New Study Reveals: Plateaus are NOT real...
Replies
-
True. Sometimes when I look at someone's diary, I immediately know that the problem is "user error." Sometimes it's a physical issue, such as hormones. I suspect that the OP was not considering that factor when creating this post. There are so many people on MFP for whom you *KNOW* that they are not logging accurately....things like 3000 calorie burns from mopping their kitchen floor.
But it is certainly the case that factors outside of the person's control can be inhibiting weight loss. I don't think OP was referring to those things, but rather the believing that more often than not, it is user error. I am inclined to believe that. I haven't been here long, but I've looked through a lot of diaries and just shake my head at some of the nonsense that I have witnessed, wondering if these people are just lying to themselves or if they are honestly just not very bright.
A little of both?0 -
This is the classic study (yes, an actual scientific study) on self reported weight loss plateaus:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
The subjects were chosen specifically because they maintained they could not lose weight on a self reported intake of 1,200 calories. Turns out they were under estimating how many calories they were eating by as much as 50%...
If you are plateauing your first call must be to check your energy balance carefully over a sufficient amount of time- much as the OP has done
How dare you post a study! Only anecdotes are allowed in this thread!0 -
don't think it proves anything. it is working for me now. who is to say it might not in the future. you assume too much.
You made this statement right from the onset. This is definitive.Yes, plateaus are real in the short run (weeks or weeks). BUT plateaus are NOT real in the long run like a month or more period of time.
Then you followed with this statement, suggesting this supports the previous statement.I entered 6 months of data that I logged here at MFP and the results were shocking to be honest.
I didn't assume anything. If you did not mean to say that your spreadsheet proves that plateaus are not real in the "long-term", then that is because you did not choose the the correct words to communicate your true meaning. That's not my fault.
And coincidentally, as I pointed out earlier, six months is not enough data to determine "long-term" in relation to weight loss.
I am just repeating myself again though so I'm done with this thread. Good luck! Hope that spreadsheet continues to help in the "long-term".0 -
True. Sometimes when I look at someone's diary, I immediately know that the problem is "user error." Sometimes it's a physical issue, such as hormones. I suspect that the OP was not considering that factor when creating this post. There are so many people on MFP for whom you *KNOW* that they are not logging accurately....things like 3000 calorie burns from mopping their kitchen floor.
But it is certainly the case that factors outside of the person's control can be inhibiting weight loss. I don't think OP was referring to those things, but rather the believing that more often than not, it is user error. I am inclined to believe that. I haven't been here long, but I've looked through a lot of diaries and just shake my head at some of the nonsense that I have witnessed, wondering if these people are just lying to themselves or if they are honestly just not very bright.
A little of both?
Could be. I try not to judge. :laugh:0 -
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.0 -
I "plateaued" when I switched from just cardio to a heavy lifting program and upped my calories 400 cals. I became discouraged and lost motivation. An injury from lifting didn't help this. I've only gained 5 lbs since then, but man it's discouraging.
I'm beginning to think plateaus are more a test of determination and patience than an ACTUAL thing.0 -
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.
I think that comes not from common sense or willpower, but more from the plain difficulty that comes with measuring:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htmThe Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance.
And that's only if the FDA is tracking that particular product. Even with our best efforts, it's damn hard to accurately assess calorie intake.0 -
I just got over a 2 month plateau. Not because I was lazy or eating poorly. I played tennis at least 3-4 times a week, added walks on my lunch breaks, and a few other things. The scale would not budge. And I dont play softie tennis. Im an intense player. My body adapted to what I was doing and eating. So i recently changed things up. I added calories to my daily intake and I have lost 4 pounds this past week. Finally. I should have changed something up sooner, but at least I did eventually. Your body becomes accustomed to the same things after a while, and doesnt need to work as hard. For example, when I came out of tennis retirement after about 15 years in 2011, I wore my HRM to play and would burn nearly 2000 calories in an hour or two. I was out of shape!! Now Im lucky to crack 500 calories per session, and I play harder than i did back then. Now I have added other exercise, such as weight training and occasional jogging (it hurts my knees) and i am finally seeing a change. Plus I love the little daily challenges on here!0
-
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.
Why? I believe that scientifically human error is the most obvious reason, though not the only one.
Human being are infallible in many ways including calorie counting. It's the way we are built0 -
bump0
-
I have not. Have you? I guess that at least half the time the "plateau" is a result of losing motivation to lose weight.Don't people often plateau for over a month at a time?
I had a plateau that lasted 12 weeks at exactly the same weight. I did, however lose inches. So, if you are referring to the scale, yup, a long plateau.
Mine lasted 26 months.
I went from 170 pounds, 33% bf size 12 to 170 pounds, 22.5% bf and a size 7.
26 months of busting my *kitten*, running over 3000 miles, commuting by foot through summer and winter, eating beautiful documented meals, ST/Cardio/Flexibility/etc.... 26 months and no pounds lost.
Cause Im lazy and dont understand nutrition.
0 -
don't think it proves anything. it is working for me now. who is to say it might not in the future. you assume too much.
You made this statement right from the onset. This is definitive.Yes, plateaus are real in the short run (weeks or weeks). BUT plateaus are NOT real in the long run like a month or more period of time.
Then you followed with this statement, suggesting this supports the previous statement.I entered 6 months of data that I logged here at MFP and the results were shocking to be honest.
I didn't assume anything. If you did not mean to say that your spreadsheet proves that plateaus are not real in the "long-term", then that is because you did not choose the the correct words to communicate your true meaning. That's not my fault.
And coincidentally, as I pointed out earlier, six months is not enough data to determine "long-term" in relation to weight loss.
I am just repeating myself again though so I'm done with this thread. Good luck! Hope that spreadsheet continues to help in the "long-term".
yes, i was reaching I think when I said plateaus are not real in the long run. Simply, I just don't know.
But I suspect as the study shows it is user error much of the time. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
If you have not taken the time to do an HONEST spreadsheet then I don't think you can honestly tell if you are on a plateau.0 -
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.
Why? I believe that scientifically human error is the most obvious reason, though not the only one.
Human being are infallible in many ways including calorie counting. It's the way we are built
because saying that of the 1 million people on a hypothetical plateau right now, 990,000 of them are just stupid and unmotivated is a bit revealing of how little you think of their intelligence and willpower.
The human will is the single greatest force on this planet. Well.. maybe not yours- maybe you're assuming 990,000 people are are chronically weak.0 -
This is the classic study (yes, an actual scientific study) on self reported weight loss plateaus:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
The subjects were chosen specifically because they maintained they could not lose weight on a self reported intake of 1,200 calories. Turns out they were under estimating how many calories they were eating by as much as 50%...
If you are plateauing your first call must be to check your energy balance carefully over a sufficient amount of time- much as the OP has done
People like me don't like to "estimate" our calories. I use a scale and when in doubt, go higher. I also prefer to under estimate exercise calories.
People in that study were not using calorie tracking software or food scales. O.o
Then you are the exception not the rule.
Incidentally, how were you measuring the changes in your body composition during your period of calorie restriction? Were you checking BF% / measurements / photographs as well? As I said before a true plateau is where you see no improvement in body composition (as opposed to just weight) despite being consistently in deficit.
I check hip, waist, and neck measurements. I also check my weight weekly on the same day, same time, nude, after emptying my urinary bladder. I check my body fat percentage via the military body fat calculator AND an electrical impedance hand held device.
There has been no change in any measurement for the past 3 months. Past couple weeks I gave up on weight loss and decided to switch to maintenance + slight surplus and a new weight lifting program to try and gain some muscle.0 -
I dig charts and spreadsheets.
I suppose most regulars have seen my charts/graphs and whatnot.
I'm very confident that I could hit any reasonably attainable weight on the dot in any time frame, up or down.
Moreso than just looking at trends, I feel it is important to always keep a live calculation of your maintenence level intake going because it DOES change over time; when your metabolism tanks or spikes you know it, you can troubleshoot it and fix it.
The only real plateau I've ever experienced (I've lost a lot, maintained, bulked, and now a post bulking cut) was after bulking a while, my body stopped gaining weight despite a 3300 cal/day net intake, my metabolism spiked, a very rapid change, and stayed elevated for a while after I started cutting (not a bad thing), after cutting a while it has returned to normal (for me).0 -
If you have not taken the time to do an HONEST spreadsheet then I don't think you can honestly tell if you are on a plateau.
Only illiegitimate spreadsheets result in plateaus, otherwise your body has ways of shutting that stuff down.0 -
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.
Why? I believe that scientifically human error is the most obvious reason, though not the only one.
Human being are infallible in many ways including calorie counting. It's the way we are built
Also, a lot of people forget that their BMR *will* change as they lose weight. There is a LOT of room for human error, and I do believe that it's the most common reason. (Not the *only* reason, to be sure, but common)0 -
I would say that if you put 99% of the people who swear black and blue that they are at a calorie deficit and are not losing in a metabolic ward and monitored their intake careful they would start losing weight....
You should seriously stop with all this pompous 99% of people are just doing it wrong BS asap. You dont give your peers nearly enough credit. Their common sense or their willpower.
Why? I believe that scientifically human error is the most obvious reason, though not the only one.
Human being are infallible in many ways including calorie counting. It's the way we are built
because saying that of the 1 million people on a hypothetical plateau right now, 990,000 of them are just stupid and unmotivated is a bit revealing of how little you think of their intelligence and willpower.
The human will is the single greatest force on this planet. Well.. maybe not yours- maybe you're assuming 990,000 people are are chronically weak.
Not really - those are your own assumptions based on what I have written. You can choose to interpret them as you see fit but in reality you have no idea of my motivations or what my intent is here. In fact, you seem to be just making things up for reasons I cannot fathom.
And, as I have already said a few times in this thread already I believe a true plateau to be one where there is no change in body composition despite being in a calorie deficit over and above scale weight. If your weight remains the same but your measurements improve, or your BF% improves then it is not a plateau.
If you are in deficit then your body has no choice but to release energy from somewhere. If there is no change in any marker then I suspect the main reason is the person is not actually maintaining a deficit.0 -
:drinker:
If you have not taken the time to do an HONEST spreadsheet then I don't think you can honestly tell if you are on a plateau.
Only illiegitimate spreadsheets result in plateaus, otherwise your body has ways of shutting that stuff down.0 -
Mine lasted 26 months.
I went from 170 pounds, 33% bf size 12 to 170 pounds, 22.5% bf and a size 7.
To me, that sounds like success, not a plateau. Maybe I am misunderstanding? If that happened to me, I would definitely see myself as having success.0 -
bump0
-
I check hip, waist, and neck measurements. I also check my weight weekly on the same day, same time, nude, after emptying my urinary bladder. I check my body fat percentage via the military body fat calculator AND an electrical impedance hand held device.
There has been no change in any measurement for the past 3 months. Past couple weeks I gave up on weight loss and decided to switch to maintenance + slight surplus and a new weight lifting program to try and gain some muscle.
Then you're definitely the exception dude!
Have you considered metabolic testing - it may shed some light on what's going on because that on the face of it that defies normal expectations.0 -
Bump for later! Thanks for posting.0
-
Mine lasted 26 months.
I went from 170 pounds, 33% bf size 12 to 170 pounds, 22.5% bf and a size 7.
To me, that sounds like success, not a plateau. Maybe I am misunderstanding? If that happened to me, I would definitely see myself as having success.
I think that was the point. There are different ways to measure success, and the scale doesn't always tell the whole truth.0 -
I used mine until the end
I lol'd at "end"
It's not really that funny. I am no longer focused on dropping scale weight. My spreadsheet tracking weight loss and calculating overall averages wouldn't do me a lot of good at this point. I'm tracking measurements and body fat now.
I did, though, lol at your illegitimate spreadsheet comment.0 -
I check hip, waist, and neck measurements. I also check my weight weekly on the same day, same time, nude, after emptying my urinary bladder. I check my body fat percentage via the military body fat calculator AND an electrical impedance hand held device.
There has been no change in any measurement for the past 3 months. Past couple weeks I gave up on weight loss and decided to switch to maintenance + slight surplus and a new weight lifting program to try and gain some muscle.
Then you're definitely the exception dude!
Have you considered metabolic testing - it may shed some light on what's going on because that on the face of it that defies normal expectations.
You're telling me. It has driven me UP THE WALL. I have no means to test my BMR yet... finances tight and all. My thought is that perhaps my BMR is much lower than calculated, but I dunno how that can explain eating 1280 with no loss and 1800 with no gains. I am not willing to go drastic and eat 900.
So, figured take a break from weight loss and gain some muscle. Maybe an extra 5 or 10 pounds of muscle will help in the long run!0 -
You're telling me. It has driven me UP THE WALL. I have no means to test my BMR yet... finances tight and all. My thought is that perhaps my BMR is much lower than calculated, but I dunno how that can explain eating 1280 with no loss and 1800 with no gains. I am not willing to go drastic and eat 900.
So, figured take a break from weight loss and gain some muscle. Maybe an extra 5 or 10 pounds of muscle will help in the long run!
Have you considered a high energy flux programme? It may well be that your body is very efficient at keeping weight loss to a minimum by closing down metabolic functions at a low calorie level. Therefore while you are still probably losing fat it is not particularly efficient or quick process and is easily masked by water fluctuations and subcutaneous water.
I am much the same way but I find that a high food + high activity approach works very well. I am in the process of dropping about 15lbs to get to a decent cycling weight for an event I am doing next year. If I eat less than 2000 calories a day my weight loss slows to a crawl. If I eat 2,700 calories a day as I do now it ticks over nicely...0 -
Mine lasted 26 months.
I went from 170 pounds, 33% bf size 12 to 170 pounds, 22.5% bf and a size 7.
To me, that sounds like success, not a plateau. Maybe I am misunderstanding? If that happened to me, I would definitely see myself as having success.
I think that was the point. There are different ways to measure success, and the scale doesn't always tell the whole truth.
The scale is merely one indicator. If that was Yoovie's point, then what's with the back and forth?0 -
Have you considered a high energy flux programme? It may well be that your body is very efficient at keeping weight loss to a minimum by closing down metabolic functions at a low calorie level. Therefore while you are still probably losing fat it is not particularly efficient or quick process and is easily masked by water fluctuations and subcutaneous water.
I am much the same way but I find that a high food + high activity approach works very well. I am in the process of dropping about 15lbs to get to a decent cycling weight for an event I am doing next year. If I eat less than 2000 calories a day my weight loss slows to a crawl. If I eat 2,700 calories a day as I do now it ticks over nicely...
I thought about it as well. But increasing my calories and activity didn't have any effect. Recently though, I came to the realization that perhaps my body fat percentage isn't shabby and that what I need is actually muscle to make me LOOK skinnier. Having little muscle and a low body fat percentage can make people look like they have extra fat.
I try to stick with one plan of attack for at least 3 weeks before going to another. But with muscle gain, will need more than that.0 -
Love it!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions