Weight Loss Plateau

2»

Replies

  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,863 Member
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    The 3 hour workout and the diet I shared is relatively new, just a couple weeks so far. Previously I wasn't looking after what I ate so back then I must have been eating a lot more. Actually, my weight loss has slowed since I moved to this diet for some reason which I don't understand.
    If you're suddenly doing a lot more exercise than before, your body is probably holding on to more water for recovery.

    3 hours working out every day is a lot. I see you're sensibly doing the cardio separate, but even so, over an hour of weights every day... I don't know, at that point I wonder if someone is on gear (for the recovery), or if they aren't lifting weights as hard as they think they are. It's not uncommon for people to be banging out 4x10 or whatever of some exercise, when they are capable of much much more and so it's not really doing anything.

    Either way, I wonder how sustainable it is to be doing that much. If you can, that's great. I definitely couldn't. Weights for me is an every other day thing, with an upper/lower split.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,542 Member
    edited July 2023
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    Three hours of exercise is a lot, combined with a steep calorie deficit.
    Stress is one possible cause of water retention (a lot of exercise = stress, calorie deficit = stress), and muscle repair after exercise is another potential cause.

    I would make sure you're not pushing yourself too hard, definitely sounds like it's possible.

    What are you doing for 3 hours per day? And how much are you eating?

    Half of my workout consists of weight lifting and strength training, I have seen a lot of progress in that. The other half consists on cardiovascular activities, usually walking on the treadmill, biking or using the elliptical machine. The weight training takes just a bit over an hour and I do that in the afternoon. I go to the gym again in the evening for the cardiovascular session.
    I have been focusing on a high protein diet which ends up around 1500 calories a day.

    You're taking in more than 10,500 calories a week. At your weight and that much exercising you world have lost a lot more than you have. It may be a combo of underestimating weekly calories and not actually doing that much in the gym when it comes down to it and there is the NEAT factor to consider which is your non exercise activity which makes up a big part of your calorie burn

    7swml9lapgn7.png



    I don't think this adds up to 10,500 calories a week.
    You would have lost twice what you did or more if that was your diet every day

    This has been my diet for almost a month now, my previous diet was 2000 calories
    you are undercounting your calorie amounts on a weekly basis. Even at 2,000 at your weight you would have lost more.

    So what do you suggest that I do

    For one, tighten down your logging so tight that it squeals.

    Precise logging isn't necessarily necessary in order to succeed at calorie counting. Approximation and eyeballing works, if it works. But for anyone who says "I should be losing and am not" or says they're eating ultra-low calories and losing only very slowly over a period of weeks (like you) . . . logging precisely is a useful diagnostic tool, even if only done for a few weeks.

    On the food front, log every bite, lick, taste, condiment, cooking oil, beverage, etc. Use a food scale whenever remotely possible. Use the right entries for raw or cooked foods. Weigh raw when you can. Try never to use other people's whole-dish recipes in the database (like "ham sandwich" or "meat lasagna"). Make your own recipes with the exact ingredients you use. Check packaged food labels against the entries you use. Log any cheat days/meals or over-goal days. If you eat out or at someone's home, so must use an estimated whole-dish value from the food database, pick a middle-to-high one of the type.

    Here are some potentially helpful posts, and there are others in the "Most Helpful Posts" sections of Getting Started and Health and Weight Loss sections of the Community here. Read them, use the tactics.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1

    On the exercise front, don't trust a heart rate monitor's strength exercise calorie estimate. Use the MFP exercise database entry "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)" in the cardiovascular section to estimate strength training. Include the normal between-set brief rests in the number of minutes, but exclude any longer breaks waiting for equipment, chatting, whatever. For cardio, don't trust the machines' calorie estimates. In some cases, a fitness tracker or heart rate monitor may be the best you can do, unless you're doing high intensity intervals, in which case the calories are likely overstated.

    For walking or running (even on a treadmill), if there's a kilometer estimate, you can use this site, with the energy drop-down set to "net".

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    If you have to use MFP's cardio estimates for biking or elliptical, use the lowest intensity level or type, and subtract at least your estimated BMR/RMR calories for the time period, or (better) your MFP-estimated maintenance calories for the time period.

    In your case, with only a couple of weeks on the extreme exercise if I understand you accurately, you could still be looking at water weight effects. So, maybe give it another couple of weeks before you go through the extra effort toward precision.

    Again, I'll underscore: The above level of obsession is only necessary if approximation isn't yielding clear or consistent results on average over a few weeks.
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    If a consistent loss stops suddenly it’s usually water retention as your homeostatic system wants to store water weight to balance out the fat that has been lost.

    You’ll most likely experience a whoosh of water loss at some point and the scale will drop several pounds in the span of a couple of days

    Oh okay, when do you think this whoosh of water loss might occur? Could you make a rough guess please

    There's no way to estimate, as he already said. I'm quoting this partly because you went on to discount Tom's comment that sometimes eating extra for a bit can help a whoosh happen, if it's going to happen.

    He's not wrong. Overstress increases cortisol production. Cortisol - a stress hormone, loosely - can increase water weight. Extreme calorie deficits, like 1100-1200 calories eaten daily for a main, plus extreme exercise, like 3 hours a day, are major stressors. In some cases, a couple of days to a couple of weeks of eating around maintenance calories can calm down the stress hormones, trigger the release of retained water, i.e., cue the whoosh. Sometimes.

    I'd question whether you've been at this long enough for that stress effect to have kicked in, though.

    More about that here:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

    So, what you said about that before was "going high calorie to promote weight loss sounds dumb." But this temporary "eat more" tactic isn't about fat loss (the thing low calories are designed to trigger), it's about convincing a stressed body to drop some water retention. Since bodies can be up to 60%+ water, your scale weight changes aren't just about fat. In fact, over a day or few, up to maybe a month, the changes probably aren't mostly about fat.

    Patience, and good, long term sustainable positive habits: That's how to lose fat, gain strength/fitness, and achieve many other useful but huge goals in life.

    You mention currently not being in school. This tempts me to think you're young. (Most everyone is young to me, since I'm 67, BTW.) If so, you probably have less life experience and practical skills related to chipping away step by step with patient persistence to achieve long term huge goals, as compared with someone who's fully gotten an education, built a career, created a good home, raised a family, and that sort of thing. Losing weight and getting fitter will be a good opportunity to learn and practice those skills, if you foster that. I know it's hard. But the skills will be diversely useful in other parts of your life.

    I'm cheering for you to succeed, sincerely. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it.

    P.S. Like I said, I'm old, 67. I'm also female, about 165cm tall, 59kg, and sedentary outside of exercise, getting maybe 275 calories of exercise most days, occasionally up to 500 or so. I'd lose crazy-fast on 1100 calories, around a kilo a week. I'd lose slowly on 2000 calories, even.

    I'm not saying that to indicate anything specific about your calorie goals and practices, I'm saying it to make it clear why so many people are finding it . . . surprising . . . that you seem not to be losing weight, and therefore questioning the details you're reporting. We'd expect you to need hundreds, maybe even 1000+ more calories at your size and age vs. even a pretty spritely li'l ol' lady.

    Maybe we're all wrong, but that's why we're saying what we are. I agree with others about your nutrition, too. For heaven's sake, at least eat some veggies/fruits!

    Best wishes!
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,242 Member
    edited July 2023
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    What doesn't add up is many things. 1,100 cals at his weight and 3 hours of training, minnimal weight loss in his stated timeframe.

    Probably not really training very hard, taking in more calories than reported.

    The 3 hour workout and the diet I shared is relatively new, just a couple weeks so far. Previously I wasn't looking after what I ate so back then I must have been eating a lot more. Actually, my weight loss has slowed since I moved to this diet for some reason which I don't understand.
    ok, let’s throw everything out and start from scratch

    2,000 OF ACTUAL calories a day with good, balanced nutrition

    Strength training is 45 minutes, no more, no less. Good intensity with mostly compound exercises. 4 days per week

    Limit cardio to 30 min. As many days as desired

    You need to get away from extremes



  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,021 Member
    raiibrahimasif15 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    What doesn't add up is many things. 1,100 cals at his weight and 3 hours of training, minnimal weight loss in his stated timeframe.

    Probably not really training very hard, taking in more calories than reported.

    The 3 hour workout and the diet I shared is relatively new, just a couple weeks so far. Previously I wasn't looking after what I ate so back then I must have been eating a lot more. Actually, my weight loss has slowed since I moved to this diet for some reason which I don't understand.
    Because you're UNDEREATING. Think logically here. If you burned 1000 calories and ate 1000, your NET intake is 0 calories. Basically you could just not workout at all and eat nothing and have the same outcome. The body isn't dumb. It has one purpose...................survive as long as it can involuntarily. So it will adapt to whatever you're doing diet wise and try NOT to lose fat as much as it can. Not eating enough SLOWS DOWN your metabolic rate.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

  • raiibrahimasif15
    raiibrahimasif15 Posts: 15 Member
    Thank you all very much

Categories