My weight won't go below 146 lbs

Phaedra2014

I'm sorry you are still having trouble breaking your plateau. I went through a similar thing recently and I stopped my diet completely for about 10 days. I didn't even log. I just ate whatever I wanted (within reason) and didn't worry about it. After that, I went back to logging and counting calories. I gained about 6 pounds, but it was mostly water. I lost 5 pounds in about 3 days and then went back to my steady loss of around 1.5 - 2 pounds a week.

i should have done that over Christmas but instead, I was scrupulous about logging and eating. It wasn't a sacrifice really. I like what I eat but i stuck to the same amounts of food and worked out too. Bah. This is very puzzling.

Phaedra2014

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.


I'm so looking forward to their help!

SLLRunner

try fasting, it works

No.

20 days later. I made the changes many of you suggested. Logged every single bite. Weighed everything in grams using USDA guidelines whenever available. Did not over consume. Drank plenty of water. Worked out consistently. And....

nothing has changed.

I'm still 146.

My measurements haven't changed either.

Any other suggestions?

I still stand by my earlier advice that you might want to consider that your exercise burns are overestimated. It seems to me that might be the one thing you have not considered.

What kind of heart rate monitor to do you use? I'd make sure it has your current weight and that it is properly calibrated to your specific heart rate.

SLLRunner

I feel your pain. I can offer you some perspective, not tactical advice. You are 43. I am 41. I too lost a LOT of weight. My highest was 350. I lost 100 lbs. Had kids. Then went from 250 to 180. Then plateaued. Then went on Jenny Craig and lost 40-45 pounds. So, at one point I was about 140 lbs (I'm 5'8). This was in my late 30s. But what did I have to do lose the final 10-15 lbs to get there? And what did I have to do to maintain? I was ridiculously scrupulous with coutning calories. To lose, I had to be around 1100-1300 per day. And on top of that, I had to exercise a LOT. I was running an hour a day. I was strength training 3 times a week. All on 1100 cals per day. I was hungry all the time. It made no sense. I tried eating more -- 1500 cals. I gained on that. Wehn I finally hit my goal of 140, I played around with the calorie levels. I discovered 1500 cals/day while still exercising quite a bit, was how to maintain. Most people lose on that. I had to do that just to NOT gain. WHY? I truly believe that if you've lost a ton of weight initially (like you have and like I had), your body becomes amazinly efficient and adaptive at hanging onto every.single.calorie. After all, from the body's persepctive, you have been starving it to produce weight loss. So it adapts and makes every calorie count, right? Makes losing weight that much harder. Especially as you get closer to your goal weight. Especially as you age. The body is just WAITING for a few extra calories so it can balloon back up. I know my body does not respond on 1400 calories a day as someone else's who is my same age, height, and activity level. So, what I am saying is, perhaps you are doing everything correctly. Perhaps 146 is where your body wants to be. I don't know. I feel for you. I am sorry. I am also trying to prod my body along. Hell, I averaged about 1500 calories per day this week and exercised plenty, and got on the scale and was up friggin 4 pounds. I don't get it. But this time around, I have adjusted my goal weight to 150-155, not 140. Now if only I could get there ...

I appreciate your reply. Thanks for sharing your story. You may be right. I don't want to believe it but you may be right. i can't seem to move from this place. I am doing all the right things. Maybe the last thing left to do is toss the weighing scale!!!

Someone who is thin but has lost a lot of weight to get there, will have a lower BMR than someone who was thin all along. This effect has been noted, but not explained scientifically yet. Likely it has something to do with adaptive thermogenesis. The good news is, is that this does seem to get better the longer the person maintains. I think especially if you focus on muscle maintenance, eventually you will be able to go back up in calories.

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.

I don't follow your BMR theory, so please provide more information on this.

Of course, the more weight you lose, the lower your BMR will be because less body means less calories to maintain at your most sedentary level, but what does weight loss history have to do with it? I realize online calculators are estimations only, but no calculator out there requires a weight lost history.

I find this interesting. I thought BMR was basically based on your gender, height, current weight. Please provide some sources where this effect has been noted.

Phaedra2014

try fasting, it works

No.

20 days later. I made the changes many of you suggested. Logged every single bite. Weighed everything in grams using USDA guidelines whenever available. Did not over consume. Drank plenty of water. Worked out consistently. And....

nothing has changed.

I'm still 146.

My measurements haven't changed either.

Any other suggestions?

I still stand by my earlier advice that you might want to consider that your exercise burns are overestimated. It seems to me that might be the one thing you have not considered.

What kind of heart rate monitor to do you use? I'd make sure it has your current weight and that it is properly calibrated to your specific heart rate.

I only log cardio burns on my HR. Even so, I don't eat all my exercise cals back because I realize that exercise burns are just estimations.

Yes I calibrated my HR and change the numbers even if I lose just a pound. I am really being as scrupulous as possible and have been for a while.

If I eat any less I won't make it through the day!

gigglesinthesun

I feel your pain. I can offer you some perspective, not tactical advice. You are 43. I am 41. I too lost a LOT of weight. My highest was 350. I lost 100 lbs. Had kids. Then went from 250 to 180. Then plateaued. Then went on Jenny Craig and lost 40-45 pounds. So, at one point I was about 140 lbs (I'm 5'8). This was in my late 30s. But what did I have to do lose the final 10-15 lbs to get there? And what did I have to do to maintain? I was ridiculously scrupulous with coutning calories. To lose, I had to be around 1100-1300 per day. And on top of that, I had to exercise a LOT. I was running an hour a day. I was strength training 3 times a week. All on 1100 cals per day. I was hungry all the time. It made no sense. I tried eating more -- 1500 cals. I gained on that. Wehn I finally hit my goal of 140, I played around with the calorie levels. I discovered 1500 cals/day while still exercising quite a bit, was how to maintain. Most people lose on that. I had to do that just to NOT gain. WHY? I truly believe that if you've lost a ton of weight initially (like you have and like I had), your body becomes amazinly efficient and adaptive at hanging onto every.single.calorie. After all, from the body's persepctive, you have been starving it to produce weight loss. So it adapts and makes every calorie count, right? Makes losing weight that much harder. Especially as you get closer to your goal weight. Especially as you age. The body is just WAITING for a few extra calories so it can balloon back up. I know my body does not respond on 1400 calories a day as someone else's who is my same age, height, and activity level. So, what I am saying is, perhaps you are doing everything correctly. Perhaps 146 is where your body wants to be. I don't know. I feel for you. I am sorry. I am also trying to prod my body along. Hell, I averaged about 1500 calories per day this week and exercised plenty, and got on the scale and was up friggin 4 pounds. I don't get it. But this time around, I have adjusted my goal weight to 150-155, not 140. Now if only I could get there ...

I appreciate your reply. Thanks for sharing your story. You may be right. I don't want to believe it but you may be right. i can't seem to move from this place. I am doing all the right things. Maybe the last thing left to do is toss the weighing scale!!!

Someone who is thin but has lost a lot of weight to get there, will have a lower BMR than someone who was thin all along. This effect has been noted, but not explained scientifically yet. Likely it has something to do with adaptive thermogenesis. The good news is, is that this does seem to get better the longer the person maintains. I think especially if you focus on muscle maintenance, eventually you will be able to go back up in calories.

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.

I don't follow your BMR theory, so please provide more information on this.

Of course, the more weight you lose, the lower your BMR will be because less body means less calories to maintain at your most sedentary level, but what does weight loss history have to do with it? I realize online calculators are estimations only, but no calculator out there requires a weight lost history.

I find this interesting. I thought BMR was basically based on your gender, height, current weight. Please provide some sources where this effect has been noted.

I think there was a study that found that a person that was once 300lbs and dieted down to 150lbs will have a lower BMR then a person that has always been 150lbs all other things being equal. However I can't find the study, so I don't know how good it was

Skarlet13

This is all very interesting to me. I work with a woman who lost about 100 lbs. She is 5'5 and weighs 138. She told me that she eats between 800 and 1000 calories per day. I was shocked because this is her maintenance intake. For that amount of calories I would expect her to be emaciated but she isn't. Her weight is in a healthy range. Can anyone explain this to me? I want to get down to 135 and am 5-4, but would never want to do it at calories that low.

QuietBloom

I feel your pain. I can offer you some perspective, not tactical advice. You are 43. I am 41. I too lost a LOT of weight. My highest was 350. I lost 100 lbs. Had kids. Then went from 250 to 180. Then plateaued. Then went on Jenny Craig and lost 40-45 pounds. So, at one point I was about 140 lbs (I'm 5'8). This was in my late 30s. But what did I have to do lose the final 10-15 lbs to get there? And what did I have to do to maintain? I was ridiculously scrupulous with coutning calories. To lose, I had to be around 1100-1300 per day. And on top of that, I had to exercise a LOT. I was running an hour a day. I was strength training 3 times a week. All on 1100 cals per day. I was hungry all the time. It made no sense. I tried eating more -- 1500 cals. I gained on that. Wehn I finally hit my goal of 140, I played around with the calorie levels. I discovered 1500 cals/day while still exercising quite a bit, was how to maintain. Most people lose on that. I had to do that just to NOT gain. WHY? I truly believe that if you've lost a ton of weight initially (like you have and like I had), your body becomes amazinly efficient and adaptive at hanging onto every.single.calorie. After all, from the body's persepctive, you have been starving it to produce weight loss. So it adapts and makes every calorie count, right? Makes losing weight that much harder. Especially as you get closer to your goal weight. Especially as you age. The body is just WAITING for a few extra calories so it can balloon back up. I know my body does not respond on 1400 calories a day as someone else's who is my same age, height, and activity level. So, what I am saying is, perhaps you are doing everything correctly. Perhaps 146 is where your body wants to be. I don't know. I feel for you. I am sorry. I am also trying to prod my body along. Hell, I averaged about 1500 calories per day this week and exercised plenty, and got on the scale and was up friggin 4 pounds. I don't get it. But this time around, I have adjusted my goal weight to 150-155, not 140. Now if only I could get there ...

I appreciate your reply. Thanks for sharing your story. You may be right. I don't want to believe it but you may be right. i can't seem to move from this place. I am doing all the right things. Maybe the last thing left to do is toss the weighing scale!!!

Someone who is thin but has lost a lot of weight to get there, will have a lower BMR than someone who was thin all along. This effect has been noted, but not explained scientifically yet. Likely it has something to do with adaptive thermogenesis. The good news is, is that this does seem to get better the longer the person maintains. I think especially if you focus on muscle maintenance, eventually you will be able to go back up in calories.

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.

I don't follow your BMR theory, so please provide more information on this.

Of course, the more weight you lose, the lower your BMR will be because less body means less calories to maintain at your most sedentary level, but what does weight loss history have to do with it? I realize online calculators are estimations only, but no calculator out there requires a weight lost history.

I find this interesting. I thought BMR was basically based on your gender, height, current weight. Please provide some sources where this effect has been noted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10832762

Above notes the differences that were found in post-obese subjects who has maintained for at least 2 years compared to always normal weight subjects. Cause or effect? Can't tell from that one study.

I will look around more tomorrow. I cannot find the original article I read at the moment, and I am off to bed to nurse my cold.

Cheers!

QuietBloom

This is all very interesting to me. I work with a woman who lost about 100 lbs. She is 5'5 and weighs 138. She told me that she eats between 800 and 1000 calories per day. I was shocked because this is her maintenance intake. For that amount of calories I would expect her to be emaciated but she isn't. Her weight is in a healthy range. Can anyone explain this to me? I want to get down to 135 and am 5-4, but would never want to do it at calories that low.

She may be under estimating her calories.

Skarlet13

This is all very interesting to me. I work with a woman who lost about 100 lbs. She is 5'5 and weighs 138. She told me that she eats between 800 and 1000 calories per day. I was shocked because this is her maintenance intake. For that amount of calories I would expect her to be emaciated but she isn't. Her weight is in a healthy range. Can anyone explain this to me? I want to get down to 135 and am 5-4, but would never want to do it at calories that low.

She may be under estimating her calories.

I thought about that but she weighs and measures everything, so I don't know.

Roaringgael

You have lost a lot of weight.
A lot of information on the net by barometric doctors conclude that people who lose large amounts of weight have to monitor calorie intake to maintain their weight loss. Some of these doctors have said some of them need to eat as little as 1000cals to maintain the weight loss.
I guess you'll have to experiment with less food or more exercise until you find the right numbers for you.
I believe you will adjust overtime and these numbers will come out alright. I'm sure your exercise food balance will sort itself out.
Try a larger calorie deficit with ordinary exercise for a week and see whether that shifts it.

Phaedra2014

You have lost a lot of weight.
A lot of information on the net by barometric doctors conclude that people who lose large amounts of weight have to monitor calorie intake to maintain their weight loss. Some of these doctors have said some of them need to eat as little as 1000cals to maintain the weight loss.
I guess you'll have to experiment with less food or more exercise until you find the right numbers for you.
I believe you will adjust overtime and these numbers will come out alright. I'm sure your exercise food balance will sort itself out.
Try a larger calorie deficit with ordinary exercise for a week and see whether that shifts it.

Gosh I hope that's not my case! I won't have much energy for anything with just 1000 cals.

There are so many people on this forum who have lost 150+ pounds. I wonder how they did it.

SLLRunner

I feel your pain. I can offer you some perspective, not tactical advice. You are 43. I am 41. I too lost a LOT of weight. My highest was 350. I lost 100 lbs. Had kids. Then went from 250 to 180. Then plateaued. Then went on Jenny Craig and lost 40-45 pounds. So, at one point I was about 140 lbs (I'm 5'8). This was in my late 30s. But what did I have to do lose the final 10-15 lbs to get there? And what did I have to do to maintain? I was ridiculously scrupulous with coutning calories. To lose, I had to be around 1100-1300 per day. And on top of that, I had to exercise a LOT. I was running an hour a day. I was strength training 3 times a week. All on 1100 cals per day. I was hungry all the time. It made no sense. I tried eating more -- 1500 cals. I gained on that. Wehn I finally hit my goal of 140, I played around with the calorie levels. I discovered 1500 cals/day while still exercising quite a bit, was how to maintain. Most people lose on that. I had to do that just to NOT gain. WHY? I truly believe that if you've lost a ton of weight initially (like you have and like I had), your body becomes amazinly efficient and adaptive at hanging onto every.single.calorie. After all, from the body's persepctive, you have been starving it to produce weight loss. So it adapts and makes every calorie count, right? Makes losing weight that much harder. Especially as you get closer to your goal weight. Especially as you age. The body is just WAITING for a few extra calories so it can balloon back up. I know my body does not respond on 1400 calories a day as someone else's who is my same age, height, and activity level. So, what I am saying is, perhaps you are doing everything correctly. Perhaps 146 is where your body wants to be. I don't know. I feel for you. I am sorry. I am also trying to prod my body along. Hell, I averaged about 1500 calories per day this week and exercised plenty, and got on the scale and was up friggin 4 pounds. I don't get it. But this time around, I have adjusted my goal weight to 150-155, not 140. Now if only I could get there ...

I appreciate your reply. Thanks for sharing your story. You may be right. I don't want to believe it but you may be right. i can't seem to move from this place. I am doing all the right things. Maybe the last thing left to do is toss the weighing scale!!!

Someone who is thin but has lost a lot of weight to get there, will have a lower BMR than someone who was thin all along. This effect has been noted, but not explained scientifically yet. Likely it has something to do with adaptive thermogenesis. The good news is, is that this does seem to get better the longer the person maintains. I think especially if you focus on muscle maintenance, eventually you will be able to go back up in calories.

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.

I don't follow your BMR theory, so please provide more information on this.

Of course, the more weight you lose, the lower your BMR will be because less body means less calories to maintain at your most sedentary level, but what does weight loss history have to do with it? I realize online calculators are estimations only, but no calculator out there requires a weight lost history.

I find this interesting. I thought BMR was basically based on your gender, height, current weight. Please provide some sources where this effect has been noted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10832762

Above notes the differences that were found in post-obese subjects who has maintained for at least 2 years compared to always normal weight subjects. Cause or effect? Can't tell from that one study.

I will look around more tomorrow. I cannot find the original article I read at the moment, and I am off to bed to nurse my cold.

Cheers!

Thank you very much, I will look into the source you provided. I'm learning something new every day.

ETA: the cite talks about RMR (resting metabolic rate), but is BMR also affected?

Hope you cold gets better. I am just getting over a bug that knocked me on my butt. Take care of yourself.

SLLRunner

You have lost a lot of weight.
A lot of information on the net by barometric doctors conclude that people who lose large amounts of weight have to monitor calorie intake to maintain their weight loss. Some of these doctors have said some of them need to eat as little as 1000cals to maintain the weight loss.
I guess you'll have to experiment with less food or more exercise until you find the right numbers for you.
I believe you will adjust overtime and these numbers will come out alright. I'm sure your exercise food balance will sort itself out.
Try a larger calorie deficit with ordinary exercise for a week and see whether that shifts it.

Regarding the bold part-that is not correct. In fact, common sense dictates that 99.99 percent of the adult population will lose weight on that amount of calories. Don't listen to any doctor who tells you this.

SLLRunner

You have lost a lot of weight.
A lot of information on the net by barometric doctors conclude that people who lose large amounts of weight have to monitor calorie intake to maintain their weight loss. Some of these doctors have said some of them need to eat as little as 1000cals to maintain the weight loss.
I guess you'll have to experiment with less food or more exercise until you find the right numbers for you.
I believe you will adjust overtime and these numbers will come out alright. I'm sure your exercise food balance will sort itself out.
Try a larger calorie deficit with ordinary exercise for a week and see whether that shifts it.

Gosh I hope that's not my case! I won't have much energy for anything with just 1000 cals.

There are so many people on this forum who have lost 150+ pounds. I wonder how they did it.

Don't eat 1,000 calories, please. You will get sick.

SLLRunner

This is all very interesting to me. I work with a woman who lost about 100 lbs. She is 5'5 and weighs 138. She told me that she eats between 800 and 1000 calories per day. I was shocked because this is her maintenance intake. For that amount of calories I would expect her to be emaciated but she isn't. Her weight is in a healthy range. Can anyone explain this to me? I want to get down to 135 and am 5-4, but would never want to do it at calories that low.

Either she is seriously underestimating her calorie intake or she is pulling your leg.

Phaedra2014

I would never eat that little. Even 1200 is too little.I need my energy and without sufficient food I won't have much. I'm not that desperate to lose weight.

I think when you eat that little you risk malnutrition.

codycsweet

I have read through all the comments and there isn't much else I can offer to try that hasn't been said. I just wanted to say congrats on your weight-loss journey so far. I am also 5'3 and my goal is 145-150ish I have about 60 lbs to go. My first thought was this may be the weight that you should be at and just focus on body comp with lifting. It's late and can't remember what I read as for as your workout schedule, but I noticed when I didn't loose any weight for a 3-4 week time frame I backed off the exercise time and now work on the quality of my workouts vs quantity. I have a Fitbit that I use to track my steps everyday I was becoming obsessed with hitting over 15k+ steps a day but found that one days I was circuit training I wasn't getting that many steps without a heavy dose of cardio. I love Zumba and taking walks when its nicer outside, but now realize I don't need to keep this everyday. (I hope this makes sense)

I also want to say you are a gracious person you have been thanking others for their suggestions and observations. You have lost a lot of weight and have obviously done A LOT right to have come this far.

SLLRunner

I would never eat that little. Even 1200 is too little.I need my energy and without sufficient food I won't have much. I'm not that desperate to lose weight.

I think when you eat that little you risk malnutrition.

Glad to hear it. Just keep working at it. I have a feeling things will shift for you soon.

dlcam61

Since you don't have pics I have no clue what your body comp looks like. I see you have done an amazing job of losing a substantial amount of weight, great job!! :flowerforyou:

I would suggest a few things. First, stop relying on your scale, that only measures the impact of gravity on you and the scale. It doesn't tell you the more important things such as body fat percentage vs lean muscle mass. Get a cloth tape measure & take your measurements. If you can stop by your gym's personal trainers office/desk and strike up a convo about body fat measurements etc. A lot of times they will be more than happy to answer a few questions and take your measurements for you. The best thing you can do is make a few friends with the PT staff because they will give you tips and advice without booking a full session, unless you want to do that.

I see you eat a pretty clean diet, that's awesome. Try switching it up though, from what I saw you eat the same thing all the time. I'm also not sure how often you change out your resistance training, such as different exercises for the different muscle groups. The body is intelligent & it will adapt to the same old diet & routines.

Lastly, 1200 calories is way too little. That's barely enough to live on without exercising and offers little for recovery and rebuilding. I ran into that problem and became skinny fat. That sucks, trust me. I am relearning how to nourish my body with food without starving it. I know we are all told to restrict calories to such a deficit to cause weight loss, but what happens is it will lower your BMR. That means you are not getting the added benefit of the afterburn during rest after your physical activities. It also could mean that you are not building up the lean muscle mass you want to increase your BMR & burn off body fat.

I came across this post & it was helpful:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/975025-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet

Maybe this will help you too.

Hang in there, I will check back & update when I have more ideas. Keep up the great work, don't let that stupid number distract you!

michellekicks

Try eating the same amount of calories but reduce carbs and increase fats. It will force the body to learn to be more efficient at burning fats for fuel. Try macros at 30p- 30c-40f and focus on good fats: coconut oil, avocado, nuts etc.

Phaedra2014

For the longest time (until about a week ago) I didn't eat more that 100 - 110 gr of carbs a day and my fats were high. I eat all the good fats you mention on a regular basis.

That's what stumps me. I've been careful with my carbs but I'm not willing to go the keto route. When my carbs drop below 100 gr, I don't feel well. I don't feel happy nor do I feel energetic.

These past days I've increased my carbs and eaten around 120 - 130 I think. I gained 2 pounds but it is probably water weight from carb increase. I will lower them again and bump up fats to see if the switch works.

dlcam61: Yes I pretty much eat the same things every day. due to lots of food sensitivities and intolerance. I found my "happy foods" so I stick to them. My BF% is 22. I'm 5'2" so it's still plenty for my size. I tend to lose weight all over and put on weight all over.

I take measurements but since the plateau these inches have pretty much stayed the same also.

codycsweet: When I get my BodyMedia next week, I hope to have a more clear estimate of my calorie burn. I will post it here and then we can figure out what my calorie intake needs to be.

Everyone on this thread has been super helpful and insightful. You're a great group of people!

michellekicks

Yeah I wouldn't advocate keto anyway. Try taking a break from dieting. Really try adding a few hundred calories per day for a week or two and give your body a rest. Even scale back exercise for a week too. See if you can find the upper caloric limit that gets you gaining real weight. Then you'll be able to find your true TDEE. I find there is quite a range I can eat within and not see my weight shift at all. But you're already at a fairly low Caloric intake is you're right... going lower doesn't seem right.

MemphisHellFire

i think you need to stop focusing on your weight as its not a measurement of fat loss, measure your body with a tape measure around your neck, arms, waist, hips and legs to get a more accurate result. as regards to fat loss, cut out sugar and eat complex carbs around your workout dont skimp on protein and veggies! possibly try interval training? thats a great fat burner.

QuietBloom

I feel your pain. I can offer you some perspective, not tactical advice. You are 43. I am 41. I too lost a LOT of weight. My highest was 350. I lost 100 lbs. Had kids. Then went from 250 to 180. Then plateaued. Then went on Jenny Craig and lost 40-45 pounds. So, at one point I was about 140 lbs (I'm 5'8). This was in my late 30s. But what did I have to do lose the final 10-15 lbs to get there? And what did I have to do to maintain? I was ridiculously scrupulous with coutning calories. To lose, I had to be around 1100-1300 per day. And on top of that, I had to exercise a LOT. I was running an hour a day. I was strength training 3 times a week. All on 1100 cals per day. I was hungry all the time. It made no sense. I tried eating more -- 1500 cals. I gained on that. Wehn I finally hit my goal of 140, I played around with the calorie levels. I discovered 1500 cals/day while still exercising quite a bit, was how to maintain. Most people lose on that. I had to do that just to NOT gain. WHY? I truly believe that if you've lost a ton of weight initially (like you have and like I had), your body becomes amazinly efficient and adaptive at hanging onto every.single.calorie. After all, from the body's persepctive, you have been starving it to produce weight loss. So it adapts and makes every calorie count, right? Makes losing weight that much harder. Especially as you get closer to your goal weight. Especially as you age. The body is just WAITING for a few extra calories so it can balloon back up. I know my body does not respond on 1400 calories a day as someone else's who is my same age, height, and activity level. So, what I am saying is, perhaps you are doing everything correctly. Perhaps 146 is where your body wants to be. I don't know. I feel for you. I am sorry. I am also trying to prod my body along. Hell, I averaged about 1500 calories per day this week and exercised plenty, and got on the scale and was up friggin 4 pounds. I don't get it. But this time around, I have adjusted my goal weight to 150-155, not 140. Now if only I could get there ...

I appreciate your reply. Thanks for sharing your story. You may be right. I don't want to believe it but you may be right. i can't seem to move from this place. I am doing all the right things. Maybe the last thing left to do is toss the weighing scale!!!

Someone who is thin but has lost a lot of weight to get there, will have a lower BMR than someone who was thin all along. This effect has been noted, but not explained scientifically yet. Likely it has something to do with adaptive thermogenesis. The good news is, is that this does seem to get better the longer the person maintains. I think especially if you focus on muscle maintenance, eventually you will be able to go back up in calories.

Sara and SideSteel should be able to sort it out, so hang in there.

I don't follow your BMR theory, so please provide more information on this.

Of course, the more weight you lose, the lower your BMR will be because less body means less calories to maintain at your most sedentary level, but what does weight loss history have to do with it? I realize online calculators are estimations only, but no calculator out there requires a weight lost history.

I find this interesting. I thought BMR was basically based on your gender, height, current weight. Please provide some sources where this effect has been noted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10832762

Above notes the differences that were found in post-obese subjects who has maintained for at least 2 years compared to always normal weight subjects. Cause or effect? Can't tell from that one study.

I will look around more tomorrow. I cannot find the original article I read at the moment, and I am off to bed to nurse my cold.

Cheers!

Thank you very much, I will look into the source you provided. I'm learning something new every day.

ETA: the cite talks about RMR (resting metabolic rate), but is BMR also affected?

Hope you cold gets better. I am just getting over a bug that knocked me on my butt. Take care of yourself.

Thank you! Here I am up at 3 am because my darn throat is so sore. :sad:

Good question about RMR and BMR. It seems that the difference is in how they take the measurement. I found this:

"BMR is defined as Basal Metabolic Rate. BMR is synonymous with Basal Energy Expenditure or BEE. BMR measurements are typically taken in a darkened room upon waking after 8 hours of sleep, 12 hours of fasting to ensure that the digestive system is inactive, and with the subject resting in a reclined position.

RMR can be defined as Resting Metabolic Rate. RMR is synonymous with Resting Energy Expenditure or REE. RMR measurements are typically taken under less restricted conditions than BMR and do not require that the subject spend the night sleeping in the test facility prior to testing."

http://www.acefitness.org/blog/616/bmr-versus-rmr

I'm no expert on metabolic rate analysis, but it sounds reasonable. BMR would likely be the ideal measurement IMO, but RMR is probably accurate enough for most intents and purposes.

Here is another study I found suggesting the a lower RMR in formerly obese subjects is NOT necessarily permanent:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/6/1189.full

Another study about formerly the formerly obese and reduced leptin levels:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576650

A study that compared RMR and thyroid hormones if formerly obese vs. normal weight subjects that did not find a lower RMR in the formerly obese as long as they returned to a normalized energy-balanced condition.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/5/1088.full

"Conclusions: Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight. "

There is more stuff out there - I kind of feel like I fell down a rabbit hole of study results. I would like to think that I have the time, inclination or brain power to read the full studies and evaluate their methods. LOL. Right now I am tired and not at my best. The information seems contradictory at first glance. Some studies found that RMR remained suppressed, but later studies found that as long as the formerly obese return to a normal energy balance, this might be reversed. I would surmise that a return to a normal energy balance needs to be carried out in a thoughtful manner to prevent rapid weight gain due to decreased leptin levels. Did the formerly obese subjects with decreased leptin levels in the other studies return to a normal energy balance? I don't know, but maybe not.

focuseddiva

The studies are interesting, and I like thinking that science and logic work out each time.

But here is what I can tell you as a real formerly obese person who lost a lot of weight. At my goal weight, I was 140 lbs. (And truthfully, I was probably more like 130 b/c I guarantee you there was 10 pounds of loose skin from my highest of 350). At 5'8, that's thin. I had to eat no more than 1500 calories a day to maintain that weight -- AND THAT WAS WITH RUNNING 35 MILES PER WEEK. So think about that. Would someone who was not formerly obese eating 1500 cals a day and running that much have to do all that just to maintain? I doubt it. In fact, they probably would be eating 2200 calories a day. I guarantee you that I was not overestimating cal burn nor underestimating calorie intake. I was scared to death of gaining. I remember reading that if you can make it FIVE years of maintaining your loss, you are not only in the 5% of people who don't regain their weight -- you have truly made it a lifestyle change. Which is predictive of future success. I made it 4.5 years. And then it all came back.

The facts: Here I am at 41, weighing 185 as of this morning (it was 179 yesterday, and I ate 1300 cals yesterday and exercised -- so how someone puts on 6 pounds overnight is beyond me). I am eating no differently today than I did when I weighed 145 or 150. And I think I am exercising about the same amount. So how am I "maintaining" at 185 on the same amount as I did at 150? Why am I not losing? It makes no sense. And it's getting harder for me with age. I fear that by the time I am 50, I'll have to be on 400 calories to not gain.

Or consider the people who have gastric bypass. Every person I know who has had it has done very well ... dropping the pounds like crazy at first. And then ... what happens? Ah. The body wisens up and slams on the brakes. The amount of food they are eating doesn't change, because they are physically restricted still. And yet, the weight loss stops well before their goal. THEY don't control when the weight loss stops. Their body does, by adapting, slowing, conserving. It's like the body is saying, "Hey, this famine is going on a little too long. I'm slowing down until this all passes." And then, once the body adjusts again after slamming on the brakes, what happens? REGAIN.

Finally, the last bit of real-world proof I can offer you on this topic ... I was 38, and I weighed 142. I was running races. I was overdoing it. And then I got a stress fracture and could not run ... could not do any cardio for 8 weeks. Knowing my high-calorie-burn cardio was gone for the next two months, I literally ate no more than 1100 calories per day. I was SO on top of that. Not even a drop of ketchup would go in my mouth unaccounted for. 1100 calorie/day. 38 years old. 142 pounds. At the end of 8 weeks, what happened? I maintained. I maintained ... didn't lose. Didn't gain. By the laws of math, eating 1100 calories a day should produce a loss for almost any adult. Even a quarter of a pound a week. That, to me, was the utilmate proof that I will never be able to eat "normally" -- I will never be able to follow the laws of logic or cals in/cals out ... and I will always have to watch everything -- and I will be fighting my body to not gain weight, much less lose it. Always.

So, OP, I would say continue to try, and please share what works b/c I need to do something. I'm in panic mode, and I don't think most people really udnerstand what it's like to be doing everything "right" and not seeing even a hint of results. They always think you are overestimating, underestimatting. That it's cals in/cals out, simple, so you must be stuffing your face. WRONG. I believe you -- I think you are doing everything right, and I'm just sorry your body is in hibernation right now. Hugs and happy thoughts. YOu have done amazing -- consider where you have been, and how far you have come. Very impressive. You should be proud right where you're at.

QuietBloom

But here is what I can tell you as a real formerly obese person who lost a lot of weight. At my goal weight, I was 140 lbs. (And truthfully, I was probably more like 130 b/c I guarantee you there was 10 pounds of loose skin from my highest of 350). At 5'8, that's thin. I had to eat no more than 1500 calories a day to maintain that weight -- AND THAT WAS WITH RUNNING 35 MILES PER WEEK. So think about that. Would someone who was not formerly obese eating 1500 cals a day and running that much have to do all that just to maintain? I doubt it. In fact, they probably would be eating 2200 calories a day. I guarantee you that I was not overestimating cal burn nor underestimating calorie intake. I was scared to death of gaining. I remember reading that if you can make it FIVE years of maintaining your loss, you are not only in the 5% of people who don't regain their weight -- you have truly made it a lifestyle change. Which is predictive of future success. I made it 4.5 years. And then it all came back

I'm sorry to hear of your struggles.

Running is lovely (I do it a lot!) but if you do too much of it, or use it in hopes of maintaining a formerly obese body, it is definitely NOT ideal by itself. You need to focus on rebuilding your lean body mass, and that comes about by lifting heavy things. You might want to look into body recomposition: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain
Rebuilding your LBM will increase your BMR, whereas too much long distance running tends to burn it off. While this is fine for an elite racer, it's not ideal for someone who is trying to maintain a large weight loss.

I think the take away from the studies I posted is the importance of returning to a normal calorie-balance. 1500 calories and lots of running every day are not a normal calorie-balance. It sounds like you never allowed your body time to rebuild LBM or regain normal hormone levels.

I also wonder about the accuracy of your calorie intake and burns. Do you weigh all your food? How do you calculate calorie burns? You just may possibly be eating more than you think.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think?hl=are+you+eating+more+than+you+think

focuseddiva

Hey Quietbloom -- I truly am not underestimating intake. I have and continue to eat Jenny Craig food -- which is prepackaged, pre-weighed, and set at a calorie level. I add veggies each day to this (lots of raw spinach, broccoli, tomatoes, lettuce). So, the calories I am taking in are fairly prescribed. Are there days I go over? Heck yeah. But to the tune of thwarting weight loss and even causing a gain? Doesn't seem scientifically possible.

I do like your idea about the lean body mass. True, I tend to go overboard on cardio. However, for the past 5 years, I have been doing strength training with a personal trainer twice a week for an hour each session. I'm wondering if I need to start taking one of my cardio days and just doing pure strength on my own. Maybe I should. Shake things up. But even , for argument's sake, if I added enough lean muscle to burn 100 more calories per day, or even 200, that's only 1400 per week more burned. I'm really at a loss as to how to get this weight back off. If eating an average of 1300-1500 calories a day and burning an average of 300 per day through exercise isn't producing a loss, I dont know what else I can really do.

ridingo

I'm reading every response here because I'm having the same problem. I've stuck at 142ish. I'm going to read this now!!

Phaedra2014

i think you need to stop focusing on your weight as its not a measurement of fat loss, measure your body with a tape measure around your neck, arms, waist, hips and legs to get a more accurate result. as regards to fat loss, cut out sugar and eat complex carbs around your workout dont skimp on protein and veggies! possibly try interval training? thats a great fat burner.

I do that. I've done that since the beginning. My measurements have also stayed pretty much the same when the weight loss stalled. I've lost a 1/2 inch of my belly (around the navel) area but that's about it.

I can lift more pounds than last month and i can run faster when I do sprint intervals. I can jog 3.1 miles now without feeling like I'm dying. I only began running in July 2013 from NEVER having run or jogged before.

I challenge myself on a daily basis and set mini goals in just about every area in life. I don't get too emotional over things; I plan and become analytical. I want to understand what's going on with my body. I think that's the challenge for me right now. I can't relate to what's happening.

I don't consume any added sugar (table sugar, maple syrup, honey, etc.) and haven't for close to 2 years. I eat sugar that is present in fruits and vegetables but I don't drink fruit juices of any kind.

My protein intake is good and calculated according to my LBM after I had my body fat % measured.

I recently started doing sprint intervals and I love them. I've been doing HIIT and Tabata workouts for 6 months now in addition to my regular workouts.

I burn 500 calories daily on a fairly regular basis to keep that deficit. I know that even on my highest eating days, I don't go over by more than 500 cals, which would be eating my exercise cals back for that day.

I have been strength training since October, so not for that long. The trainer says I am doing well. I've progressively increased my weights although I can't say I lift that heavy. My barbell squats are merely 80 pounds and deadlifts are 75 lbs. When I do biceps and triceps, the dumbbells are 20 lbs, farmer's carry, I can get to 40 lbs in each hand, goblet squats I can manage 50 lbs. Not too much but I'm new to this type of work.

I did buy NROLFW and read it cover to cover. Some days I think I should just follow that plan and work out on my own. Would cost me much less and I'd do a better job at form than my PT does with me since we're in a group setting and he doesn't really check people's form.