Are you using a food scale to measure your solid foods?2
-
It could be that your belly isn’t actual fat, but a common pregnancy issue called Diastasis Recti.
From heathline.com: “Diastasis recti is the partial or complete separation of the rectus abdominis, or “six-pack” muscles, which meet at the midline of your stomach. Diastasis recti is very common during and following pregnancy. This is because the uterus stretches the muscles in the abdomen to accommodate your growing baby. One study found that up to 60 percentTrusted Source of women may experience diastasis recti during pregnancy or postpartum.”2 -
Food scale. Get one, use it. Weigh and log everything, no skipping, cheating or forgetting. Check out this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I would also say, based on your photo, you may have better success with lifting heavy (to you) weights, rather than trying to lose more body weight.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Losing the last little bit requires incredible patience and consistency. Your diary is closed, so I can't see it. Are you using a food scale to measure your solid foods?
So since I tend to eat the same things, I start by weighing everything, save the meal and re-log it.
I will go and open my food diary if that helps.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Food scale. Get one, use it. Weigh and log everything, no skipping, cheating or forgetting. Check out this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I would also say, based on your photo, you may have better success with lifting heavy (to you) weights, rather than trying to lose more body weight.
Does the photo help? I was just trying to show that I am pretty small-framed in general.
I've been working with 12 lb dumbbells for awhile. Guess its time to step it up.
Thanks!0 -
It could be that your belly isn’t actual fat, but a common pregnancy issue called Diastasis Recti.
From heathline.com: “Diastasis recti is the partial or complete separation of the rectus abdominis, or “six-pack” muscles, which meet at the midline of your stomach. Diastasis recti is very common during and following pregnancy. This is because the uterus stretches the muscles in the abdomen to accommodate your growing baby. One study found that up to 60 percentTrusted Source of women may experience diastasis recti during pregnancy or postpartum.”
Hmmmm. I thought I ruled this out a long time ago but maybe I should look into it again. Thanks.0 -
First of all your posture on the first photo doesn't look very good: your lower back is bend forward and hence the belly sticks out. This could be due to various reasons: anterior pelvis tilt and associated tight hip flexors and weak glutes, just lack of lower back muscles, or probably a couple of other reasons. If you work on those then your belly will eventually stick out less.
Secondly: yes, still use a food scale. Portion creep is totally a thing even if you say you're eating the same every day. Maybe you're using wrong database entries, or the information on the packaging is unclear as well and you're eating double servings of something. Basically that you're not losing weight means you're eating at maintenance. And despite your size your maintenance calories are not 1200. That means you're eating more. But hey, now you know what your maintenance calories look like. Great, right?
Btw, your diary is closed.5 -
I'd also suggest using a weight trending app**, if you aren't already. They use statistical techniques to try to sort out the overall direction (trend) of weight from the "noise" of daily water & digestive fluctuations. Slow loss is common when close to goal, and it's maddeningly hard to see on the scale.
I see that you mention staying in the same weight range for many months, but you showed us only a short snippet from what looks like the MFP weight tracker, which is why I'm suggesting the trending app. In the chunk you show (looks like abou 6/21-8/21), it's *possible* that you're actually slowly losing weight, if I try to visually approximate a trendline through those data points. If losing at half a pound a week or less, it's nearly impossible to see without a trending app (sometimes even with one), on any time scale shorter than several months. (I'll put mine in a spoiler at the end, as an ilustration of what I'm saying.)
** Libra for Android, Happy Scale for Apple, Trendweight with a free Fitbit account (don't need a device), Weightgrapher, others. They're not a magic crystal ball, may still mislead at times, but can be a help.
You might also be helped by reading this, as part of the interpretation of what I'm saying:
https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations
I agree with Yirara that your posture is emphasizing your stomach quite a bit (not saying there's no bloating - can't really tell).This is what many months of slow loss looks like. The horizontal-ish line is the 7-day moving trend. The vertical lines connect my daily weights to the trend, so you can see they're spiking up and down pretty wildly. Even the trend spikes and drops, and I could explain most of those spikes in terms of water weight issues. I suspect (since you're recently post-partum and much younger than I) that you're premenopausal. If that's correct, you'd expect wilder water weight swings - related to menstrual cycle - than anything I see in menopause.
On my Libra chart, if you mentally zoom in on shorter chunks, there are spikes like in your weight. But over many months, helped by the trend line, you can see the slow, slow overall loss. (If there were only the individual daily weights connected, like in your MFP chart, it'd be much harder to see, especially in one or two month chunks.) This is about the biggest time span I can show you, and still have the daily weights visible. Off to the left, my weight trend had started from somewhere around 138-139 last October
I'm losing super slowly, at around a pound a month, as context. Right now, I'm in one of those pseudo-spikes, but I'm pretty confident I'm still going to see more losses . . . . very . . . very . . . slowly. 😉3 -
I agree with all the comments above - particularly with regard to your posture. You may benefit a lot from drastically changing your exercise habits at this point. Fairly heavy resistance training (get some bands if you can't get to a gym with weights) and a lot of core work such as planks, bird dogs, dead bugs etc may be very beneficial.1
-
When do you get on the weight scale?0
-
First of all your posture on the first photo doesn't look very good: your lower back is bend forward and hence the belly sticks out. This could be due to various reasons: anterior pelvis tilt and associated tight hip flexors and weak glutes, just lack of lower back muscles, or probably a couple of other reasons. If you work on those then your belly will eventually stick out less.
Secondly: yes, still use a food scale. Portion creep is totally a thing even if you say you're eating the same every day. Maybe you're using wrong database entries, or the information on the packaging is unclear as well and you're eating double servings of something. Basically that you're not losing weight means you're eating at maintenance. And despite your size your maintenance calories are not 1200. That means you're eating more. But hey, now you know what your maintenance calories look like. Great, right?
Btw, your diary is closed.
Yeah. I have always noticed that big arch in my back but never thought too much of it. Guess its something to consider.
I have opened my diary now. Note: we did treat ourselves to Red Lobster this weekend but even then, I never ate full portions. M-F though I stick to my diets usually.
I will need to measure my food more. Thanks for checking in.0 -
I'd also suggest using a weight trending app**, if you aren't already. They use statistical techniques to try to sort out the overall direction (trend) of weight from the "noise" of daily water & digestive fluctuations. Slow loss is common when close to goal, and it's maddeningly hard to see on the scale.
I see that you mention staying in the same weight range for many months, but you showed us only a short snippet from what looks like the MFP weight tracker, which is why I'm suggesting the trending app. In the chunk you show (looks like abou 6/21-8/21), it's *possible* that you're actually slowly losing weight, if I try to visually approximate a trendline through those data points. If losing at half a pound a week or less, it's nearly impossible to see without a trending app (sometimes even with one), on any time scale shorter than several months. (I'll put mine in a spoiler at the end, as an ilustration of what I'm saying.)
** Libra for Android, Happy Scale for Apple, Trendweight with a free Fitbit account (don't need a device), Weightgrapher, others. They're not a magic crystal ball, may still mislead at times, but can be a help.
You might also be helped by reading this, as part of the interpretation of what I'm saying:
https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations
I agree with Yirara that your posture is emphasizing your stomach quite a bit (not saying there's no bloating - can't really tell).
Hmm, I'e never heard of a weight trending app so I will look into that.
Also, noted on the posture. Thanks!
0 -
pwhitechurch wrote: »When do you get on the weight scale?
Always first thing on the morning after a morning pee or after my workout and shower.0 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »First of all your posture on the first photo doesn't look very good: your lower back is bend forward and hence the belly sticks out. This could be due to various reasons: anterior pelvis tilt and associated tight hip flexors and weak glutes, just lack of lower back muscles, or probably a couple of other reasons. If you work on those then your belly will eventually stick out less.
Secondly: yes, still use a food scale. Portion creep is totally a thing even if you say you're eating the same every day. Maybe you're using wrong database entries, or the information on the packaging is unclear as well and you're eating double servings of something. Basically that you're not losing weight means you're eating at maintenance. And despite your size your maintenance calories are not 1200. That means you're eating more. But hey, now you know what your maintenance calories look like. Great, right?
Btw, your diary is closed.
Yeah. I have always noticed that big arch in my back but never thought too much of it. Guess its something to consider.
I have opened my diary now. Note: we did treat ourselves to Red Lobster this weekend but even then, I never ate full portions. M-F though I stick to my diets usually.
I will need to measure my food more. Thanks for checking in.
Just to give you an idea what's possible here's a little exercise: Lay on your back and put one hand on your belly button and one on your pubic bone. Your lower back is probably arching upwards and hence the hand on the belly button is higher than the other hand. Now tilt your pelvis such that the hand on the belly button goes down and the lower back rests as much as possible on the floor, and the other hand goes up. Do this small movement, which basically tilts the pelvis to the front and back a few times, always alternating between an arched back and your back flat on the floor. Now try this standing and look in the mirror when your back is not arched. It's probably quite a difference.
Some personal experience: I 'grew' 2cm from working on that area, just by standing more upright. It also gives a much better-looking upper back/neck look because there's less strain on the upper back as well.
3 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »pwhitechurch wrote: »When do you get on the weight scale?
Always first thing on the morning after a morning pee or after my workout and shower.
Weighing after your workout isn't the best idea in combination with weigh-ins after waking up and peeing:
- your weight could be 'artificially' higher if you drank a lot during your workout
- or lower if you perspired more than you drank
I would just stick with weigh-ins in exactly the same circumstances: in the morning after peeing.10 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »pwhitechurch wrote: »When do you get on the weight scale?
Always first thing on the morning after a morning pee or after my workout and shower.
Weighing after your workout isn't the best idea in combination with weigh-ins after waking up and peeing:
- your weight could be 'artificially' higher if you drank a lot during your workout
- or lower if you perspired more than you drank
I would just stick with weigh-ins in exactly the same circumstances: in the morning after peeing.
I see.
But I don't drink at all during my workouts. I get up at like 5:45am, immediately get dressed and head outside for a 2 mile jog, then inside I do core and lift weights for 20-25 mins. Then head to the shower. I may have a few sips in there but not much more.
I started weight afterwards when I noticed at least a .6lb loss after working out. Its been very consistent.
0 -
How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.1
-
andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
Yeah, I've been doing this since June. Started at 1 mile, then up to 2 miles. Was hoping to do more but I only have so much time in the mornings. But I am going to regularly switch it up.
This morning, I started with kettlebells. But I do think I was sticking to the same thing every morning.0 -
lilcharmer214 wrote: »lilcharmer214 wrote: »pwhitechurch wrote: »When do you get on the weight scale?
Always first thing on the morning after a morning pee or after my workout and shower.
Weighing after your workout isn't the best idea in combination with weigh-ins after waking up and peeing:
- your weight could be 'artificially' higher if you drank a lot during your workout
- or lower if you perspired more than you drank
I would just stick with weigh-ins in exactly the same circumstances: in the morning after peeing.
I see.
But I don't drink at all during my workouts. I get up at like 5:45am, immediately get dressed and head outside for a 2 mile jog, then inside I do core and lift weights for 20-25 mins. Then head to the shower. I may have a few sips in there but not much more.
I started weight afterwards when I noticed at least a .6lb loss after working out. Its been very consistent.
So the 0.6lb is water. You're dehydrated. (Water isn't fat, so IMO it doesn't matter. Most of us want to lose fat, right?)
If you want to weigh after workouts to get that little boost, that's fine. But do that consistently, every time. If you don't work out everyday, then you're locking yourself in to seeing more dramatic scale fluctuations, on account of that. That's still fine, but it *will* make it more difficult to see what trend your weight is on.
Even if you weigh in consistent conditions, you'll see those spiky ups and downs in daily weight. If you weigh in inconsistent conditions (after workouts some days, before workouts others), it'll be spikier, that's all.4 -
andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.
As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.
Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.
People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.
We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.
For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.
Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).
There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.4 -
andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.
As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.
Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.
People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.
We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.
For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.
Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).
There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.
She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.
Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.
At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?
Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.
Just my opinion though.1 -
I took a look at your food diary. Nothing huge jumps out at me, but I admit your eating pattern is very different from mine. (That's not a criticism - but I'm vegetarian, so I don't have a good intuition about the calorie levels of the range of foods I don't myself eat, that's all.) The only thing I noticed, and it's super minor, was 2 large eggs at 120 calories, when I'd expect more like 140. Obviously, that's not of a magnitude to explain slow weight loss! I'm assuming all the weights and measure are accurate.
One thing did jump out at me: Your protein intake, over the several recent days I looked at, is quite low. That's at cross-purposes to any strength training you do, and if continued long-term could even have negative effects on your running performance, thickness/quality of hair and nails, and more.
You're quite active, which is excellent. It also means that you're routinely breaking down muscle tissue (via "good stress"), and asking your body to build it back up, better. Good stuff! But if you're hitting low protein numbers, you're not supplying it with the quality raw materials it needs to do that most effectively.
On a quick skim-back, I didn't see how tall you are, but if I assume average height (around 5'6") and your age/weight, the USDA** thinks you need 47g, and many of us here (me included) think we need materially more than that****, when in a calorie deficit, or when working out regularly.
The low protein wouldn't have a huge impact on weight loss rate (it could have a truly tiny effect, for technical reasons), but - concerned old internet auntie type that I can be at times - I'd feel remiss if I didn't mention it to you. (I hope you're not offended!)
Best wishes!
** Calculator I used is here, if you want to get an estimate from USDA for your exact data: https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/
**** Here's a science-based article explaining that, with a link to a protein calculator you can use to get a more personalized estimate based on recent research: https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
ETA: Ooops, I see that you're 5'1" - but USDA still says 47g. I used "active" based on their descriptions as I thought they apply to your workout routine, and 128 pounds as a rounded sorta recent number.4 -
andybing11 wrote: »andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.
As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.
Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.
People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.
We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.
For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.
Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).
There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.
She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.
Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.
At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?
Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.
Just my opinion though.
I'll concede that I may've over-interpreted you, and if so, I apologize sincerely. I've just had that conversation way too many times here, so am probably a little hair-trigger about it.
I disagree with you, still, about interval training. It's complicated, but IME (and some other reports), the best total calorie burn comes from steady state at whatever is the maximum intensity is a person can sustain (without causing fatigue that bleeds NEAT calories out of the rest of the day), for the amount of time they have available to exercise.
Intervals, in particular, can be deceiving. The spikes during the intense phase tend to keep the HR elevated during the lower-intensity intervals, so most consumer devices overestimate the total calorie expenditure. There are a few folks here who have data from running the experiment on a power-metered bicycle, and found that to be true for them - that the total energy output over the time period is lower in intense interval workouts. Add in the fact that intensity is fatiguing (possible can't continue as long, may bleed NEAT calories out of the day), and I don't think there's a clear win in intervals. (I agree that they have certain fitness benefits not available from steady state, among trained people, but that's not the issue for OP.)
The point about muscle gain is true, of course, but muscle gain is too slow to have much impact in the short run (weeks), especially alongside a calorie deficit. Even in the long run, it seems the research suggests something in the range of 2-4 calories per pound per day difference between the metabolic activity of a pound of fat vs. a pound of muscle, at the 'metabolic' level, anyway - pretty minor, on the calorie front. (I suspect that people with more muscle mass tend to move more, because it's easier and more fun, so get better NEAT numbers, but I don't know of research on that front, if there is some.)
I agree that to burn *more* calories by running, she would need to either run faster in the same amount of time, or run at the same intensity (speed) for a longer time, or possibly run in hillier terrain (burns more, but how much more is hard to estimate).
I still don't think that's the problem, though. Her diary over about the last week says she's eating very low some days (like 700-ish gross intake, not net) if her logging as accurate, and not over the mid-high teens (like 1600-1800) but usually well below. USDA thinks an active TDEE at her size would be around 2100, Sailrabbit at least 1800 (if her exercise isn't daily but more like every other day) to low 2000s. If she's been doing this since June, she should be losing weight. Something isn't adding up.
Again, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize.0 -
andybing11 wrote: »andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.
As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.
Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.
People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.
We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.
For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.
Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).
There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.
She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.
Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.
At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?
Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.
Just my opinion though.
I'll concede that I may've over-interpreted you, and if so, I apologize sincerely. I've just had that conversation way too many times here, so am probably a little hair-trigger about it.
I disagree with you, still, about interval training. It's complicated, but IME (and some other reports), the best total calorie burn comes from steady state at whatever is the maximum intensity is a person can sustain (without causing fatigue that bleeds NEAT calories out of the rest of the day), for the amount of time they have available to exercise.
Intervals, in particular, can be deceiving. The spikes during the intense phase tend to keep the HR elevated during the lower-intensity intervals, so most consumer devices overestimate the total calorie expenditure. There are a few folks here who have data from running the experiment on a power-metered bicycle, and found that to be true for them - that the total energy output over the time period is lower in intense interval workouts. Add in the fact that intensity is fatiguing (possible can't continue as long, may bleed NEAT calories out of the day), and I don't think there's a clear win in intervals. (I agree that they have certain fitness benefits not available from steady state, among trained people, but that's not the issue for OP.)
The point about muscle gain is true, of course, but muscle gain is too slow to have much impact in the short run (weeks), especially alongside a calorie deficit. Even in the long run, it seems the research suggests something in the range of 2-4 calories per pound per day difference between the metabolic activity of a pound of fat vs. a pound of muscle, at the 'metabolic' level, anyway - pretty minor, on the calorie front. (I suspect that people with more muscle mass tend to move more, because it's easier and more fun, so get better NEAT numbers, but I don't know of research on that front, if there is some.)
I agree that to burn *more* calories by running, she would need to either run faster in the same amount of time, or run at the same intensity (speed) for a longer time, or possibly run in hillier terrain (burns more, but how much more is hard to estimate).
I still don't think that's the problem, though. Her diary over about the last week says she's eating very low some days (like 700-ish gross intake, not net) if her logging as accurate, and not over the mid-high teens (like 1600-1800) but usually well below. USDA thinks an active TDEE at her size would be around 2100, Sailrabbit at least 1800 (if her exercise isn't daily but more like every other day) to low 2000s. If she's been doing this since June, she should be losing weight. Something isn't adding up.
Again, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize.
No apologies needed. I think it is the structure of the interval. BUT because this conversation of debate isn’t productive to the OP, we can save it for another day. But if she likes running, she should look into Fartlek intervals. Running is my cup of tea. Love it. Every one who enjoys running should want to get better at it.
I agreed with your previous post regarding protein and am curious how much is water retention here from carbs, fats, and sodium. Crazy how the female body can retain such large amounts (up to 10 lbs I believe)?
0 -
andybing11 wrote: »andybing11 wrote: »andybing11 wrote: »How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.
No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.
As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.
Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.
People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.
We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.
For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.
Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).
There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.
She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.
Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.
At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?
Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.
Just my opinion though.
I'll concede that I may've over-interpreted you, and if so, I apologize sincerely. I've just had that conversation way too many times here, so am probably a little hair-trigger about it.
I disagree with you, still, about interval training. It's complicated, but IME (and some other reports), the best total calorie burn comes from steady state at whatever is the maximum intensity is a person can sustain (without causing fatigue that bleeds NEAT calories out of the rest of the day), for the amount of time they have available to exercise.
Intervals, in particular, can be deceiving. The spikes during the intense phase tend to keep the HR elevated during the lower-intensity intervals, so most consumer devices overestimate the total calorie expenditure. There are a few folks here who have data from running the experiment on a power-metered bicycle, and found that to be true for them - that the total energy output over the time period is lower in intense interval workouts. Add in the fact that intensity is fatiguing (possible can't continue as long, may bleed NEAT calories out of the day), and I don't think there's a clear win in intervals. (I agree that they have certain fitness benefits not available from steady state, among trained people, but that's not the issue for OP.)
The point about muscle gain is true, of course, but muscle gain is too slow to have much impact in the short run (weeks), especially alongside a calorie deficit. Even in the long run, it seems the research suggests something in the range of 2-4 calories per pound per day difference between the metabolic activity of a pound of fat vs. a pound of muscle, at the 'metabolic' level, anyway - pretty minor, on the calorie front. (I suspect that people with more muscle mass tend to move more, because it's easier and more fun, so get better NEAT numbers, but I don't know of research on that front, if there is some.)
I agree that to burn *more* calories by running, she would need to either run faster in the same amount of time, or run at the same intensity (speed) for a longer time, or possibly run in hillier terrain (burns more, but how much more is hard to estimate).
I still don't think that's the problem, though. Her diary over about the last week says she's eating very low some days (like 700-ish gross intake, not net) if her logging as accurate, and not over the mid-high teens (like 1600-1800) but usually well below. USDA thinks an active TDEE at her size would be around 2100, Sailrabbit at least 1800 (if her exercise isn't daily but more like every other day) to low 2000s. If she's been doing this since June, she should be losing weight. Something isn't adding up.
Again, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize.
No apologies needed. I think it is the structure of the interval. BUT because this conversation of debate isn’t productive to the OP, we can save it for another day. But if she likes running, she should look into Fartlek intervals. Running is my cup of tea. Love it. Every one who enjoys running should want to get better at it.
I agreed with your previous post regarding protein and am curious how much is water retention here from carbs, fats, and sodium. Crazy how the female body can retain such large amounts (up to 10 lbs I believe)?
Yes.
OP, you started your current workout routine in June (later June), so you've been at it about 2 months. New workout routines involve water weight increases, for many people.
You're female, and of an age where I suspect you still have menstrual cycles. That can cause significant water weight fluctuations, for many women (I've seen some say they gain as much as 8 pounds at certain points in their cycle, or only see new low weights once a month at a specific point in their cycle - though those are relatively extreme cases, I admit).
You mention weighing after workouts during some of this time, and right after getting up at other times, so your conditions for scale weight measurements have changed by an amount that you indicate is 0.6lbs. (It's unclear to me whether you work out every day, or only some days, so I'm not sure whether you did the pre-workout weighing, then stopped and replaced it with after-workout weighing entirely; or are varying back and forth between the two still.) That variability will make it harder to use your scale weight as an indicator of fat loss, because that water fluctuation is in there on top of other sources of fluctuation.
I only looked at a few days of your diary, but your eating appears somewhat uneven. I saw some 700/800-some calorie days in there, and I'm not sure whether that's undereating, or a partially logged day with some things missing. I don't know whether you have any kind of regular (so called) "cheat meals" or days. Uneven eating will cause wider scale-weight fluctuations, both from water weight and variations in digestive contents in transit (what will become waste at the end of the digestive process).
As I mentioned, just looking at the weights you showed us, you could be experiencing slow loss . . . but I don't know, partly because of all of the above, as sources of "noise" in the data.
If you're truly eating the 1200-ish (gross calories) or somewhat fewer that seems to be your norm, you should indeed be losing weight. You may actually BE losing weight since June, but not seeing it on the scale very clearly or quickly because of the fluctuations.
The best advice I could give right now would be to be consistent for at least another full menstrual cycle (weigh under the same conditions every time, compare same relative point in two different cycles, maybe use a weight trending app, don't radically change exercise until you get some consistent data, etc.). See what happens.
If your diary is accurate, roughly estimating, you should be losing something over half a pound and up to around a pound a week, on average, possibly more. Water fluctuations can hide that for a surprisingly long time, especially if you don't make an attempt to reduce their impact on the data (by being consistent). That would be a good to fast loss rate, at your current bodyweight, so I wouldn't suggest cutting calories further.
Best wishes!1 -
would running while wearing ankle weights increase the amount of work vs running the same distance without them?0
-
Don't run while wearing ankle weights. It's a good way to get injured5
-
zebasschick wrote: »would running while wearing ankle weights increase the amount of work vs running the same distance without them?
Yes, but it can also risk damaging joints**. I personally wouldn't. (Well, I wouldn't run at all, but that's for unrelated reasons that are irrelevant for OP! 😉). If one must add weight when running, it's probably safer to add it on the body (rucking, weight vest sort of thing), as I understand it.
** Just a random example, from a non-fringe source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/wearable-weights-how-they-can-help-or-hurt2 -
Thanks soo much for all your comments. This has been really insightful and helpful and I am taking everything into consideration.
My specific takeaways right now are:- Have that diastis, ab thing looked at
- need more protein (sucks cause I am not really a cook, which is why I basically eat the same things everyday)
- look into correcting posture
- change the workouts up and more often, need to push it harder, longer or heavier (more weights)
- check those portions sizes, measure more
Just to add my calories are typically between 1100 - 1300 normally but I do allow chat days on weekends where I may go 1400-ish. I am generally not a big eater and avoid breaded, fried, fast foods and breads and pastas since they make me very bloated (and I bloat normally). No menstrual cycle (had a hysterectomy with last birth) and I spend my days working and chasing after 2 little boys!
Thanks all!3 -
to add more protein without fat or cooking, try non-fat greek yogurt, non-fat cottage cheese or protein shakes. minimal cooking, egg whites are good; just throw some in a non-stick pan stir gently till fully formed and eat. one i like that's pretty easy is soy pasta - plenty of protein, lower carbs, easy to make.
good luck to you!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions