Frank discussion with client about his plateau
stroutman81
Posts: 2,474 Member
Figured this might resonate with some of you.
"Hey Steve,
I've been checking my weight periodically this week and haven't seen any change versus my last official weigh in almost two weeks ago. We both agree that, despite occasional lapses in compliance, losses should have been a little more.
I looked back over previous programs and average calorie goals have ranged between 2100 and 2300 over the past 6 programs. These goals, subtracted from daily expenditure, would create some kind of deficit right?
This got me to thinking... If losses have been minimal over the last 6 months or so based on the goals above, how much more can be cut to start the "whoosh"? Numerically speaking, if I've lost very little, dropping my current average goal from 2,200 to 1,700 (just 500 calories) should, theoretically, get me a pound a week. But I think that's lower than you want me to go.
Just thinking out loud and curious of your thoughts as to what we should do?"
I have to admit... I'm just so damn torn. I mean, depending on where your weight's at right now... you're down 12-13 lbs since starting with me. Someone your size over this length of time should have been able to lose at a faster clip (on paper).
You mentioned that your average calorie goals over the last while have ranged between 2100 and 2300 and that, based on what we'd expect your energy expenditure to be given your size, there should have been a deficit.
I have a couple of remarks in response to that:
1. There was a deficit, which is why you experienced some loss over that period of time.
2. The loss isn't as great as what we'd expect on a pure numbers / basic math standpoint. But this isn't basic math. Which begs the question of what's the causative variable at play slowing things up? There aren't too terribly many variables at play here. It really boils down to your body and your compliance.
With your body, as I've mentioned before, you have to be on the low end of metabolic rate for your size. Metabolic rate typically doesn't vary too damn much... maybe 15% lower than what we'd predict it to be. If we'd predict your BMR to be somewhere around 2400 and your activity to be somewhere around 1000... that would put your total daily expenditure at around roughly 3400. That would be a reasonable guess based on your weight and activity level.
If your BMR is coming in 15% under where it should be... or hell, let's say 20% just for ****s and giggles, that would put your BMR at 1920 and, with your activity still at 1000, your total daily energy expenditure would be roughly 2900ish compared to the original 3400 estimate.
What's more is the fact that your body can be "resistant" on more fronts than simply BMR. Some people are resistant in terms of non-exercise activity thermogensis... which is simply a fancy way of saying they subconsciously move less throughout the day when calories are slashed. They'll fidget less, change their posture less, become more sluggish, etc. So this could potentially account for some more shaving of your total daily energy expenditure on top of the 500 reduction mentioned above.
If your average intake target is around 2300 AND if you aren't as consistent or accurate as you think or hope... obviously that actual intake can start to get pretty damn close to your assumed relatively low maintenance of 2700-2900.
See how that works?
I mean, again, for ****s and giggles, let's assume that your actual intake was closer to 2500 due to missed reporting, missed measuring from eating out and such, etc... all of a sudden you're rocking a deficit as low as 200 calories per day on average. Again, this isn't simple math... the body's far too complex and adaptive for it to be simple math... but on paper, 3500 cals in 1 lb of fat... a 200 calorie deficit would take nearly 18 days to realize 1 lb of fat loss. And that might not even be detectable on the scale if you're holding 1 lb extra of water, which is very easy to do.
Now this all begs a number of questions, such as is your metabolism really this slow, is your activity actually that much lower, is there something going on with your health that can lead to a depressed metabolism (I think when we first started way back when you had full blood panels taken... is that accurate?), and the million dollar questions - how accurate has your reporting been.
I have to be honest... and I hope you don't take offense to this... but my gut tells me that your actual average calorie intake has been above the target calorie intake more often than not. And, again, I do believe that you're genetically "blessed" with a sluggish metabolism to begin with. These two variables, as explained above, can bring deficit and maintenance close enough to make losses damn slow. And this would explain why you're sitting at 12-13 lbs lost since starting with me.
I want to hear your thoughts on what's presented thus far.
Another gut feeling I have is to cut calories lower. Sure, we're going to start getting lower than I typically like to see for someone your size. However, if actual intake is typically a bit higher than what we're reporting or aiming for... the low isn't as low as it seems if that makes sense. For example, if the average target we're shooting for is 2200 and your true, real life intake is closer to 2400 on average, aiming for 1900-2000 on average might "pull" your actual intake down to the initial range we were aiming for.
Lastly, let's face it... if you're adamant about your reported intake being exactly what we've been targeting, there aren't many other options left to explain the slow results. Energy is energy and while there's some "play" in the numbers, we know in rough terms what a given body should be expending. So if we're consistently coming in well below that level of energy expenditure on the intake side of things, and we're certain of it, something isn't working right.
If you're adamant about your numbers, then maybe it is time to try something that was touched on a number of weeks ago - that being a break from dieting for a while just to see if there's anything going on on that front. We could take a full break, systematically ramp your calories up to where your maintenance should be, and then follow that with more deficit to see if it jump starts anything.
But these are all of my thoughts at the moment.
I look forward to hearing from you.
"Hey Steve,
I've been checking my weight periodically this week and haven't seen any change versus my last official weigh in almost two weeks ago. We both agree that, despite occasional lapses in compliance, losses should have been a little more.
I looked back over previous programs and average calorie goals have ranged between 2100 and 2300 over the past 6 programs. These goals, subtracted from daily expenditure, would create some kind of deficit right?
This got me to thinking... If losses have been minimal over the last 6 months or so based on the goals above, how much more can be cut to start the "whoosh"? Numerically speaking, if I've lost very little, dropping my current average goal from 2,200 to 1,700 (just 500 calories) should, theoretically, get me a pound a week. But I think that's lower than you want me to go.
Just thinking out loud and curious of your thoughts as to what we should do?"
I have to admit... I'm just so damn torn. I mean, depending on where your weight's at right now... you're down 12-13 lbs since starting with me. Someone your size over this length of time should have been able to lose at a faster clip (on paper).
You mentioned that your average calorie goals over the last while have ranged between 2100 and 2300 and that, based on what we'd expect your energy expenditure to be given your size, there should have been a deficit.
I have a couple of remarks in response to that:
1. There was a deficit, which is why you experienced some loss over that period of time.
2. The loss isn't as great as what we'd expect on a pure numbers / basic math standpoint. But this isn't basic math. Which begs the question of what's the causative variable at play slowing things up? There aren't too terribly many variables at play here. It really boils down to your body and your compliance.
With your body, as I've mentioned before, you have to be on the low end of metabolic rate for your size. Metabolic rate typically doesn't vary too damn much... maybe 15% lower than what we'd predict it to be. If we'd predict your BMR to be somewhere around 2400 and your activity to be somewhere around 1000... that would put your total daily expenditure at around roughly 3400. That would be a reasonable guess based on your weight and activity level.
If your BMR is coming in 15% under where it should be... or hell, let's say 20% just for ****s and giggles, that would put your BMR at 1920 and, with your activity still at 1000, your total daily energy expenditure would be roughly 2900ish compared to the original 3400 estimate.
What's more is the fact that your body can be "resistant" on more fronts than simply BMR. Some people are resistant in terms of non-exercise activity thermogensis... which is simply a fancy way of saying they subconsciously move less throughout the day when calories are slashed. They'll fidget less, change their posture less, become more sluggish, etc. So this could potentially account for some more shaving of your total daily energy expenditure on top of the 500 reduction mentioned above.
If your average intake target is around 2300 AND if you aren't as consistent or accurate as you think or hope... obviously that actual intake can start to get pretty damn close to your assumed relatively low maintenance of 2700-2900.
See how that works?
I mean, again, for ****s and giggles, let's assume that your actual intake was closer to 2500 due to missed reporting, missed measuring from eating out and such, etc... all of a sudden you're rocking a deficit as low as 200 calories per day on average. Again, this isn't simple math... the body's far too complex and adaptive for it to be simple math... but on paper, 3500 cals in 1 lb of fat... a 200 calorie deficit would take nearly 18 days to realize 1 lb of fat loss. And that might not even be detectable on the scale if you're holding 1 lb extra of water, which is very easy to do.
Now this all begs a number of questions, such as is your metabolism really this slow, is your activity actually that much lower, is there something going on with your health that can lead to a depressed metabolism (I think when we first started way back when you had full blood panels taken... is that accurate?), and the million dollar questions - how accurate has your reporting been.
I have to be honest... and I hope you don't take offense to this... but my gut tells me that your actual average calorie intake has been above the target calorie intake more often than not. And, again, I do believe that you're genetically "blessed" with a sluggish metabolism to begin with. These two variables, as explained above, can bring deficit and maintenance close enough to make losses damn slow. And this would explain why you're sitting at 12-13 lbs lost since starting with me.
I want to hear your thoughts on what's presented thus far.
Another gut feeling I have is to cut calories lower. Sure, we're going to start getting lower than I typically like to see for someone your size. However, if actual intake is typically a bit higher than what we're reporting or aiming for... the low isn't as low as it seems if that makes sense. For example, if the average target we're shooting for is 2200 and your true, real life intake is closer to 2400 on average, aiming for 1900-2000 on average might "pull" your actual intake down to the initial range we were aiming for.
Lastly, let's face it... if you're adamant about your reported intake being exactly what we've been targeting, there aren't many other options left to explain the slow results. Energy is energy and while there's some "play" in the numbers, we know in rough terms what a given body should be expending. So if we're consistently coming in well below that level of energy expenditure on the intake side of things, and we're certain of it, something isn't working right.
If you're adamant about your numbers, then maybe it is time to try something that was touched on a number of weeks ago - that being a break from dieting for a while just to see if there's anything going on on that front. We could take a full break, systematically ramp your calories up to where your maintenance should be, and then follow that with more deficit to see if it jump starts anything.
But these are all of my thoughts at the moment.
I look forward to hearing from you.
0
Replies
-
Good stuff as usual.0
-
The response looks fine to me!0
-
Excellent response!0
-
Too much logic0
-
Thanks for sharing, always interesting!0
-
Also is the client actually named Frank?
Ok thanks OP.0 -
Your reasoning seems sound. The one thing I would add:
You mention him having blood panels done (or thinking he did)...but that's not the same as having his RMR measured. Which imnsho would be a good idea at this point. Painless, non-invasive - and that eliminates a big chunk of guesswork up front.
Mine's low, and having the right number to work with has made a world of difference.0 -
So what you are saying here is that you are not going to try to sell me shakeology?0
-
Your reasoning seems sound. The one thing I would add:
You mention him having blood panels done (or thinking he did)...but that's not the same as having his RMR measured. Which imnsho would be a good idea at this point. Painless, non-invasive - and that eliminates a big chunk of guesswork up front.
Mine's low, and having the right number to work with has made a world of difference.
What method of measurement do you recommend?
Regardless... I'm not a fan of banking on a snapshot-in-time measurement that may or may not be accurate to begin with. I prefer to build a solid process that's rooted in continual refinement based on what's happening in real time.0 -
Your reasoning seems sound. The one thing I would add:
You mention him having blood panels done (or thinking he did)...but that's not the same as having his RMR measured. Which imnsho would be a good idea at this point. Painless, non-invasive - and that eliminates a big chunk of guesswork up front.
Mine's low, and having the right number to work with has made a world of difference.
What method of measurement do you recommend?
Regardless... I'm not a fan of banking on a snapshot-in-time measurement that may or may not be accurate to begin with. I prefer to build a solid process that's rooted in continual refinement based on what's happening in real time.
Not disagreeing with you, for sure. The benefit I got was that discovering my RMR is 1100 - saved me a lot of "refining" time. I'll get it measured again in a year, and meanwhile am working with the real-time evidence (3 weeks of a +100cal bump, for example - not ready for that yet!).
The CO2 output measurement seems to do a good job. Mine was done via MedGem, a little handheld device. Different hospitals/clinics use diff brands. It is a snapshot, yet I feel it provides a good starting point for the ongoing process you're describing. Or given where your client is, maybe a good point for retrenching. Same as you would for a high blood sugar/pressure/cholesterol count.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions