Scale not moving !!!

ayshairf

I have been doing 16:8 intermittent fasting since March and I lost 3 kg in first month. For almost last 2 months, I am exercising atleast 4 days a week - 2 days full body strengt training and 2 days high intensity cardio..i have started keeping a food diary here and the max calories I take in a day are around 1300 (almost 50% carbs, 30% protein and rest fats) out of which I burn around 300-350 in the gym 4 times a week..despite all this my scale has not moved in almost 2 months..what am I doing wrong I just need to loose 5 kgs and I havent been able to do that !

ninerbuff

Stats: height, weight, age

Also if you have only 5kgs to lose to be at goal, those are always the most stubborn because you're nearing homeostasis. I'm likely guessing that a net of 1000 calories or less per day may be too little unless you're a really petite person. If the body senses too little nutrition coming into the body with all the work you're doing, it WILL conserve energy by lowering your resting metabolic rate (RMR) and it's at rest when you burn the majority of fat stores.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

tomcustombuilder

The closer you get to your goal the more your body hoards fat and water. 2 months and no loss and with your current activity you’ll need to lower calories. Exercise activity calories burned is a lot less overall than your daily activities burn. Many times exercise causes you to be less active during the day which in turn causes fewer overall calories to be burned.

The less you have to lose the more you have to dig in. The problem is can you live with those lowered calories? If not then you may want to reconsider losing further.

mtaratoot

Could it be that your food logging isn't accurate or isn't complete? If you're only eating 1300 calories and exercising 300-400, your net intake is 1000 calories or less. That's not enough to sustain your body most likely, and for sure it would lead to weight loss if it's accurate.

I'd start by checking my logging.

Your profile is private, so nobody can see your food diary to offer suggestions.

xarla16

Perhaps you’re not eating enough so your body has reduced your BMR.

tomcustombuilder

xarla16 wrote: »

Perhaps you’re not eating enough so your body has reduced your BMR.

no

mtaratoot

xarla16 wrote: »

Perhaps you’re not eating enough so your body has reduced your BMR.

How would that work?

It would be like your car suddenly getting better fuel economy because you don't put fuel in it.

PAV8888

@mtaratoot the discussion of AT would include a drop in BMR as that would be a side effect of, for example, a reduction in core temperature. Whether and to what degree there is AT, how long after the onset of CR it would come up, how long after the cessation of CR it would persists, how much of observed AT is beyond what would be expected by actual weight and body composition change, how much of it the reduction comes at rest/sleep, or during exercise--via increased efficiency--or activity by being less active or burning less during the various activities.... all of these seem to be open and debatable and no exact answer questions.

But It doesn't seem to me to be a zero value. Also it doesn't seem to me to be a value sufficient to STOP weight loss. But no stop does not mean no impact either.

Your car needs gas and has no ability to compensate other than by running out and sputtering. Before humans sputter and end up at the hospital they will fall asleep, fidget less, be cold and huddle, telegraph in their exercise instead of performing at 100%, stop having the urge to have sex, sit extra long on the couch and not bother to get up to pick up the phone etc etc etc.

tomcustombuilder

PAV8888 wrote: »

@mtaratoot the discussion of AT would include a drop in BMR as that would be a side effect of, for example, a reduction in core temperature. Whether and to what degree there is AT, how long after the onset of CR it would come up, how long after the cessation of CR it would persists, how much of observed AT is beyond what would be expected by actual weight and body composition change, how much of it the reduction comes at rest/sleep, or during exercise--via increased efficiency--or activity by being less active or burning less during the various activities.... all of these seem to be open and debatable and no exact answer questions.

But It doesn't seem to me to be a zero value. Also it doesn't seem to me to be a value sufficient to STOP weight loss. But no stop does not mean no impact either.

Your car needs gas and has no ability to compensate other than by running out and sputtering. Before humans sputter and end up at the hospital they will fall asleep, fidget less, be cold and huddle, telegraph in their exercise instead of performing at 100%, stop having the urge to have sex, sit extra long on the couch and not bother to get up to pick up the phone etc etc etc.

It may drop NEAT, BMR? I dunno...

mtaratoot

@PAV8888

Interesting things to consider for sure, and this may become splitting of hairs of picking of nits. Here I go anyway:

Does adaptive thermogenesis actually reduce BMR or TDEE? If BMR is the calories it takes just for our life functions, even if we are asleep or in a coma, then that's the bare minimum. If there is a reduction in core temperature, then maybe. I can't imagine it would be a great reduction; our bodies like a very small range of temperature.

If reduced fueling of our bodies causes us to reduce our activity, even subconscious activity, that's not BMR reduction. Still - it might be a small reduction in total calories burned.

I'll go back to the car example. If you recognize you're running low on fuel, you could slow down your velocity. You could turn off the A/C. You could turn off the radio. All these things will reduce the fuel that your vehicle actually uses, but the efficiency of the engine remains the same.

In a very minor sense, your vehicle actually DOES go farther on an amount of fuel when the tank is low. Like needing fewer calories after losing weight, you're not hauling as much fuel when your tank is low. Then you need less fuel to go the same distance. It may not be measurable, just like the adaptive thermogenesis.

In the bigger picture, there's a mistaken belief of a "Starvation Mode" where your body somehow "holds on" to fat when you don't eat enough. That's a myth that is not substantiated. That's why I drew the analogy of a vehicle using less fuel when it's low. Things generally don't work that way.