Weight Loss Plateau? Help!
Replies
-
sydneykr2143 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sydneykr2143 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »If you weigh your food on a food scale (NOT measuring cups/spoons) AND you are picking accurate database entries, my next guess would be that you are overestimating your calorie burn through exercise.
How long are your strength training sessions? Intensity level? How many calories do you put that you burn?
How long and intense are your cardio sessions? What cardio are you doing? How many calories are you saying you burned?
My strength sessions is usually towards 60-75 mins. I track how many calories I burned through the Apple Watch so I figured it’s pretty accurate - same thing with all workouts
My cardio sessions are typically 15-30 mins. I typically do treadmill workout an incline - 30 mins at 2.5-3 speed, and like 10-12 incline. I’ve started doing like a 14 incline recently. Typically burn around 250-280 calories. On Saturday’s I do a cardio dance workout typically and that’s around 12-15 mins and I usually burn around 80-100 or so calories.
I think what the Apple Watch is tracking is your total calorie burn (including the calories you'd be burning just by sitting on the couch) during the time period in question, so if you're eating all of those back, you will be double-dipping (as MFP gives you the calories you'd be burning anyway upfront as part of your goal). My hope is that someone who is more experienced with the Apple Watch will be able to give you specific confirmation, but it might just be that your estimates for calories burnt through exercise are too high and that you're cancelling out your deficit. If you feel that your logging is solid and your estimate of calories in is accurate, then the next logical step is to take a closer look at your estimates for calories out on the working assumption that you aren't burning as much as you think you are.
What I do is for each exercise I pull up the specific workout I’m doing and track it that way - so separately from the calories I burned already!
Ah, thanks for clarifying. It's almost certainly a case of over-estimating your calories burnt through exercise. Since your overall calorie goal seems already to be on the highish side, it looks like that will be enough to cancel out your deficit.1 -
I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.
OTOH, I also think that some younger women don't realize how few calories some older, smaller, less active women truly require . . . especially but not exclusively if they have a history of extreme yo-yo dieting, coupled with the fairly common low-protein diet that also tended to be followed by some types of women in decades past. It's a fact that female athleticism is much more common in recent years, at least in the US: Many of my age peers went to K-12 schools where there were literally no organized competitive sports for young women. Gym classes mostly existed, but often fostered low aspirations. Those things have later implications.)
Any notion that any particular level of calorie need is . . . somehow more virtuous? . . . is misplaced, IMO; and that applies whether we're talking about lower needs or higher needs. (Please notice that I wrote "needs". Over-restricting, in context of an individual's actual needs, current weight, and goals, is generally a bad plan. What constitutes "over restriction" is very individual.)
I do think it's possible that OP is eating above maintenance, but the notion that extremes of abstemiousness are necessary or desirable . . . is weird, IMO. I think a person is most likely to thrive - be in the most robust health - eating the maximum number of calories possible, while still achieving sensible weight management goals.16 -
I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.
OTOH, I also think that some younger women don't realize how few calories some older, smaller, less active women truly require . . . especially but not exclusively if they have a history of extreme yo-yo dieting, coupled with the fairly common low-protein diet that also tended to be followed by some types of women in decades past. It's a fact that female athleticism is much more common in recent years, at least in the US: Many of my age peers went to K-12 schools where there were literally no organized competitive sports for young women. Gym classes mostly existed, but often fostered low aspirations. Those things have later implications.)
Any notion that any particular level of calorie need is . . . somehow more virtuous? . . . is misplaced, IMO; and that applies whether we're talking about lower needs or higher needs. (Please notice that I wrote "needs". Over-restricting, in context of an individual's actual needs, current weight, and goals, is generally a bad plan. What constitutes "over restriction" is very individual.)
I do think it's possible that OP is eating above maintenance, but the notion that extremes of abstemiousness are necessary or desirable . . . is weird, IMO. I think a person is most likely to thrive - be in the most robust health - eating the maximum number of calories possible, while still achieving sensible weight management goals.
This couldn’t be more true. Older women AND men see it as some attractive characteristic if women “eat like a bird”, as I’ve heard my father say. I’ve also heard older men comment more about the type of food women eat, along with portion size, than men my age or younger. I personally have never had my eating habits so openly discussed, at a table in front of everyone, more than when I sit with older people. No wonder why some people are closet eaters, so as not to be shamed for eating at all. Especially since the type of food and the amount in that sitting does not equate to eating more than you need to reach your goals, whatever that might be.
6 -
I broke through my plateu by diet break. Two weeks was just enough. To jump start back my wl. The pounds starting coming off so fast. After I stop the diet break.So I had to up my calories. I was eating 1,440 everday. Now I eat 1,522 -1,622 perday.I lost 1.4 pounds the first week. Then the second was 1.6.. Too fast for me. The diet break did reset things for me. In the mind and body. Also before any diet break.if you decide to. Make sure you're weighing your food and picking true/accurate entries on here. Also water weight mask a lot of progress.. Take into account that sodium.
Diet break is honestly a last resort.
When all things fail and I had been doing everything right. It was my energy expenditure adaption.
Diet break: eating at maintenance for a period of time. More so people do one or two weeks.
Some people still don't believe in it but I do...6 -
DeterminedFee201426 wrote: »I broke through my plateu by diet break. Two weeks was just enough. To jump start back my wl. The pounds starting coming off so fast. After I stop the diet break.So I had to up my calories. I was eating 1,440 everday. Now I eat 1,522 -1,622 perday.I lost 1.4 pounds the first week. Then the second was 1.6.. Too fast for me. The diet break did reset things for me. In the mind and body. Also before any diet break.if you decide to. Make sure you're weighing your food and picking true/accurate entries on here. Also water weight mask a lot of progress.. Take into account that sodium.
Diet break is honestly a last resort.
When all things fail and I had been doing everything right. It was my energy expenditure adaption.
Diet break: eating at maintenance for a period of time. More so people do one or two weeks.
Some people still don't believe in it but I do...
I don’t think of a diet break as a last resort. I think of it as a much needed break for my body to recover from eating at a deficit. My deficit is only 1 lb a week, but I take a 1 week diet break every 8 weeks. I usually get a weight loss “boost” the week after the break also, so my average weight loss stays steady at 1 lb a week.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I think what the Apple Watch is tracking is your total calorie burn (including the calories you'd be burning just by sitting on the couch) during the time period in question, so if you're eating all of those back, you will be double-dipping (as MFP gives you the calories you'd be burning anyway upfront as part of your goal). My hope is that someone who is more experienced with the Apple Watch will be able to give you specific confirmation, but it might just be that your estimates for calories burnt through exercise are too high and that you're cancelling out your deficit. If you feel that your logging is solid and your estimate of calories in is accurate, then the next logical step is to take a closer look at your estimates for calories out on the working assumption that you aren't burning as much as you think you are.
This makes sense to me. I hit a plateau and my weight didn't budge for a couple of months. I felt like I was at maintenance. I unlinked my fitbit from MFP and within two weeks the scales started to move. Whilst I can't be 100% certain it was that, I know how different the estimates are from MFP and fitbit turn out! (Suspect the true figure lies in the middle but as long as the scales move, I'm not too worried). Could be worth trying if you've tried everything else you can think of anyway.
0 -
msalicia07 wrote: »I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.
OTOH, I also think that some younger women don't realize how few calories some older, smaller, less active women truly require . . . especially but not exclusively if they have a history of extreme yo-yo dieting, coupled with the fairly common low-protein diet that also tended to be followed by some types of women in decades past. It's a fact that female athleticism is much more common in recent years, at least in the US: Many of my age peers went to K-12 schools where there were literally no organized competitive sports for young women. Gym classes mostly existed, but often fostered low aspirations. Those things have later implications.)
Any notion that any particular level of calorie need is . . . somehow more virtuous? . . . is misplaced, IMO; and that applies whether we're talking about lower needs or higher needs. (Please notice that I wrote "needs". Over-restricting, in context of an individual's actual needs, current weight, and goals, is generally a bad plan. What constitutes "over restriction" is very individual.)
I do think it's possible that OP is eating above maintenance, but the notion that extremes of abstemiousness are necessary or desirable . . . is weird, IMO. I think a person is most likely to thrive - be in the most robust health - eating the maximum number of calories possible, while still achieving sensible weight management goals.
This couldn’t be more true. Older women AND men see it as some attractive characteristic if women “eat like a bird”, as I’ve heard my father say. I’ve also heard older men comment more about the type of food women eat, along with portion size, than men my age or younger. I personally have never had my eating habits so openly discussed, at a table in front of everyone, more than when I sit with older people. No wonder why some people are closet eaters, so as not to be shamed for eating at all. Especially since the type of food and the amount in that sitting does not equate to eating more than you need to reach your goals, whatever that might be.
My great-grandmother was convinced it was unladylike to do anything more than taste a dessert in mixed company. She would have a spoonful of ice cream or a bite of cake, but never any more.
If she was around other women exclusively or if she was by herself, she'd indulge her sweet tooth. But never anything more if there were men around, even her own husband. When I was younger I chalked it up to just one of those great-grandmother things, but now that I'm older, I realize she was probably struggling with a lot of negative feelings around her appetites and her weight.5 -
msalicia07 wrote: »I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.
OTOH, I also think that some younger women don't realize how few calories some older, smaller, less active women truly require . . . especially but not exclusively if they have a history of extreme yo-yo dieting, coupled with the fairly common low-protein diet that also tended to be followed by some types of women in decades past. It's a fact that female athleticism is much more common in recent years, at least in the US: Many of my age peers went to K-12 schools where there were literally no organized competitive sports for young women. Gym classes mostly existed, but often fostered low aspirations. Those things have later implications.)
Any notion that any particular level of calorie need is . . . somehow more virtuous? . . . is misplaced, IMO; and that applies whether we're talking about lower needs or higher needs. (Please notice that I wrote "needs". Over-restricting, in context of an individual's actual needs, current weight, and goals, is generally a bad plan. What constitutes "over restriction" is very individual.)
I do think it's possible that OP is eating above maintenance, but the notion that extremes of abstemiousness are necessary or desirable . . . is weird, IMO. I think a person is most likely to thrive - be in the most robust health - eating the maximum number of calories possible, while still achieving sensible weight management goals.
This couldn’t be more true. Older women AND men see it as some attractive characteristic if women “eat like a bird”, as I’ve heard my father say. I’ve also heard older men comment more about the type of food women eat, along with portion size, than men my age or younger. I personally have never had my eating habits so openly discussed, at a table in front of everyone, more than when I sit with older people. No wonder why some people are closet eaters, so as not to be shamed for eating at all. Especially since the type of food and the amount in that sitting does not equate to eating more than you need to reach your goals, whatever that might be.
Sure, some men believe it, too.
Just an observation: You write this as if the person you were responding to (me), who was actually arguing *against* ultra-low calories and for calorie maximization . . . was not an actual older woman (or close enough, at age 65).
Believing myths is rarely something done by a whole demographic groups. Believing myths is done by individuals. Sure, some myths are more commonly believed in some demographic groups.
Possibly all the older people you know believe this particular myth. Trust me, that belief is not universal among older people.
P.S. If it were universal, how to reconcile it with the concurrent mythology about how granny tries to feed younger people all the things, all the time? Heck, even many decades back, my Aunt Margaret (herself obese) would bring out all the snacks and drinks and try to get me to eat aallllll of them, when I was a young woman. She also made these "highballs" in a tall glass, some kind of spirits with Coke or whatever, that had about 3 fingers of liquor, a few ice cubes, and a splash of Coke to fill, and would try to get me to drink multiples. Further, she consistently refused to let her doctor weigh her, because "it was none of his business". She was a treat! But I digress. Older people do that. 😉😆0 -
Specialists figured out that additional calories come from people own fat, bc of that people loseing weight0
-
sydneykr2143 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sydneykr2143 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »If you weigh your food on a food scale (NOT measuring cups/spoons) AND you are picking accurate database entries, my next guess would be that you are overestimating your calorie burn through exercise.
How long are your strength training sessions? Intensity level? How many calories do you put that you burn?
How long and intense are your cardio sessions? What cardio are you doing? How many calories are you saying you burned?
My strength sessions is usually towards 60-75 mins. I track how many calories I burned through the Apple Watch so I figured it’s pretty accurate - same thing with all workouts
My cardio sessions are typically 15-30 mins. I typically do treadmill workout an incline - 30 mins at 2.5-3 speed, and like 10-12 incline. I’ve started doing like a 14 incline recently. Typically burn around 250-280 calories. On Saturday’s I do a cardio dance workout typically and that’s around 12-15 mins and I usually burn around 80-100 or so calories.
I think what the Apple Watch is tracking is your total calorie burn (including the calories you'd be burning just by sitting on the couch) during the time period in question, so if you're eating all of those back, you will be double-dipping (as MFP gives you the calories you'd be burning anyway upfront as part of your goal). My hope is that someone who is more experienced with the Apple Watch will be able to give you specific confirmation, but it might just be that your estimates for calories burnt through exercise are too high and that you're cancelling out your deficit. If you feel that your logging is solid and your estimate of calories in is accurate, then the next logical step is to take a closer look at your estimates for calories out on the working assumption that you aren't burning as much as you think you are.
What I do is for each exercise I pull up the specific workout I’m doing and track it that way - so separately from the calories I burned already!
Those exercise burn estimates seem really high, though. Burning 10 calories a minute or more for an entire workout is really rare. And even more unlikely for weight training than cardio.
Fitness trackers are a great help, but they are still just estimates.
Another suggestion is to weigh more frequently. Hormones, food waste, and water retention all play games with us and the scale. It is possible the few days you’ve weighed in are during a more upward swing (bigger meal, hormones, change in workout, haven’t pooped). If you use a weight trending program like Happy Scale (iPhone) or Libra (Android) and get some daily (ish) data points in there, it can predict your future weight loss trend pretty reliably.2 -
She means that 'if you're eating not en ough calories you burn fat' which yes, that's why a calorie deficit leads to weight loss.
OTOH, too much of a deficit it comes from your bones, muscles (including your heart) and brain. You effectively start cannibalizing yourself, doing enormous damage, when you're eating, per calculations here, EIGHT HUNDRED CALORIES A DAY.
I do absolutely believe some people need much less than we may realize, but you are not going to convince me eating 800 days and promoting is a good idea or good for anyone. Physically OR mentally.
7 -
msalicia07 wrote: »I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.
OTOH, I also think that some younger women don't realize how few calories some older, smaller, less active women truly require . . . especially but not exclusively if they have a history of extreme yo-yo dieting, coupled with the fairly common low-protein diet that also tended to be followed by some types of women in decades past. It's a fact that female athleticism is much more common in recent years, at least in the US: Many of my age peers went to K-12 schools where there were literally no organized competitive sports for young women. Gym classes mostly existed, but often fostered low aspirations. Those things have later implications.)
Any notion that any particular level of calorie need is . . . somehow more virtuous? . . . is misplaced, IMO; and that applies whether we're talking about lower needs or higher needs. (Please notice that I wrote "needs". Over-restricting, in context of an individual's actual needs, current weight, and goals, is generally a bad plan. What constitutes "over restriction" is very individual.)
I do think it's possible that OP is eating above maintenance, but the notion that extremes of abstemiousness are necessary or desirable . . . is weird, IMO. I think a person is most likely to thrive - be in the most robust health - eating the maximum number of calories possible, while still achieving sensible weight management goals.
This couldn’t be more true. Older women AND men see it as some attractive characteristic if women “eat like a bird”, as I’ve heard my father say. I’ve also heard older men comment more about the type of food women eat, along with portion size, than men my age or younger. I personally have never had my eating habits so openly discussed, at a table in front of everyone, more than when I sit with older people. No wonder why some people are closet eaters, so as not to be shamed for eating at all. Especially since the type of food and the amount in that sitting does not equate to eating more than you need to reach your goals, whatever that might be.
Sure, some men believe it, too.
Just an observation: You write this as if the person you were responding to (me), who was actually arguing *against* ultra-low calories and for calorie maximization . . . was not an actual older woman (or close enough, at age 65).
Believing myths is rarely something done by a whole demographic groups. Believing myths is done by individuals. Sure, some myths are more commonly believed in some demographic groups.
Possibly all the older people you know believe this particular myth. Trust me, that belief is not universal among older people.
P.S. If it were universal, how to reconcile it with the concurrent mythology about how granny tries to feed younger people all the things, all the time? Heck, even many decades back, my Aunt Margaret (herself obese) would bring out all the snacks and drinks and try to get me to eat aallllll of them, when I was a young woman. She also made these "highballs" in a tall glass, some kind of spirits with Coke or whatever, that had about 3 fingers of liquor, a few ice cubes, and a splash of Coke to fill, and would try to get me to drink multiples. Further, she consistently refused to let her doctor weigh her, because "it was none of his business". She was a treat! But I digress. Older people do that. 😉😆
I was agreeing to this part you said -
“I think there's a crazy myth somewhat common among women of a non-current generation (i.e., women my age) that there's something extra feminine and virtuous about eating as little as possible, in pursuit of slimness. I do think it's possible to train your body to get by with less fuel, but I think that "getting by" is not ideal.”
And using my experience over the years to say why I agreed it was common 😊
Also your aunt and my aunt would be best friends I think.2 -
Sure, I wasn't sure TBH about the context here. 800 cal target is madness I agree. I am also not sure if fasting is the way to break a plateau, it can certainly help IMHO to have a more healthy lifestyle but that's me. Each to their own as they say.Dogmom1978 wrote: »@bubus05 my comment was not abou fasting as plenty of people choose that to aid with weight loss. Natasor ALWAYS refers to an 800 calorie goal which is unsafe and should NEVER be attempted without doctor supervision.
I personally see 0 benefit to fasting other than the usual CICO so if it helps one achieve a deficit and they enjoy it, more power to them. But again, that was NOT what I was referring to in this instance.
0 -
Please note we have cleaned up this discussion a bit. Please don't feed inter personal drama. Use the ignore feature and report posts you feel violate guidelines. Thank you! Back to the great discussion....1
-
I've lost over a 100lb and have kept it off (watching it now due to holidays). I always measured my food. However, your body gets used to those same calories you eat every single day. What always worked for me: take a few days off (anywhere from 3/4 days to a whole week). Eat MORE than you usually do - don't even track calories, think you're on vacation. Use common sense, don't eat an entire pizza or half a cafe. Yes, there were times I would gain 10lbs and freak out. But EVERY SINGLE time, I then went back to my regular calories, all the weight I put on would come off in a week/week and a half plus more. Then I started to lose again. I've done this many, many times to break a plateau. But unlike the rest of this group, if I hit the a whole week or so (because I would see if my period was coming - that always derided everything) with no weight loss, then I would immediately do it because why wait and struggle for a month or two? This has always worked for me.0
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
- 426 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