If you think you've plateau'd - read this
Replies
-
Reading later0
-
Bump for later0
-
This was a good read. While it is common sense many get caught up in the science, where the reality is move more eat less. Thanks for the link.0
-
This was a good read. While it is common sense many get caught up in the science, where the reality is move more eat less. Thanks for the link.
Actually that is exactly right ACCORDING TO SCIENCE0 -
Great article ...
thanx!0 -
If you're on a plateau, it's just gluten.
Nah, bro, starvation mode. You just need to eat more...0 -
Great post. I feel like it was posted for me.. even though it wasnt, LOL.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Thanks for the link ritchie, i found it nice to read a tip in "a b c" easy mode! lol0
-
Bump 2 read it later.0
-
I disagree about the point where if you haven't lost weight in 3 weeks you need to look at what you're doing, honestly. For women it's not as simple, heck I've had 3 weeks 'plateaus' every month for 4 months.
Pretty sure you didn't read it very well, then.
Did you read the first three words? "Medical issues aside" I'm new around here, but it seems like there are a lot more women than men talking about plateaus on the message boards. You know those female hormones fluxations you guys love to say you don't understand and even make fun of? They are medical issues. Men = sperm, women = everything else. Is that always the culprit? Absolutely not! But considering all the pcos talk, etc, it would be wise not to jump quite so quickly to simply input vs output. You don't lose your ability to make sperm and procreate when you exercise at elite levels and/or take in too few calories, so it's probably best not to tell us how our bodies work just like yours.0 -
This is just what I needed to read. Thanks.0
-
I disagree about the point where if you haven't lost weight in 3 weeks you need to look at what you're doing, honestly. For women it's not as simple, heck I've had 3 weeks 'plateaus' every month for 4 months.
Pretty sure you didn't read it very well, then.
Did you read the first three words? "Medical issues aside" I'm new around here, but it seems like there are a lot more women than men talking about plateaus on the message boards. You know those female hormones fluxations you guys love to say you don't understand and even make fun of? They are medical issues. Men = sperm, women = everything else. Is that always the culprit? Absolutely not! But considering all the pcos talk, etc, it would be wise not to jump quite so quickly to simply input vs output. You don't lose your ability to make sperm and procreate when you exercise at elite levels and/or take in too few calories, so it's probably best not to tell us how our bodies work just like yours.
Men can suffer from hormonal imbalance as well. Further, as has been stated over and over again and ignored over and over again by people who would rather argue than read, certain medical conditions call for a very low carb diet. Don't try to make this about sexual politics, because that's a pretty cheap trick and, like, so 2002.
Nobody said figuring out your actual tdee (not your estimated tdee according to averages) won't take experimentation. But if you do eat below your tdee, you will lose weight. If you don't eat above your ACTUAL expenditure, it's impossible to gain, because hormones can't make something out of nothing. Does this mean a medical condition won't be alleviated with a special diet? No. Again: no. Sorry if that is a disappointment you'd rather ignore for the sake of having a good ole conflict, but no.0 -
I disagree about the point where if you haven't lost weight in 3 weeks you need to look at what you're doing, honestly. For women it's not as simple, heck I've had 3 weeks 'plateaus' every month for 4 months.
Pretty sure you didn't read it very well, then.
Even two weeks is fine, after three weeks there should definitely be a change in WEIGHT, or at least should, at this point its time to reevaluate what you are eating.
Yeah I clearly don't know how to read, lol!
But yeah otherwise I agree with the article0 -
I disagree about the point where if you haven't lost weight in 3 weeks you need to look at what you're doing, honestly. For women it's not as simple, heck I've had 3 weeks 'plateaus' every month for 4 months.
Pretty sure you didn't read it very well, then.
Did you read the first three words? "Medical issues aside" I'm new around here, but it seems like there are a lot more women than men talking about plateaus on the message boards. You know those female hormones fluxations you guys love to say you don't understand and even make fun of? They are medical issues. Men = sperm, women = everything else. Is that always the culprit? Absolutely not! But considering all the pcos talk, etc, it would be wise not to jump quite so quickly to simply input vs output. You don't lose your ability to make sperm and procreate when you exercise at elite levels and/or take in too few calories, so it's probably best not to tell us how our bodies work just like yours.
Men can suffer from hormonal imbalance as well. Further, as has been stated over and over again and ignored over and over again by people who would rather argue than read, certain medical conditions call for a very low carb diet. Don't try to make this about sexual politics, because that's a pretty cheap trick and, like, so 2002.
Nobody said figuring out your actual tdee (not your estimated tdee according to averages) won't take experimentation. But if you do eat below your tdee, you will lose weight. If you don't eat above your ACTUAL expenditure, it's impossible to gain, because hormones can't make something out of nothing. Does this mean a medical condition won't be alleviated with a special diet? No. Again: no. Sorry if that is a disappointment you'd rather ignore for the sake of having a good ole conflict, but no.
Paraphrasing:
Her: I think it's a little more complicated for women.
Him: Impossible. You just don't understand tdee.
Then you went on to explain to me how it all works. Thanks for that. Your explanation was, like, so 2002 all over again, yet the time stamp clearly reads 2013.
You're right that "If you don't eat above your ACTUAL expenditure, it's impossible to gain, because hormones can't make something out of nothing." Yes, but gaining is not the topic of this thread, PLATEAUS are. Again, it's not that we don't understand tdee, just as she said, "For women it's not as simple" to find. I personally don't have this problem, at least not yet. Using the average has worked for me so far and seems to work for the majority of people, but I think that if a women (or man) who has been having success suddenly stops having success (a plateau) we should give them the benefit of the doubt before launching into an elementary explanation of tdee.
Most of the guys here are not so quick to judge, but the loud ones are. Quite honestly I totally get where it comes from, and I find it frustrating, too. There are a frighteningly large number of people posting who need strangers to point out they haven't eaten a single fruit or veggie for weeks. I just think it's easy to get caught up and forget there are people who genuinely facing these issues and they're not all idiots.0 -
It seems self-explanatory, until you steadily lose on 2000 calories for 8 months, then maintain on 2500 calories for two months, then cut back to 2000 calories and *still* maintain for two months. :laugh:0
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.0 -
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever0 -
Makes sense. It's so simple & good to think about. Especially important to keep in mind when frustrated with the scale!0
-
Thanks for the info0
-
bump to read later0
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever
Are you replying to me?0 -
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever
Are you replying to me?
Obviously not? I quoted someone elses post..0 -
Thank you.0
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever
I thought the entire link did not make a useful point.
He starts off by misunderstanding what a plateau is by making it sound like they were never losing weight in the first place. I can find no other reason why he talks about people trying to out-exercise a bad diet or the like. A plateau implies stalled momentum which implies initial momentum. My first suggestion for anyone who plateaus is to re-check your assumptions. If you have lost 20 lbs then your caloric needs have changed. Going off the same assumed maintenance calories is a common mistake.
In any case, then he goes on to the "meat" of the discussion which is nothing new or interesting and has been stated a million times here before. Unfortunately he repeatedly asserts that a plateau can ONLY be solved by changing your diet. Not true at all. Yeah, it might be easier for some people to cut out one slice of "ezekiel bread" for 100 calories, but it is not that much additional effort to burn 100 more calories. That's about 15 minutes of moderate intensity exercise. Why isn't that an option?
And he adds insult to injury by using inaccurate math.0 -
thank you for this. i've been kidding myself for a while now that my 2 month plateau would eventually turn to loss but alas it hasn't. gonna take a hard look at the portions and adjust slightly so i can begin to see changes again.0
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever
I thought the entire link did not make a useful point.
He starts off by misunderstanding what a plateau is by making it sound like they were never losing weight in the first place. I can find no other reason why he talks about people trying to out-exercise a bad diet or the like. A plateau implies stalled momentum which implies initial momentum. My first suggestion for anyone who plateaus is to re-check your assumptions. If you have lost 20 lbs then your caloric needs have changed. Going off the same assumed maintenance calories is a common mistake.
In any case, then he goes on to the "meat" of the discussion which is nothing new or interesting and has been stated a million times here before. Unfortunately he repeatedly asserts that a plateau can ONLY be solved by changing your diet. Not true at all. Yeah, it might be easier for some people to cut out one slice of "ezekiel bread" for 100 calories, but it is not that much additional effort to burn 100 more calories. That's about 15 minutes of moderate intensity exercise. Why isn't that an option?
And he adds insult to injury by using inaccurate math.
Why is it everyone else finds this useful, and everyone else at bodybuilding.com finds this useful, but you do not?
He also states you don't HAVE to do increased activity. He doesn't say you can't do it. You're being very petty.
Anything is an "option" but you're just being ridiculous.
He directly states "Improper calculations of food intake are the cause" and "at this point its time to reevaluate what you are eating" and "If weight is not coming off, you are eating too much" and "You would eat a target caloric intake, and then based on your results, add or take away food to decrease or expedite weight loss" and then talks about people needing to feel hungry.
I don't know why people find it useful. I would guess anyone who has been here long enough just ignored it or found it amusing. I only posted in this thread initially because of the hilarity of someone talking about how we just need to do basic math and then himself failing at basic math.0 -
soooooo you're saying my two week plateau is because I've been ignoring my beer calories and counting all alcoholic beverages as part of my daily water intake instead? hmmmmmmmmmmm..................0
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to listen to the advice of someone whose math does not add up after saying "Calorie calculators will only take you so far, so lets put things in perspective, real life math."
Just after talking about real life math, the guy made a giant diagram with giant red arrows and then failed at basic math. The 3 arrows show a total of 210 which would be 1995.
You've actually not made a useful point here. And missed the entire point of it, but it's ok, refuse good solid advice & remain fat, whatever
I thought the entire link did not make a useful point.
He starts off by misunderstanding what a plateau is by making it sound like they were never losing weight in the first place. I can find no other reason why he talks about people trying to out-exercise a bad diet or the like. A plateau implies stalled momentum which implies initial momentum. My first suggestion for anyone who plateaus is to re-check your assumptions. If you have lost 20 lbs then your caloric needs have changed. Going off the same assumed maintenance calories is a common mistake.
In any case, then he goes on to the "meat" of the discussion which is nothing new or interesting and has been stated a million times here before. Unfortunately he repeatedly asserts that a plateau can ONLY be solved by changing your diet. Not true at all. Yeah, it might be easier for some people to cut out one slice of "ezekiel bread" for 100 calories, but it is not that much additional effort to burn 100 more calories. That's about 15 minutes of moderate intensity exercise. Why isn't that an option?
And he adds insult to injury by using inaccurate math.
Why is it everyone else finds this useful, and everyone else at bodybuilding.com finds this useful, but you do not?
He also states you don't HAVE to do increased activity. He doesn't say you can't do it. You're being very petty.
Anything is an "option" but you're just being ridiculous.
He directly states "Improper calculations of food intake are the cause" and "at this point its time to reevaluate what you are eating" and "If weight is not coming off, you are eating too much" and "You would eat a target caloric intake, and then based on your results, add or take away food to decrease or expedite weight loss" and then talks about people needing to feel hungry.
I don't know why people find it useful. I would guess anyone who has been here long enough just ignored it or found it amusing. I only posted in this thread initially because of the hilarity of someone talking about how we just need to do basic math and then himself failing at basic math.
No you're just extremely petty and childish, that's why you posted in the thread. People always BLAME a plateau, look at the responses in this thread apart from yours. You're being a clown.0 -
Good Article! Saving for later!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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