Scientifically Are the Last 10 lbs REALLY the Hardest?

stevencloser

There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.

I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.

It's actually very hard to lose fat without losing muscle at any weight.

There was actually a study done that showed that plenty protein and weight training is enough to not lose muscle.

csy108

If you hit your goal weight at a large deficit (probably not a good idea for nutrition and lean body mass reasons), then accurately calculated your maintenance calories at that weight and ate them, why would you gain weight?

heybales

Starvation mode is called adaptive thermogenesis and I suggest you do some research for yourself as it is largely a myth, especially concerning your particular case.

Did you even read what I wrote? Starvation mode as used on this site and as used in the OP's situation IS A MYTH. Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing but the OP is not even close to achieving that status. Eating 75% of your TDEE is not going to put you into starvation mode for Christ's sake.

What the OP's TRAINER, yes TRAINER, has him on is round-a-bout, prolonged program that is completely unnecessary.

I did read what you wrote very closely, and I reduced the quote above to the point I disagreed with.
I agree Starvation mode is called adaptive thermogenesis, but you said largely a myth, especially in her case.

Not largely a myth if you read the study. Unless you have some specific aspects of it that you see as myths (like actually gaining fat, ya, myth, holding on to fat and burning muscle, ya, myth, happening in one day, ya, myth - but you didn't mention specifics).

And it totally applies in OP's case, as she has lost weight DOWN to 10 lbs being left. Not starting at 10 lbs to lose. Big difference.

And you must not have read the study, because a constant 25% deficit for even obese person is all it took to start getting the effects of starvation mode or adaptive thermogenesis - it's easier than you must think.

So many keep their 2lb weekly loss goal well below where it's reasonable, and their deficit starts turning in to almost 45% of TDEE (eat 1200, maintenance with exercise 2200), so ya they get the AT happening to them.

AtticWindow

I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.

Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?

What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?

Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?

This is THE LAST PLACE you should ever come for informed information from educated people based on science or fact. If you're looking for people spouting myths and misinformation as if they did in fact have degrees in kinesiology and nutrition then you've come to the right place...

PikaKnight

I'm less than 15lbs from goal weight and trying to keep up motivation to continue trying so hard. I bumped up my exercise intensity a lot but it has also made my appetite go kind of crazy. I eat at a rather small deficit and that takes a lot of self-control. I'd like a much larger deficit but I don't have enough control over my eating to restrict further. I wish I could.

Aren't you the one eating 500 cals a day and made a thread about doing a VLCD without doctor supervision?

Man. From experience, your maintenance is going to be pretty low...not just because you are at a lower weight, but lower than it probably could have been because you probably have screwed your metabolism.

Best of luck there.

likitisplit

There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.

I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.

It's actually very hard to lose fat without losing muscle at any weight.

There was actually a study done that showed that plenty protein and weight training is enough to not lose muscle.

Can you link to the study?

PikaKnight

There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.

I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.

It's actually very hard to lose fat without losing muscle at any weight.

There was actually a study done that showed that plenty protein and weight training is enough to not lose muscle.

Can you link to the study?

Just chiming in to say that eating a sufficient amount of protein and including strength/resistance training can minimize the amount of muscle that is lost during weight loss. I don't recall a study that ever stated it prevents it 100% though. Here's a couple links to studies in regards to protein and LBM.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1158604-eric-helms-protein-research

Iwishyouwell

There is, I believe, also the "hill factor".
If you watch runners or cyclists (non-professional) go up a hill, they'll do various forms of attack and persist until they get ALMOST to the top. Then they stop trying so hard because... they're almost there. They've put in so much effort so far, surely they can just rest a little bit before the top... etc. Think about a common phrase we use to help people through things: "Keep going, you're almost there!".

Continuing to pursue your goal with the same vigor when you are near the end as when you did at the beginning is tough. For some close is enough to stop the effort required (even if they don't change their goal). This is where a lot of dissonance sets in and things get "uncomfortable". You think of all the effort you've put in and you "deserve" to be at the end already..... but there's still more work ahead.... is that last bit really worth it?

Plan on having it feel hard. Really hard. Plan on needing every ounce of self discipline to make it through to your actual goal. Be ready for that challenge. It will come.

You NAILED it!

Koldnomore

And it totally applies in OP's case, as she has lost weight DOWN to 10 lbs being left. Not starting at 10 lbs to lose. Big difference.

And you must not have read the study, because a constant 25% deficit for even obese person is all it took to start getting the effects of starvation mode or adaptive thermogenesis - it's easier than you must think.

So many keep their 2lb weekly loss goal well below where it's reasonable, and their deficit starts turning in to almost 45% of TDEE (eat 1200, maintenance with exercise 2200), so ya they get the AT happening to them.

This actually is what happened to me also. I have been on this road for almost 2 YEARS, at a deficit for most of it. In order to try to increase my metabolism again I have gone into a very close to maintenance phase, I've been up and down the same .5lb since December 2013 (so I'd say if I'm not in maintenance I'm pretty darn close) A few months ago I was GAINING weight lifting heavy 3 -4 times a week eating about 1900 calories. Since then I have managed to get my maintenance back UP to around 2200. I am eating between 2000 and 2400 calories a day now and not gaining. So to support bale's post I can tell you that from my experience the advice is sound. YMMV.

RobsGirl_lds

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Aaron_K123

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

likitisplit

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

There is some indication that leptin "monitors' fat stores and is more likely to increase hunger when a person maintains a calorie deficit at a lower body fat range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9529971

Aaron_K123

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

There is some indication that leptin "monitors' fat stores and is more likely to increase hunger when a person maintains a calorie deficit at a lower body fat range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9529971

Big difference between feeling hungrier when you approach low bodyfat (which I can believe) and your body actually refusing to use your fat stores with the exact same caloric deficit (which I am very skeptical about).

Iwishyouwell

Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?

Good point.

Also your body doesn't know what the hell the "last 10 lbs" are. It's very common for people, especially once very overweight and obese people, to set goal weights that actually leave them still overweight. They pick a number that seems "normal", or the highest possible "healthy" weight on a chart, and aim for that. Then you see people struggling with the supposed "last 10 pounds" who actually could quite safely lose another 10-20 on top of that.

I think the point where people truly run into physiological resistance to low bodyfat levels, say 10% or less for men, or 18% or less for women, is a level that most once fat people never, ever even reach. Going from 13% down to 10% or sub levels is understandable. But what happens when a man is talking about the impossibility of the "last 10 lbs" when he's actually at around 23%?

How many formerly obese and very overweight people do you see with goal weights, and goal bodyfat percentages, that are in the truly "difficult to shed" category?

likitisplit

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

There is some indication that leptin "monitors' fat stores and is more likely to increase hunger when a person maintains a calorie deficit at a lower body fat range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9529971

Big difference between feeling hungrier when you approach low bodyfat (which I can believe) and your body actually refusing to use your fat stores with the exact same caloric deficit (which I am very skeptical about).

I agree.

However, I'd use the analogy of dieting a cat. If you've ever tried to get a cat to lose weight, you'll realize it's nearly impossible. You feed it less, it'll sleep more. The body kind of does the same thing: less random movement, more hunger, more fatigue, shutting down less essential processes, etc. The body has a number of mechanisms to rig the "calories out" side of the equation.

The equation doesn't change, but the difficulty of maintaining the equation changes.

likitisplit

Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?

Good point.

Also your body doesn't know what the hell the "last 10 lbs" are. It's very common for people, especially once very overweight and obese people, to set goal weights that actually leave them still overweight. They pick a number that seems "normal", or the highest possible "healthy" weight on a chart, and aim for that. Then you see people struggling with the supposed "last 10 pounds" who actually could quite safely lose another 10-20 on top of that.

I think the point where people truly run into physiological resistance to low bodyfat levels, say 10% or less for men, or 18% or less for women, is a level that most once fat people never, ever even reach. Going from 13% down to 10% or sub levels is understandable. But what happens when a man is talking about the impossibility of the "last 10 lbs" when he's actually at around 23%?

How many formerly obese and very overweight people do you see with goal weights, and goal bodyfat percentages, that are in the truly "difficult to shed" category?

I've gone from clinically obese to 18% once and am on my way there again.

Iwishyouwell

fat-storing mode, and those 10 last pounds will never come off because your body is working hard to store fat.

Yes, I think the scores of millions of human beings who've been starved down to a skeletal state, and eventually death, wouldn't be agreeing with you and your trainer that "starvation mode" makes it impossible to lose the "10 last pounds".

All those concentration camp victims had obscenely low bodyfat levels. I'm sure they'd love it if your magical "starvation mode" was true. Just saying.

Iwishyouwell

Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?

Good point.

Also your body doesn't know what the hell the "last 10 lbs" are. It's very common for people, especially once very overweight and obese people, to set goal weights that actually leave them still overweight. They pick a number that seems "normal", or the highest possible "healthy" weight on a chart, and aim for that. Then you see people struggling with the supposed "last 10 pounds" who actually could quite safely lose another 10-20 on top of that.

I think the point where people truly run into physiological resistance to low bodyfat levels, say 10% or less for men, or 18% or less for women, is a level that most once fat people never, ever even reach. Going from 13% down to 10% or sub levels is understandable. But what happens when a man is talking about the impossibility of the "last 10 lbs" when he's actually at around 23%?

How many formerly obese and very overweight people do you see with goal weights, and goal bodyfat percentages, that are in the truly "difficult to shed" category?

I've gone from clinically obese to 18% once and am on my way there again.

That's awesome! Rare, but awesome.

RobsGirl_lds

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

edit nmv I see it has been discussed above.

nicolemontagna22

So really, they are not more difficult or more stubborn to get rid of, the only difference is that your deficit has been dialed down to match your newer TDEE so it takes a longer period of time to reach the 3500 calorie deficit. Did I get it right?

By the way, "Duh" isn't really a kind response when someone is asking an honest question.

Additionally, since MFP doesn't tell users to decrease their calorie deficit as they get closer to goal, there are potentially many people that would continue rocking their initial deficit setting all the way to their goal weight and they'd never know that it should have been changed. So I'm not sure it's "common sense".

So wait....MFP won't bring my daily goal down as my weight comes down?

likitisplit

I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".

Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.

Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.

This exactly! As you aproach essential bf% and below your body begins to fight and adjust where it pulls it's energy from, making fat loss a fight of balancing your deficit and exercise. You need to push the body to keep muscle out of necessity while keeping energy expenditure just above intake to slowly coax the body to burn fat.

As you lose weight at any point you have to continue to increase energy expenditure or decrease intake to keep the same deficit. So in this aspect each lb is harder than the last. But when they say the last 10lbs I believe it is ment to describe the last 10 to reach your essential bf%.

Study to back this claim up?

edit nmv I see it has been discussed above.

Not quite. If you have any research that show that the body uses less fat or uses muscle preferentially at some point, let us know. That would be very interesting.

likitisplit

So really, they are not more difficult or more stubborn to get rid of, the only difference is that your deficit has been dialed down to match your newer TDEE so it takes a longer period of time to reach the 3500 calorie deficit. Did I get it right?

By the way, "Duh" isn't really a kind response when someone is asking an honest question.

Additionally, since MFP doesn't tell users to decrease their calorie deficit as they get closer to goal, there are potentially many people that would continue rocking their initial deficit setting all the way to their goal weight and they'd never know that it should have been changed. So I'm not sure it's "common sense".

So wait....MFP won't bring my daily goal down as my weight comes down?

It will. What it won't do is change your goal from two pounds to a half pound when it's appropriate.

likitisplit

Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?

Good point.

Also your body doesn't know what the hell the "last 10 lbs" are. It's very common for people, especially once very overweight and obese people, to set goal weights that actually leave them still overweight. They pick a number that seems "normal", or the highest possible "healthy" weight on a chart, and aim for that. Then you see people struggling with the supposed "last 10 pounds" who actually could quite safely lose another 10-20 on top of that.

I think the point where people truly run into physiological resistance to low bodyfat levels, say 10% or less for men, or 18% or less for women, is a level that most once fat people never, ever even reach. Going from 13% down to 10% or sub levels is understandable. But what happens when a man is talking about the impossibility of the "last 10 lbs" when he's actually at around 23%?

How many formerly obese and very overweight people do you see with goal weights, and goal bodyfat percentages, that are in the truly "difficult to shed" category?

I've gone from clinically obese to 18% once and am on my way there again.

That's awesome! Rare, but awesome.

There's actually a number of people on MFP, who have done better.

Iwishyouwell

Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?

Good point.

Also your body doesn't know what the hell the "last 10 lbs" are. It's very common for people, especially once very overweight and obese people, to set goal weights that actually leave them still overweight. They pick a number that seems "normal", or the highest possible "healthy" weight on a chart, and aim for that. Then you see people struggling with the supposed "last 10 pounds" who actually could quite safely lose another 10-20 on top of that.

I think the point where people truly run into physiological resistance to low bodyfat levels, say 10% or less for men, or 18% or less for women, is a level that most once fat people never, ever even reach. Going from 13% down to 10% or sub levels is understandable. But what happens when a man is talking about the impossibility of the "last 10 lbs" when he's actually at around 23%?

How many formerly obese and very overweight people do you see with goal weights, and goal bodyfat percentages, that are in the truly "difficult to shed" category?

I've gone from clinically obese to 18% once and am on my way there again.

That's awesome! Rare, but awesome.

There's actually a number of people on MFP, who have done better.

Yes, I'm aware.