weight loss is harder when you are down at 139 below

imxnianne

Hello mfp friends,
I've heard losing weight at the range of 130-139lbs is the hardest struggle? Is it true or are there people here conquered the problem easily? I just hit 140 and I'm wondering if I will be having a harder time at this number range, so will I have to work harder or do I just stay the same route on this diet as I am right now ? Please anyone? I hope I made sense in this question.

PippiNe

Weight loss gets harder (slower paced) the closer you are to goal. If your goal is 130, then this may hold true for you. If your goal is 115, the 130s may not be all that bad.

asheley93

That's not true. Weight loss slows as you get closer to a healthy weight, but not necessarily harder. (And not at a specific weight.)

XTSH

Personally, I didn't find it particularly hard. I was at 137 since 1-Oct. Now I'm at 132. I'm very close to my goal weight now so 5 pound is still good progress.

imxnianne

That's not true. Weight loss slows as you get closer to a healthy weight, but not necessarily harder. (And not at a specific weight.)

It slows down? So it is harder then it is now. I've been losing 5lbs a week, with constant excersize and yes I admit, starvation mode. Guess I'll just have to give it a shot.

And to the other post, no. 130 isn't the main goal, but it is a goal. I'd love that again! Haven't seen that number in years! Ultimate goal is 120. 115 at the most so even if I go off the diet, my fluids I will gain will still maintain at the 120 range.

Thank you ladies.

imxnianne

Personally, I didn't find it particularly hard. I was at 137 since 1-Oct. Now I'm at 132. I'm very close to my goal weight now so 5 pound is still good progress.

That's awesome. Wtg! I hope mine won't be that hard either!

TheRealParisLove

Yes. Or at least it is for me. I lost the first 10 pounds in 2 months, then next 3 pounds over the next three months and nothing since then.

I'm very hungry most days, and I have to exercise at least an hour a day just to stay ahead of my calories. I've tried messing with my macros, changing my calorie goal, eating high protein/low carb, exercising less, exercising more. Nothing seems to be getting me to my goal.

I'm adding a new workout next week (strength training). We'll see if that has any effect.

RoadsterGirlie

I shot through the 130s faster than I shot through the 190s.

I was eating about 1600 calories a day in the 190's, and about 1400 to 1500 per day in the 130's. This was on Weight Watchers, so I was counting points instead, but this is what those points roughly equaled.

Sarauk2sf

The lighter you are the less you can eat. So I suppose in some respects that is true. Not sure where this exact number came from though - its a continuum, not a hard cut off.

Also, the leaner you are it is harder as deficits may impact you more hormonally than at a higher BF%. However, you can be very lean at say 110lb and very lean at say 160lb, depending on height and LBM.

imxnianne

Yes. Or at least it is for me. I lost the first 10 pounds in 2 months, then next 3 pounds over the next three months and nothing since then.

I'm very hungry most days, and I have to exercise at least an hour a day just to stay ahead of my calories. I've tried messing with my macros, changing my calorie goal, eating high protein/low carb, exercising less, exercising more. Nothing seems to be getting me to my goal.

I'm adding a new workout next week (strength training). We'll see if that has any effect.

Strength training. It's a must! I honestly can't finish workouts without strength training. Cause without it, I hardly see any results. In my opinion.

LolBroScience

^ this... I lose very slow now working through the 160's and I'm a relatively low bodyfat.

imxnianne

I shot through the 130s faster than I shot through the 190s.

I was eating about 1600 calories a day in the 190's, and about 1400 to 1500 per day in the 130's. This was on Weight Watchers, so I was counting points instead, but this is what those points roughly equaled.

Awesome! I wish this will happen to me too. Congrats on the big difference btw

BusyRaeNOTBusty

No, 5lbs a week is not sustainable.

geekyjock76

I am thankful that the rate of fat loss slows down. Considering I have 20 lbs of total fat mass, were I to have the same rate of fat loss as someone with 200 lbs of total fat, I would be one of the first to die if I had no access to food.

imxnianne

No, 5lbs a week is not sustainable.

Sorry to hear you disagreed. It is only the first two weeks of mine. Its with pure sacrifice like I admitted. I have 3 cheat days but 5 days of workouts at gym at 2 hours. Not including work. It was hard, but I'm proud. I just don't know if it will be the same the next few weeks. I doubt it. Lol .

Sarauk2sf

No, 5lbs a week is not sustainable.

Sorry to hear you disagreed. It is only the first two weeks of mine. Its with pure sacrifice like I admitted. I have 3 cheat days but 5 days of workouts at gym at 2 hours. Not including work. It was hard, but I'm proud. I just don't know if it will be the same the next few weeks. I doubt it. Lol .

It will not as the first week or two's losses are mainly water weight usually. Just setting expectations, which is what the poster was doing.

ETA: the less fat you have the less weight you lose can be from fat. If you actually did lose 5lb a week of 'real' weight, you would be losing muscle mass along with it.

geekyjock76

Most of the initial weight you lose comes from water. Out of that 5 lbs, a lot is from water. This is however replenished when you up calories back up to maintenance. So be mindful of regaining a few lbs when you begin increasing calories towards maintenance in the future.

imxnianne

I totally agree with the water weight and maybe some muscle loss. But you can't really win it all. I try to regain with strength training along with it.


115 is the ultimate goal. So if I shall stop counting calories again, the weight I gain back in an Instant won't be so hard on me. Lol. Thanks though guys. I'm trying.goodluck with you guys too.

Sarauk2sf

I totally agree with the water weight and maybe some muscle loss. But you can't really win it all. I try to regain with strength training along with it.


115 is the ultimate goal. So if I shall stop counting calories again, the weight I gain back in an Instant won't be so hard on me. Lol. Thanks though guys. I'm trying.goodluck with you guys too.

You actually can - you can retain LBM if you strength train, get enough protein and have a small enough deficit.

It is incredibly hard for women to gain muscle, so losing it and then trying to regain it is not a good approach imo.

RECowgill

Strength training, weight lifting and a small caloric deficit is how you can reach a healthy 115. Not just a sickly, flabby and gross 115, but an admirable, healthy 115 that you can keep for a lifetime. Sounds like you know this already, just don't lose sight of it. :drinker:

imxnianne

Strength training, weight lifting and a small caloric deficit is how you can reach a healthy 115. Not just a sickly, flabby and gross 115, but an admirable, healthy 115 that you can keep for a lifetime. Sounds like you know this already, just don't lose sight of it. :drinker:

Yes. Good old fashion HARD way. researched everything . Lol thank you! It was hard at first especially I was a carb freak first but now veggies replaced my tastebuds. Goodluck to everyone!

geekyjock76

I totally agree with the water weight and maybe some muscle loss. But you can't really win it all. I try to regain with strength training along with it.

It would be in your best interest to do what you can to minimize lean mass loss while reducing fat mass. Even in the most optimal, "natural" conditions, a woman at best will gain 1 lb of lean mass in one month on an adequate surplus, with enough protein and lifting weights of sufficient resistance.

Let's say you pursue and maintain too large of a deficit and lose 5 lbs of lean mass to reach goal weight as opposed to 1 lb if you had adhered to a smaller deficit. You would likely have to eat at maintenance for several weeks or months to allow your metabolism and endocrine hormones to recover depending how long and severe you restricted. Afterwards, you'd then have to eat at a calorie surplus for 5+ months to gain 5 lbs of lean mass (because you'll likely lose 1 lb or so when you diet again) with a likely equal amount of fat gain. Finally, you'd have to diet a second time for 2 or 3 months to reduce the fat mass you gained during the surplus.

So, you can either minimize lean mass loss and get the body you want a lot sooner.

Or...

Spend an additional 9+ months after reaching goal weight to recover what you lost.

Springfield1970

I totally agree with the water weight and maybe some muscle loss. But you can't really win it all. I try to regain with strength training along with it.

It would be in your best interest to do what you can to minimize lean mass loss while reducing fat mass. Even in the most optimal, "natural" conditions, a woman at best will gain 1 lb of lean mass in one month on an adequate surplus, with enough protein and lifting weights of sufficient resistance.

Let's say you pursue and maintain too large of a deficit and lose 5 lbs of lean mass to reach goal weight as opposed to 1 lb if you had adhered to a smaller deficit. You would likely have to eat at maintenance for several weeks or months to allow your metabolism and endocrine hormones to recover depending how long and severe you restricted. Afterwards, you'd then have to eat at a calorie surplus for 5+ months to gain 5 lbs of lean mass (because you'll likely lose 1 lb or so when you diet again) with a likely equal amount of fat gain. Finally, you'd have to diet a second time for 2 or 3 months to reduce the fat mass you gained during the surplus.

So, you can either minimize lean mass loss and get the body you want a lot sooner.

Or...

Spend an additional 9+ months after reaching goal weight to recover what you lost.

What I wouldn't give to have heard this 20 years ago. I've spent decades building muscle and losing muscle due to impatience and lack of knowledge/looking for easy quick solutions/lack of resources. God knows how much metabolic potential I've lost let alone months and years of having no energy and being a grumpy low carb git. GeekyJock keep spreading the word!

jenilla1

...I've been losing 5lbs a week, with constant excersize and yes I admit, starvation mode...

Rethink this strategy. Slow it down a bit if you want to look good and STAY good once you reach goal. Good luck! :flowerforyou:

loriq41

I stalled at 127 for 6 WEEKS! Decided this week to have less of a deficit (ie pretty much eating ALL my daily cals) and go figure, I lost almost 2 lbs the past seven days..and I am 10 lbs from goal...so I think every one has different chemistry and quite honestly, weird bodies! lol

BusyRaeNOTBusty

It is incredibly hard for women to gain muscle, so losing it and then trying to regain it is not a good approach imo.

Agreed. Not good at all.

jwdieter

Thought this was going to be an interesting thread about trying to lose weight in Antarctica. Oh well.

iechick

I did alternate day IF for weight loss and had no problem losing below 140lbs. I started at 173lbs and got to my original goal weight of 135lbs with no stalls/plateaus-lost every week. After I hit goal I started transitioning to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet along with a different form of IF (8/16), and continued to lose weight-this time without calorie counting/purposely restricting. Lost an additional 15lbs doing this. Currently my weight has stabilized at 119.5-122lbs.

I didn't do any type of exercise for the first part, and started walking and then adding a bit of running for the second part. I currently walk around 10 miles a week and run 4 miles. I go back and forth on strength training-I love how I look now and have a flat stomach, good definition in my arms/shoulders/back and my legs are really firming up due to the walking/running. I've started doing some modified pushups on my walks (hands on top of a fence rail/body slanted), but I don't really feel led to do anything more than that right now.