Article: Why Fat Loss Is Slower Than You Expect

Hildy_J

Comprehensive (long) piece on why the weight loss thing is so... damn..... slow. I'm sure it will resonate with a few people on here! The author is called Armi Legge. Yeah, me too.

Apologies if this has already been shared, this was on my FL today posted by MFP guru and all-round good egg yoyokat - link to article is http://impruvism.com/slow-fat-loss/

TEASER/WARNING: The actual article on the impruvism website has a picture of a man in a lime green thong.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

October 22, 2013 by Armi Legge

When it comes to fat loss, your results never seem to live up to your expectations.

If you’re losing one pound of fat per week, you want to lose two. If you’re losing two pounds of fat per week, you want to lose three.

Even if you feel like you’re doing everything right, fat loss will always take longer than you want it to.

You feel frustrated and confused, and you’re not alone. This happens to everyone.

Here’s why it always takes longer to lose fat than you think, and what to do about it. At the end of each section, you’ll see a summary of the reasons your fat loss has slowed, or the “Speed Bump,” and a list of solutions.

1. You eat more than you think.

Most people have no clue how much they really eat.1-10 They’re horrible at…
1.Eye-balling their calorie intake.
2.Estimating portion sizes.
3.Remembering what or how much they ate, even minutes after a meal.11
4.Measuring their food intake by volume (e.g. measuring cups).
5.Being honest about how much they’ve eaten, even if they took somewhat accurate records.

This is often more of an issue for people who follow “elimination” diets like paleo, vegetarian, low-carb, low-fat or what have you. Part of the reason many of these people follow these kinds of diets is because they aren’t willing to track their food intake. In some cases people will even assume that adding “healthier” foods to an otherwise “unhealthy” meal actually reduces the calorie content.12

You’re probably not as bad as most people, given that you’re a more obsessive person, but you’re still not perfect. Even if you use a digital scale to weigh your food, you’re probably off by a little.

Here are several reasons why:
1.Some foods, especially those from restaurants, can have 200% more calories than they say on the label.13,14
2.Many people don’t account for how the weight or volume of food changes after it’s been cooked. For instance, baked sweet potatoes can lose half of their weight in water after cooking. If you calculate your calorie intake based on the weight of raw sweet potatoes, you’ll be eating 100% more calories than you thought.
3.Many people aren’t good at estimating the calorie content of homemade food.
4.If you’re using measuring cups, then your calculations can often be off by more than 50%. Volume measurements are often not much better than eye-balling your portions.
5.People don’t bother counting things like fruits or some vegetables, despite the fact that many of them can have just as many or more calories than things like rice and potatoes.

When you consider all of these variables, it’s easy to underestimate your food intake by several hundred calories per day. That’s often enough to slow your rate of fat loss by 20 or 40%.

Another common problem among highly motivated people like bodybuilders, models, and athletes is binge eating. When these people binge, they usually don’t count the those calories.

Most people don’t really enjoy binging and don’t want to think about what they ate, how much they ate, or how they felt at the time. It’s easier to try to forget it. In other cases people purposely overeat… aka have a cheat day… aka eat way too many calories and not count them.

Here’s an example to show how this might affect your long-term fat loss.

Let’s say you eat 2,000 calories per day to lose weight. That gives you an average weekly calorie intake of 14,000 calories.

You have a 6,000 calorie binge on one of those days. (That’s on the low-side of what most people do).

Your weekly calorie intake just rose to 18,000 calories. This would change your average daily calorie intake to 2,571 calories per day, which is enough to completely stall your fat loss.

This doesn’t mean elimination diets don’t work, that you should turn into a neurotic weirdo about measuring your food intake, or that you should never have some days where you overeat on a diet. However, if you’re having trouble losing weight, you might want to reassess your calorie intake and see if you’re making one of these mistakes.

Speed Bump

You eat more calories than you think.

Solutions
•Be more precise about measuring your calorie intake — use a scale if you need to.
•Prepare more of your own food.
•Eat less, even if your estimations already say you’re not eating that much. (You’re probably underestimating).
•Use strategies to eliminate binge eating.
•Take a diet break.

2. You don’t burn as many calories during exercise as you think you do.

Most people are almost as bad at estimating their calorie expenditure as they are their calorie intake.15,16

In one study, some people thought they burned 3,000-4,000 calories after brisk walking for about half an hour. On average, the subjects thought they had burned about 800-900 calories, when in reality they burned 200-300.16

When you diet, you also sometimes feel more lethargic, which can make it harder to exercise at the same intensity.

Let’s say you normally ride a bike at about 12-14 miles per hour for 30 minutes a day — a fairly moderate pace. When you diet, you feel more sluggish, and without realizing it your pace drops to about 10-12 miles per hour. If you’re a 70 kilogram male, that would mean you’d burn about 70 fewer calories in only 30 minutes. Over an entire week that would be about 500 calories.

In other cases, it might be harder to train at all. If you start working out twice per week instead of three, then you could easily burn 600 fewer calories per week or almost 100 calories per day.

You’ll usually have fewer problems with maintaining the intensity of your workouts or the motivation to train if you use a less severe deficit, but this can still happen on any diet.

Another problem is “the licensing effect” — people assume that exercise gives them the “license” to overeat on calories. Sometimes this is intentional, e.g. “I just ran for an hour and burned a zillion calories, therefore I can eat half a pizza.”

In other cases, people subconsciously eat too much relative to their exercise levels and end up quitting when they don’t see results. In the same study where people drastically overestimated their calorie expenditure, the subjects also generally ate about 550-600 calories after the workout or about 2-3 times as much as they burned.16

In other cases, people do burn a lot of calories through exercise, but they still eat too much. There are a lot of athletes who burn 1,000-2,000 calories per day through exercise who still struggle with their weight, because they eat too many calories.

Speed Bump

You don’t burn as many calories during exercise as you think you do.

Solutions
•Be more consistent with your exercise routine.
•Use an objective method for estimating your energy expenditure such as MET values — not the numbers on cardio machines which are virtually always inaccurate.
•Use an objective measurement to make sure you’re maintaining the intensity of your workouts while dieting, such as your strength in the gym, your running pace, or your wattage if you’re a cyclist.
•Err on the side of estimating you burn fewer calories rather than more.

3. You burn fewer calories through daily movements.

When you cut calories, your levels of subconscious movement, aka, “NEAT”, drop.17,18 You’re also less motivated to make yourself move to do things like get the mail or take the stairs, which are examples of “NEPA,” or non-exercise physical activity.

Both NEAT and NEPA usually drop as you lose weight. In some cases this can be drastic. Studies have shown that after weight loss, people can burn around 350-400 calories less per day through physical activity.17 People who’ve lost even more weight can often burn around 600 calories less per day due to a drop in NEAT and NEPA.18

Even small, seemingly irrelevant changes in your movement patterns can have a big impact on your energy expenditure. Just fidgeting while you sit can increase your energy expenditure by about 46% over sitting still.19

Other studies have shown that people who move more throughout the day are less likely to regain weight after losing it.20-23

Even if you do everything you can to move more, you may still burn slightly fewer calories at the end of the day. This drop might be as little as 50-100 calories per day or as much as 300-400 calories less per day in a worst case scenario.

This is something you’ll have to accept if you want to lose fat. However, you can still help prevent your activity levels from dropping with the following tips:

Speed Bump

You burn fewer calories through daily movements.

Solutions
•Sneak in as much movement as possible into your day, in whatever form you enjoy most. Take every opportunity to move.
•If you’re lying on your back, sit upright.
•If you’re sitting, stand.
•If you’re standing or sitting, fidget as much as possible.
•Move faster.
•Park further away from your destination.
•Open doors by hand.
•Use a pedometer to track your steps and shoot for a higher number.
•Use a sit-stand work station.
•Take the stairs whenever possible.
•Plan a break into your day every hour where you get up and walk around for a few minutes.

4. You weigh less, so you burn fewer calories.

As you lose weight, your fat cells shrink. In some cases, you may also lose some lean body mass.

Your body is becoming smaller and thus requires less energy. You also burn fewer calories during exercise because you’re moving less weight.

The more weight you lose, the more your metabolic rate will generally decrease.24-27 Your resting metabolic rate will decrease even more if you lose a larger proportion of muscle mass.28-31

Let’s say you’ve lost 20 pounds. You were smart about your diet, so you lifted weights and ate enough protein. However, you also rushed things a bit and lost some muscle mass, too. At the end of your diet, you lost about eighteen pounds of fat and two pounds of muscle.

A pound of fat burns about two calories per day and a pound of muscle burns about six calories per day. After losing 20 pounds, you would burn around 48 fewer calories per day.32 That’s not a lot, but it’s still more than most people realize — especially when you factor in your exercise levels.

Using the same example from above, let’s say you ride your bike at about 10-12 miles per hour for half an hour per day. At your old weight, 79.1 kilograms, you would burn about 237 calories. At your new weight of 70 kilos, you’d burn 210 calories.

Now you’re burning 75 calories less per day just through maintaining your resting metabolic rate and exercise. You’ll probably burn at least 100 fewer calories after you account for the fact that you’re also burning fewer calories through every other movement during the day — solely because you weigh less. This effect is going to be greater if you lose more weight.

Speed Bump

You weigh less, so you burn fewer calories.

Solutions
•Exercise more often, longer, and/or at a slightly higher intensity.
•Diet in a way that minimizes the amount of muscle you lose.
•Eat less.
•Maximize your levels of daily activity with the above suggestions.
•Use a weighted vest (Hey, it’s still an option).

5. Your muscles become more efficient.

As you lose weight, your muscles use less energy to perform the same movements.

One study found that people who had lost weight were about 27% more efficient at pedaling a bike. Part of this is because you’re lighter and have better technique, but there are also biochemical changes that take place within your muscles that reduce the number of calories you burn during exercise.33

Other studies have also shown that people who’ve lost weight generally have increased muscular efficiency.34-36

However, one problem with these studies is that they often use extremely light forms of exercise — like lightly spinning the wheels of a stationary bike against no resistance, which might not be relevant for you. Other data has also not found significant changes in muscular efficiency while dieting.37,38

Another problem with these studies is that they usually don’t have the subjects progressing — they keep exercising at the same intensity every workout. While becoming more efficient means you burn fewer calories, you also can work at higher absolute intensity, thus burning more calories. In general, progressive training helps you burn more calories over time.

This doesn’t necessarily apply to your daily movements, however, which also become more efficient. There’s a limit to how much NEAT and NEPA you can cram into a day, and no matter what you do, you’ll probably burn slightly fewer calories because your muscles become more efficient.

Speed Bump

Your muscles become more efficient.

Solutions
•Increase the duration, frequency, and/or intensity of your workouts.
•Challenge yourself with new kinds of exercise.
•Move more throughout the day.
•Eat slightly less.

6. You’re lean.

People with more body fat can generally lose fat much faster than leaner people for several reasons.

1. Heavier people generally have higher energy needs.

Obese people often have extremely high resting metabolic rates, sometimes close to 3,000 calories per day.24 These people also burn even more calories than lighter people during easy exercise, like walking at the same speed on a treadmill.

In this study, people who weighed 330 pounds at 50% body fat burned 3,900 calories per day, 2,679 of which came from their resting metabolic rate.
In this study, people who weighed 330 pounds at 50% body fat burned 3,900 calories per day, 2,679 of which came from their resting metabolic rate. (Click to enlarge)

Heavier people can create a larger caloric deficit while still eating a lot of food. If an obese person needs 3,900 calories per day to maintain their weight, and they cut back to 2,000 calories per day, they might lose over three pounds per week.24

2. Leaner people lose more muscle when they diet faster.

If you’re closer to the limits of leanness, you generally lose more muscle the faster you lose weight.39,40 While you can lose more fat if you use a large calorie deficit, you’ll also lose more muscle.

For males who are below about 10% body fat and females who are below about 18% body fat, it’s much smarter to use a smaller deficit. While this helps prevent muscle loss, it also means you lose fat slower.

It’s not uncommon for bodybuilders to lose only 0.25-0.5 pounds of fat per week as they get close to their competition date. In contrast, very overweight people can often safely lose 2-3 pounds of fat per week while losing little to no muscle.

Speed Bump

You’re lean.

Solutions
•Decrease the size of your calorie deficit as you get leaner to minimize muscle loss.
•Prioritize resistance training over cardio.
•Increase the duration, frequency, and/or intensity of your workouts.
•Move more throughout the day.
•Stop complaining because you’re lean — be patient.

7. You’re a woman.

Women generally lose fat slower than men.

They’re generally smaller and have less muscle mass.41 Other data indicates that women may also have 5-10% lower resting metabolic rates after adjusting for lean body mass.42

Women tend to have a harder time mobilizing fat stores and also usually have lower levels of fat oxidation at rest.43

Some data also indicates that women tend to be slightly worse on average at estimating their calorie intake.44,45

If you’re a woman, you’re probably going to lose fat slower than most men.

(Disclaimer: I’m obviously not saying there’s anything wrong with being a woman; it just makes fat loss slightly harder).

Speed Bump

You’re a woman.

Solutions
•Eat slightly less.
•Move more throughout the day.
•Increase the duration, frequency, and/or intensity of your workouts.

8. You’re a unique genetic snowflake.

You may lose fat slower than most others even if you’re doing everything right.

There are several possible reasons for this:
•Lower leptin and insulin sensitivity.
•Lower thyroid levels.
•Lower fat mobilization or oxidation.
•Larger drop in metabolic rate with dieting.
•Lower exercise tolerance and/or recovery capacity.
•Lower levels of NEAT and/or NEPA.
•Higher levels of dietary disinhibition and greater susceptibility to food reward.
•Lower ability or motivation to exercise, measure calorie intake, prepare meals, and engage in other important lifestyle behaviors.

There are also some diseases that make it harder for people to lose fat, but they aren’t relevant for most people.

Some people are hardwired to lose fat easily while others have to work much harder to see results. It’s possible you might be in the latter category.

Problem

You have a “thrifty” metabolism, meaning you have a genetic predisposition to carrying more body fat than you’d like.

Solutions
•All of the other solutions in this article.

9. You set unreasonable expectations.

If you set more realistic expectations, you’ll probably be less disappointed with your results.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t set challenging weight loss goals. In fact, people who set “unreasonable” weight loss goals generally lose just as much weight as those who set more moderate ones. They also tend to maintain their weight loss just as well.46,47

In this case, setting “reasonable expectations” means:

1. Acknowledging that it will probably take longer than you want to lose fat, and that your progress won’t be linear.

2. Being flexible about your diet and exercise habits, and keeping a long-term perspective rather than only focusing on your daily or weekly rate of weight loss.

If you’re prepared for weight loss plateaus and small mistakes, you’ll handle these situations better and lose fat faster.

Problem

You set unreasonable expectations.

Solutions
•Give yourself about 20% more time to reach your goal weight than you think you’ll need.
•Expect to eat more than you meant to on some days or to miss a few workouts.
•Consider all of the previous variables when deciding how fast you think you can lose fat.
•Work with a coach to help you decide a reasonable rate of fat loss and to help deal with the issues you learned about in this article.

Be Happy with Slower Progress

Fat loss always takes longer than you want it to.

Some of these problems are behavioral — you eat more than you think and you don’t burn as many calories as you think. In other cases, your problems are out of your control — you weigh less, your muscles become more efficient, you lose a larger percentage of muscle, or you have a genetic predisposition to weight gain.

However, there are always things you can control to help you keep losing fat. Even if you’re doing everything right, you’ll probably lose fat slower than you’d like. If you set reasonable expectations from the beginning, however, most of these problems are far less important than you might think.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr_Knight

TEASER/WARNING: The actual article on the impruvism website has a picture of a man in a lime green thong.

Oh dear. Did they learn nothing from Billy Squier?

Mr_Knight

For myself, I found the best way to deal with the "slowness" of it all was to have tangible, meaningful alternate goals. Like improved athletic performance or etc.

That way, even when loss slowed down, there would be something else to feel good about, and that always makes it easier to stay motivated.

smc864

bumpity bump

Hildy_J

Oh dear. Did they learn nothing from Billy Squier?

Had to google him. Dude looks like something from Spinal Tap.

Mr_Knight

Oh dear. Did they learn nothing from Billy Squier?

Had to google him. Dude looks like something from Spinal Tap.

The video that killed the radio star...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR0j7sModCI

kwest_4_fitness

Oh dear. Did they learn nothing from Billy Squier?

Had to google him. Dude looks like something from Spinal Tap.

The video that killed the radio star...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR0j7sModCI

Egads! I remember that video! I asked my brother why the guy who sang "The Stroke" was dancing around like a girl. Horrible. His career disappeared virtually overnight.

qtgonewild

can someone explain to me this statement.... sweet potatoes lose half their weight once cooked in water. so if you're basing the weight on raw sweet potatoes you're eating 100% more calories than you think.

would it not be the other way around.

you weighed a potato at 4 ounces and log it.
you cook it.
it becomes say 2 ounces.

how are you eating twice as many calories as you thought?

Hildy_J

Egads! I remember that video! I asked my brother why the guy who sang "The Stroke" was dancing around like a girl. Horrible. His career disappeared virtually overnight.

I found the video quite inspirational. Just put my leotard and legwarmers on. Now gonna get in the shower, pretend I'm in Flashdance.

carolina822

can someone explain to me this statement.... sweet potatoes lose half their weight once cooked in water. so if you're basing the weight on raw sweet potatoes you're eating 100% more calories than you think.

would it not be the other way around.

you weighed a potato at 4 ounces and log it.
you cook it.
it becomes say 2 ounces.

how are you eating twice as many calories as you thought?

I puzzled over that too. I think what they are saying is that if you weigh your 4 ounce sweet potato cooked, and count the calories as if it were raw, you'd be way off. Pretty easy problem to solve, if you're bothering to look up and log such things, so that seems to not be that big a deal, imo.

ereck44

can someone explain to me this statement.... sweet potatoes lose half their weight once cooked in water. so if you're basing the weight on raw sweet potatoes you're eating 100% more calories than you think.

would it not be the other way around.

you weighed a potato at 4 ounces and log it.
you cook it.
it becomes say 2 ounces.

how are you eating twice as many calories as you thought?

yeah, I wondered about that as well. Also when you weigh meat (hamburger) prior to cooking and it obviously shrinks when it cooks because the fat cooks out. I don't get it.

qtgonewild

oh I get it. they are basing it on raw weight but weighing it cooked. ding. took a minute but I got it. lol. good thing I weigh before I cook!

wowgirl30

Saving for later

Fivepts

bump

geekyjock76

1. Heavier people generally have higher energy needs.

Obese people often have extremely high resting metabolic rates, sometimes close to 3,000 calories per day.24 These people also burn even more calories than lighter people during easy exercise, like walking at the same speed on a treadmill.

In this study, people who weighed 330 pounds at 50% body fat burned 3,900 calories per day, 2,679 of which came from their resting metabolic rate.

I think people of all weight ranges grossly underestimate their total energy needs. There was a study I read whose subjects were women of average weight and personal estimates, from my recollection, were off by as much as -900 calories compared to TDEE measurements using double-labeled water method. I noticed this too during my time as a personal trainer. This likely explains why many people, but women in particular, pursue very large deficits under the false impression that they require drastically less energy to maintain present weight. The basis for such may lay in their association with "higher" caloric needs with "heavier" weight.

highervibes

can someone explain to me this statement.... sweet potatoes lose half their weight once cooked in water. so if you're basing the weight on raw sweet potatoes you're eating 100% more calories than you think.

would it not be the other way around.

you weighed a potato at 4 ounces and log it.
you cook it.
it becomes say 2 ounces.

how are you eating twice as many calories as you thought?

That's what I thought he meant initially but I was expecting it to be LESS not more???

If I weight sweet potatoes before baking, and they're 200g and as per nutritional data have X amount of calories and then I cook out the water and am left with 100g, isn't my pre-evaporated water weight more accurate anyhow if I've logged the 200g? Unless of course he means cooking it and then having 200g cooked sweet potato which would have really been 400g raw. I think that must have been what he was awkwardly saying... it's the only thing that makes sense lol

MillyFleurs

TL;DR: You eat too much.

chad_phillips1123

Bump

natalyau

bump to read later

donyellemoniquex3

Can someone make a tldr version ?

Hildy_J

Eeeek.... just read thro the OP - missed the references out. Here they are, because geekiness.

It's a pretty good article isn't it - seems to have covered everything I've absorbed about weight loss since I joined MFP. I was one of those people who thought eating something healthy after junk food/chocolate 'made up for it' calorie-wise. *eye roll*

Also - what means 'TLDR'?

Hildegard

---

1. Westerterp KR, Goris AHC. Validity of the assessment of dietary intake: problems of misreporting. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2002;5(5):489–493.

2. Forrestal SG. Energy intake misreporting among children and adolescents: a literature review. Matern Child Nutr. 2011;7(2):112–127. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8709.2010.00270.x.

3. Poslusna K, Ruprich J, de Vries JHM, Jakubikova M, van’t Veer P. Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 hour recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr. 2009;101 Suppl 2:S73–85. doi:10.1017/S0007114509990602.

4. Yanetz R, Kipnis V, Carroll RJ, et al. Using biomarker data to adjust estimates of the distribution of usual intakes for misreporting: application to energy intake in the US population. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(3):455–64– discussion 464. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.12.004.

5. Millen AE, Tooze JA, Subar AF, Kahle LL, Schatzkin A, Krebs-Smith SM. Differences between food group reports of low-energy reporters and non-low-energy reporters on a food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(7):1194–1203. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.04.004.

6. Tooze JA, Vitolins MZ, Smith SL, et al. High levels of low energy reporting on 24-hour recalls and three questionnaires in an elderly low-socioeconomic status population. J Nutr. 2007;137(5):1286–1293. Available at: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/5/1286.long.

7. Lichtman SW, Pisarska K, Berman ER, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(27):1893–1898. doi:10.1056/NEJM199212313272701.

8. Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D’Alessio DA. The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(3):1475–1482. doi:10.1210/jc.2004-1540.

9. Burrows TL, Martin RJ, Collins CE. A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1501–1510. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.008.

10. Archer E, Hand GA, Blair SN. Validity of U.S. Nutritional Surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Caloric Energy Intake Data, 1971–2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76632. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076632.

11. Wansink B, Linder LR. Interactions between forms of fat consumption and restaurant bread consumption. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 2003;27(7):866–868. Available at: http://www.foodpsychology.cornell.edu/pdf/pre-prints/oliveorbutterinteractions-2003.pdf.

12. Chernev A. The Dieter’s Paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2010;(21):178–183. Available at: http://The Dieter’s Paradox – Kellogg School of Management …

13. Fabiansson SU. Precision in nutritional information declarations on food labels in Australia. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2006;15(4):451–458. Available at: http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/15/4/451.pdf.

14. Urban LE, Dallal GE, Robinson LM, Ausman LM, Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The accuracy of stated energy contents of reduced-energy, commercially prepared foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(1):116–123. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.10.003.

15. Harris CL, George VA. Dietary restraint influences accuracies in estimating energy expenditure and energy intake among physically inactive males. Am J Mens Health. 2010;4(1):33–40. doi:10.1177/1557988308327052.

16. Willbond SM, Laviolette MA, Duval K, Doucet E. Normal weight men and women overestimate exercise energy expenditure. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2010;50(4):377–384.

17. Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Gallagher DA, Leibel RL. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88(4):906–912. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.long.

18. Weigle DS, Sande KJ, Iverius PH, Monsen ER, Brunzell JD. Weight loss leads to a marked decrease in nonresting energy expenditure in ambulatory human subjects. Metab Clin Exp. 1988;37(10):930–936.

19. Levine JA, Schleusner SJ, Jensen MD. Energy expenditure of nonexercise activity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72(6):1451–1454. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/6/1451.long.

20. Weinsier RL, Hunter GR, Desmond RA, Byrne NM, Zuckerman PA, Darnell BE. Free-living activity energy expenditure in women successful and unsuccessful at maintaining a normal body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75(3):499–504.

21. Tate DF, Jeffery RW, Sherwood NE, Wing RR. Long-term weight losses associated with prescription of higher physical activity goals. Are higher levels of physical activity protective against weight regain? Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(4):954–959.

22. Phelan S, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, Wing RR. Are the eating and exercise habits of successful weight losers changing? Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(4):710–716. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.81.

23. Jakicic JM, Marcus BH, Lang W, Janney C. Effect of exercise on 24-month weight loss maintenance in overweight women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(14):1550–9– discussion 1559–60. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.14.1550.

24. Johannsen DL, Knuth ND, Huizenga R, Rood JC, Ravussin E, Hall KD. Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of fat-free mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(7):2489–2496. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-1444.

25. Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Kuehl KS, Bennett WM. Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1989;49(1):93–96. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html.

26. Camps SGJA, Verhoef SPM, Westerterp KR. Weight loss, weight maintenance, and adaptive thermogenesis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(5):990–994. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.050310.

27. Kinney JM. Influence of altered body weight on energy expenditure. Nutr Rev. 1995;53(9):265–268.

28. Muller MJ, Bosy-Westphal A. Adaptive thermogenesis with weight loss in humans. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21(2):218–228. doi:10.1002/oby.20027.

29. Bosy-Westphal A, Kossel E, Goele K, et al. Contribution of individual organ mass loss to weight loss-associated decline in resting energy expenditure. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(4):993–1001. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.27402.

30. Vansant G, Van Gaal L, Van Acker K, De Leeuw I. Short and long term effects of a very low calorie diet on resting metabolic rate and body composition. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 1989;13 Suppl 2:87–89.

31. Van Gaal LF, Vansant GA, De Leeuw IH. Factors determining energy expenditure during very-low-calorie diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;56(1 Suppl):224S–229S. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/56/1/224S.long.

32. McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001;4(2):143–147.

33. Rosenbaum M, Vandenborne K, Goldsmith R, et al. Effects of experimental weight perturbation on skeletal muscle work efficiency in human subjects. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003;285(1):R183–92. Available at: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/285/1/R183.long.

34. Foster GD, Wadden TA, Kendrick ZV, Letizia KA, Lander DP, Conill AM. The energy cost of walking before and after significant weight loss. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27(6):888–894.

35. Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity by moderate and severe caloric restriction. Results of clinical research trials. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(7 Pt 2):688–693.

36. Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Murphy E, Leibel RL. Effects of changes in body weight on carbohydrate metabolism, catecholamine excretion, and thyroid function. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(6):1421–1432. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1421.long.

37. Weinsier RL, Hunter GR, Zuckerman PA, et al. Energy expenditure and free-living physical activity in black and white women: comparison before and after weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(5):1138–1146. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/5/1138.full.

38. Poole DC, Henson LC. Effect of acute caloric restriction on work efficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;47(1):15–18. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/15.full.pdf+html.

39. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011;21(2):97–104.

40. Mettler S, Mitchell N, Tipton KD. Increased protein intake reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(2):326–337. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181b2ef8e.

41. Kohrt WM, Malley MT, Dalsky GP, Holloszy JO. Body composition of healthy sedentary and trained, young and older men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(7):832–837.

42. Ferraro R, Lillioja S, Fontvieille AM, Rising R, Bogardus C, Ravussin E. Lower sedentary metabolic rate in women compared with men. J Clin Invest. 1992;90(3):780–784. doi:10.1172/JCI115951.

43. Blaak E. Gender differences in fat metabolism. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001;4(6):499–502.

44. Johansson L, Solvoll K, Bjorneboe GE, Drevon CA. Under- and overreporting of energy intake related to weight status and lifestyle in a nationwide sample. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68(2):266–274.

45. Novotny JA, Rumpler WV, Rid**** H, et al. Personality characteristics as predictors of underreporting of energy intake on 24-hour dietary recall interviews. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(9):1146–1151.

46. Linde JA, Jeffery RW, Levy RL, Pronk NP, Boyle RG. Weight loss goals and treatment outcomes among overweight men and women enrolled in a weight loss trial. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 2005;29(8):1002–1005. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802990.

47. Linde JA, Jeffery RW, Finch EA, Ng DM, Rothman AJ. Are unrealistic weight loss goals associated with outcomes for overweight women? Obes Res. 2004;12(3):569–576. doi:10.1038/oby.2004.65.

gwenr

TL/DR = too long/didn't read. Some people want cliff's notes.

Great article, thanks for posting. I DID read....LOL!

Pearsquared

All I can say is, please don't fidget unless you're alone. It's really, really hard to concentrate on something when the person near you is fidgeting all the time.

Also, TL;DR means "Too long; didn't read."

SezxyStef

Good article..

cliff notes

If you aren't losing weight at all or as fast as you want you are probably doing the following

over estimating burns/under estimating intake

Solutions:
use a kitchen scale, log accurately (ie cooked vs raw) use a HRM with a chest strap for cardio, and if you are doing other workouts use some formula to calculate burns but understand they are "estimates".

Unless you have a medically diaganosed reason.

Solutions set realistic expectations and do all of the above.

BossLadyDSimp

Read for later

geekyjock76

Honestly, something like this should pop up to new members when creating an account. Sure, some people will just skip the information, but it could help out a lot of folks.