Why does weight loss stall?

mdev1

I'm curious about your weight loss journeys and how you cope when weight loss appears to stall. When all things are equal, food intake, exercise, etc., why does the body slow or stop using fat reserves? For example, I have been very diligent at keeping at or near my goals and often do not eat all of my exercise, yet I find that I have all but stopped losing weight. I measure everything with a scale and seldom eat out or have food that is not a known quantity. I even measure condiments. For my exercise, I cut the calorie burn number in half and eat only that much. I also base the calorie burn amount on multiple sources.

To be more specific, I have a 1,200 calorie per day target (2,200 - 1000), and I burn about 800 cals a day in running and weight lifting. I eat about 400 cals of that. I was dropping nearly 6 lbs per month, now I'm down to virtually zero. Same regimen, same intakes. I know the philosophy of in vs out in weight loss, but it appears the metabolism slows, or some other factors come into play, towards the end of a weight loss program.

I've had this happen many times for one or two weeks, but generally the weight eventually drops off. However, I am now at 6 weeks without any significant movement and it's starting to really frustrate me. I've only got another 10-15 lbs to go and boy is that final amount being stubborn.

What do you experience and how do you push through this type of problem?

AmyRhubarb

I can't give you the scientific reasons as to why the body slows or stops using fat reserves and all that. I can say be my own experience and having read the experiences of others here at MFP that you aren't eating nearly enough food and that can cause losses to come to a screeching halt.

By your ticker, it looks like you've lost a lot of weight already and are nearing goal weight, so taking a 1000 calorie deficit at this point is way too big. A 1200 calorie goal is considered the bare minimum for women - you're a man, and working out running AND weight lifting - you need to feed that body! It has no reason to want to drop any weight - it's probably desperately trying to hang onto it due to the workouts and lack of fuel. By the numbers you posted you're only netting around 800 calories a day? :noway:

I'm a 5'8" 44 year old woman, and I lost my last 10lbs eating 1800+ calories a day, burning 300-500 cals 5-6 days a week with some weights and running. I was stuck until I upped my calories to that level.

Food is fuel - eat too little and you're giving your body a reason to store fat rather than burn it. Best move I ever made was reading this topic and following the advice given there, calculating my TDEE and BMR and eating between those two numbers. As per the info in the the thread, I subtracted 20% from my TDEE and ate at that level -seriously the best success I've had, losing fat, finally hit goal weight, dropped another pants size - I only wish I'd found it three years ago. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912914-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013

NCchar130

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

freelancejouster

Definitely up your calories to netting at the VERY VERY least 1200, though probably shoot closer to 1600-2000 in the long run if you want to keep up the weight loss. You've run your body out of fuel/steam/what-have-you and now it needs more fuel to burn off the rest of that extra!

SRHelicity

If you are targeting 1200 calories and only eating back 1/2 of the your exercise calories (400 of 800), are you saying that you are only "netting" 800 calories per day (1200 target - 800 exercise + 400 eat-back)?

I targeted about 1300 calories per day for the first month and dropped the weight according to plan (a little more than 2 lbs / week). Since that caloric goal made me crabby, I dropped my daily deficit to 750 calories / day (1.5 lbs / week target), and my average weight loss since that time (1.5 months) has indeed been very near 1.5 lbs/week. I did hit a plateau for a few weeks, but I've broken through that by switching up my diet plan. Now, instead of a fixed calorie deficit goal, I've switched to a Leangains plan -- fasting for 16 hours and eating during the remaining 8 hour window. Switching it up like this has restarted my weight loss. The leangains website includes a lot of research Martin has done, and it seems that the proportion of fat loss to lean mass loss is greater with an IF plan like he proposes, and he goes into a lot of detail about why this may be the case. I've become a big fan of Martin since finding his site a couple of weeks ago. He seems very fair and very well researched, and the leangains plan is something that's easy to live with (no cutting out carbs, etc.).

For what it's worth, I also lift weight 2-3 times a week. I hit my original weight goal a couple of weeks ago, but I made a new goal that's based upon body fat percentage instead of total body weight. I'll end my caloric deficit and eat at maintanence as soon I hit 10% body fat. That's my new goal.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TheRealParisLove

When you get close to your goal, you have to increase exercise intensity and calorie consumption. At this point you should stop looking at the numbers on the scale and start measuring body fat percentage. This is a body recomposition stage of your weight loss journey and now it the time to focus on adding some muscle to keep your metabolism roaring along.

When dieting, our bodies sacrifice lean body mass first before releasing fat stores. And since by volume, muscle weighs more than fat, people see large losses in the early part of their weight loss journey (also water weight in the first week or two). It is entirely possible to lose muscle mass without seeing a big difference in strength abilities and/or increasing strength with less muscle as you are also losing some fat, and have less overall mass to carry. New research indicates that muscle strength and muscle mass are not necessarily tied together.

However, muscle mass and metabolism are definitely dependent on each other. The more muscle mass you have, the more calories you will burn when at rest.

To get results, it is probably time to start eating very close to maintenance and lifting heavy weights 3-4 times a week. Try to get your protein intake close 50% of daily calories, and increase saturated fats to half of your overall fat consumption. Coconut oil is a good saturated fat resource for people wishing to add muscle. Saturated fats are very important when adding muscle mass, as each cell is made of saturated fat. In his prime, Arnold Schwarzenegger would consume 3 large glasses of whole milk everyday to preserve muscle mass, and that was in the hey day of "fats are bad" dietary recommendations.

Ultimately, you have to keep switching up your weight loss strategies as your body will adapt quickly and attempt to preserve homeostasis. We have to out-smart mother nature to reach the fitness levels we desire.

mdev1

Well you are right on the money Amy, my average net calorie consumed is just under 800. The calorie goal (1,200) was set by MyFitnessPal. I suppose it suggests that because I have a desk job and I said I'm sedentary most of the day, which is true, even though I workout for about 2 hours in a given day.

mdev1

When you get close to your goal, you have to increase exercise intensity and calorie consumption. At this point you should stop looking at the numbers on the scale and start measuring body fat percentage. This is a body recomposition stage of your weight loss journey and now it the time to focus on adding some muscle to keep your metabolism roaring along.

I am doing that, my body fat is around 20% and muscle mass is about 37%.

New research indicates that muscle strength and muscle mass are not necessarily tied together.

I didn't know that. I always assumed more mass meant more caloric needs.

However, muscle mass and metabolism are definitely dependent on each other. The more muscle mass you have, the more calories you will burn when at rest.

Good point.

Try to get your protein intake close 50% of daily calories, and increase saturated fats to half of your overall fat consumption. Coconut oil is a good saturated fat resource for people wishing to add muscle. Saturated fats are very important when adding muscle mass, as each cell is made of saturated fat. In his prime, Arnold Schwarzenegger would consume 3 large glasses of whole milk everyday to preserve muscle mass, and that was in the hey day of "fats are bad" dietary recommendations.

I am consuming about 45% protein, 35-40% fat, and the 15-20% carbs. I try to keep the fiber up to lower my net carb intake.

Ultimately, you have to keep switching up your weight loss strategies as your body will adapt quickly and attempt to preserve homeostasis. We have to out-smart mother nature to reach the fitness levels we desire.

Very good advice. Thanks.

mdev1

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

1,200 is the baseline target if I sit on my butt - at least according to MyFitnessPal recommendations. I regularly eat between 1,600 and 1,800 on any given day when I work out. My net calories consumed is generally less than 800 however.

If I'm hearing everybody right, it seems the recommended the solution when weight loss stalls, is to crank up the intake of saturated fats and proteins.

Sabine_Stroehm

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

1,200 is the baseline target if I sit on my butt - at least according to MyFitnessPal recommendations. I regularly eat between 1,600 and 1,800 on any given day when I work out. My net calories consumed is generally less than 800 however.

I would bet you stalled because you're not eating enough given your workouts etc. I'm a nearly 50 year old woman and I eat more than you....
What do you get when you run the numbers here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013

AmyRhubarb

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

1,200 is the baseline target if I sit on my butt - at least according to MyFitnessPal recommendations. I regularly eat between 1,600 and 1,800 on any given day when I work out. My net calories consumed is generally less than 800 however.

Well, MFP isn't perfect - it's going off of what info you give it. If you say your'e sedentary (and even with your workouts, I would say that you are NOT sedentary, even with a desk job), and want to lose 2lbs a week, it's going to spit out the 1200 calorie plan. It won't go any lower because it's the bare minimum. And that's for women!

Seriously - your BMR is definitely higher than 1200, and a doctor would feed you that much through a tube if you were in a coma - don't you think your non-comastose, weight-lifting, running, walking, talking, breathing, functioning body deserves more than coma calories? :bigsmile:

vlnalto

I'm not anywhere near goal yet (congrats!!) but I've seen many people recommend setting your weekly weight loss goal smaller and smaller the closer you get to goal. So, for the last 10-15 lbs, setting mfp to 1lb per week or 0.5lb per week would be more appropriate.

YoungDoc2B

You have to eat more!

mdev1

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

1,200 is the baseline target if I sit on my butt - at least according to MyFitnessPal recommendations. I regularly eat between 1,600 and 1,800 on any given day when I work out. My net calories consumed is generally less than 800 however.

I would bet you stalled because you're not eating enough given your workouts etc. I'm a nearly 50 year old woman and I eat more than you....
What do you get when you run the numbers here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013

Yes, my TDEE is around 3,500 in a given day with workouts. My measured BMR is about 1,720. By some measurements, it could be calculated that somebody like me should eat a net of 2,500 calories per day (net) in order to continue losing weight.

glennstoudt

Hello,

Concur with other posters. Good advice.
Carbs are quite low and you likely are burning muscle instead of repairing it. Just a hunch. I am a lower carb advocate and used that strategy as well.
I didn't stop losing weight until I set MFP to maintenance. Keep in mind your lighter fitter self is not burning as many calories as you once were, AND, as others have pointed out, your glycogen stores are not being replenished v. your outgo (all the running and lifting).
You could do better eating more carbs (I know that is possibly a scary thought) for a time and as others have said, eat more period.
Consider supplements if you are not already. There are many that help. Mine are fish oil, B complex, Magnesium and Astaxanthin. These seem to help in a number of ways for many things including shrinking your fat cells (provided you do the other things like work out and eat right.
Your body fat percentage is good for your age (not sure what it is just guessing by the picture) and you might, with your regimen, consider setting a non scale value such as BF% of 16-18%. No six pack abs at that level but pretty darn good.
Good luck.

jb1164

What I don't understand is... (and this is a serious point...) when they put those overweight celebrities in the jungle for I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here (UK), and feed them on the bare minimum ,( sometimes only rice and beans when they lose a task,), they don't plateau! Those that go in obese, or worse, all manage to lose 2 -3 stones in 3 weeks! they're not eating back their exercise, or counting macros, etc.

My body/metabolism seems to adjust to the calories I feed it really quickly, so in the third week I stall, and don't lose anything. In order to kick-start my weight loss I find the Intermittent fasting (5,2) seems to do the trick.

It's really frustrating, cos I'm logging, exercising and drinking plenty of water...

I've never been so determined, so I don't lack motivation.

Grrr....

geekyjock76

You will encounter a much greater and unwelcome problem if you persist on this very low calorie diet - disproportionate and massive fat regain. When you assume such a large chronic deficit, you are initiating certain metabolic adaptations which will make it very easy to regain a lot of the lost weight. The two primary reasons are a reduced RMR and lean body mass. During weight recovery, you regain only a fraction of lost lean body mass. This means, if you were to return to your starting weight, you'd end up with significantly greater fat mass and lower lean body mass to go with the reduced RMR.

Sabine_Stroehm

here's a thread that got controversial quickly but the principle is good

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919346-still-think-your-1200-or-less-diet-is-a-good-idea

It seems to be a common problem to hit a plateau if you stick to a low target like 1200/day for too long.

1,200 is the baseline target if I sit on my butt - at least according to MyFitnessPal recommendations. I regularly eat between 1,600 and 1,800 on any given day when I work out. My net calories consumed is generally less than 800 however.

I would bet you stalled because you're not eating enough given your workouts etc. I'm a nearly 50 year old woman and I eat more than you....
What do you get when you run the numbers here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013

Yes, my TDEE is around 3,500 in a given day with workouts. My measured BMR is about 1,720. By some measurements, it could be calculated that somebody like me should eat a net of 2,500 calories per day (net) in order to continue losing weight.

That sounds better. :-)
If that's unnnerving, perhaps start by eating 2500 a day gross and work your way up from there?

glennstoudt

:You joined in February. It's March. You lost 15 lbs.
That's pretty good. Stay the course.
Reality shows are anything but real.

mdev1

My body/metabolism seems to adjust to the calories I feed it really quickly, so in the third week I stall, and don't lose anything. In order to kick-start my weight loss I find the Intermittent fasting (5,2) seems to do the trick.

I've experienced that as well. I've also tried kicking up the cals (like recently), and I typically add some weight back on (expected), then it goes flat, then declines again. The problem is that also flattens out eventually, so I drop the calories, drop some more, then build the cals back up. It seems that the metabolism is constantly see-sawing back and forth. I've picked up about 5 lbs trying to eat more (no junk - just more). I anticipated this and have extended my workouts to compensate, however, I agree wholeheartedly that it is very frustrating. When I was younger, I never had this problem.