Stuck on these last three pounds, HELP!

I could have written this post because this is so me. I've been stuck with these last three pounds since August. Nothing I do will take it off. I'm at the point now where I'm about ready to write it off. Statistically speaking, three pounds is nothing. I think, for me, I just want to see an even 30 pound loss.

I have a Fitbit and I eat under my calories burned every single day. I do circuit training 4x/week.

Now, I have noticed a change in my body and I have dropped a pants size so I'm thinking I'm actually gaining muscle and that's why those three pounds are sticking around.

I have no advise for you other than you're not alone.

Your goal should be set to .5 lb. per week. The closer you are to goal, the harder it is to lose. (Personally, I'd ditch the "nutrition" bars. They're no better for you than candy bars.)

Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-Sexypants

I at first thought you were a vegetarian by looking at your diary for the past 3-4 days and then I saw some meat like 5 days ago or so. I was going to suggest that if you were a vegetarian to consume more protein. Perhaps more protein would help though. I agree with the other reply that suggests its muscle weight. I saw your goal as to fit into your size 3 pants, can you do that yet? If so I would chalk it up as 2-3lbs of fabulous muscle
I know myself the number on the scale shouldnt matter but I struggle with the numbers too.

I'd try cleaning up your diet some. Lower the carbs and up the protein. Ditch the bars and go for unprocessed. Then, shake up your workout routine. HIIT workouts, or maybe just adding in sprints. Finally, be patient and aim for .5 lb a week.

I'll try raising my protein intake, I just can never think of what I can have for protein other than chicken and eggs!? Nuts are really calorie dense.

Yes, nuts are calorie dense, but they also have high satiety value, meaning a 100-calorie handful of nuts will keep you full way longer than a sugary "nutrition" bar. Hard-boiled eggs, string cheese, portion-controlled nuts, and yogurt are all yummy, high-protein snacks.

Is something magical going to happen at 120 lbs? Because at this point, you may be better off focusing body recomp than a number on a scale. Add in more protein, and start doing some resistance training. You'll strengthen the lean muscle, which will help you burn fat and lose inches. Which means you'll still end up in your size 3 jeans.

Protein can come in several forms. If you've got a decent blender, you can find a protein powder that goes well with your taste buds and add it with fresh fruit, ice and some milk (which also has a decent amount of protein) to make a smoothie or a shake, a real one.

Cottage cheese is one of my favorites, when I pair it with a cup of mixed fruit in light syrup. Cottage cheese is mostly whey protein.

Meat is great, I LOVE asian food, my ketchup is the same as the ketchup of japan: soy sauce. I usually stir fry up some vegetables and cook some rice and have a well rounded meal. I love adding either strips of chicken breast or sliced sirloin to the wok and stir frying them first.

The trick isn't to find new sources of protein, it's to make the ones you already know fun and uplifting. Look for new recipies, go in the culinary direction you want!

My favorite late night snack: Deviled eggs.

They're nasty and full of fat though, so I thought like Alton Brown. Egg whites are mostly protein, and yolks are protein and fats. Mayo, the key ingredient in deviled eggs, is whipped egg whites with oil blended in, in an emulsion.

Okay, well if yolks are mostly fat, can't you just thin the hard boiled yolks with some skim milk and use only a tablespoon of mayo to get the consistency right?

I also add in honey mustard, salt & fresh pepper, a dash of horseradish, a tsp of sweet pickle relish, and smoked paprika on top. The whole thing comes out to

3 hard boiled eggs = 230 cals, 2 carbs, 15 fat, and 18 g of protein, and they taste just like paula dean's heart attack mayo bombs.

That's the challenge for people like us, finding inexpensive sources of protein that we like, and preparing them in what may be... unorthodox ways. 90% lean ground beef is epic, so is ground turkey but it's more expensive. Steak, beans, pork, chicken, eggs, fish, and protein fluff muffins (made with protein powder, you can find recipes anywhere) are all ways you can eat protein. OH and don't forget! CENTER CUT BACON, WHICH HAS MORE PROTEIN THAN FAT IN IT! Yes, you can have bacon too if you want.

Make your own little cookbook! Every time you think of something you like and crave, think of how to rearrange the recipe to optimize protein and limit fats.

:drinker:

Do you guys really think that changing my macros will help with my plateau? Does eating too much carbs encourage weight gain/stall somehow?

Yes. Here's how it breaks down:

It's called the thermic effect of food, it's the caloric and metabolic cost of your body breaking down a nutrient into smaller forms that it can assimilate.

Carbs cost about 5%, meaning you get 95% of the calories absorbed from eaten carbs.

Fats are around 0-3%, since a fat is just fatty acids attached to a glycerol molecule. When you eat a fat, the body has literally very little to do to turn the fatty acids you just ate into fatty acids which get stored in your fat cell.

Protein costs 25-35%, meaning out of 100 calories worth of protein, you'll only absorb 65 to 75 calories worth of that food. The rest of the energy is absorbed, but it takes SO much more effort to unchain amino acids that you lose a lot of energy in the breakdown, and it's much less efficient.

So, you can see that two diets of 1500 calories, one focused on carbs and the other focused on protein, the higher protein diet will show a larger loss in weight. I know there are a couple studies out there, but I don't have them bookmarked.

And as to your question about low carbing,

The Idea behind low carbing became widely popularized from the ubiquitous Dr Adkins. Since the late 1700's, low carb diets had been the standard treatment for people with diabetes. Adkins was working with diabetics and found through his practice that a low carb diet helped control some people's diabetes by limiting the insulin response from low glycemic index carbs. He correlated that carbs were bad for all, and that many people could lose weight by limiting carbs even if they didn't have diabetes.

When Adkins published Dr. Adkins Diet Revolution in 1972, he was mostly ignored, this was the time where fats and protein were shown in studies to have risk factors for heart disease, and when you eliminate carbs from a diet, the only other sources to eat are fats and protein. Among other things, critics pointed out that Atkins had done little real research into his theories and based them mostly on his clinical work, IE, no peer reviewed data, and the only source for information was from his own self reported patient results...

The science behind it comes from how our cells use food for energy. Remember high school biology, the citric acid cycle (AKA the krebs cycle), our body breaks down carbs into glucose, and our cells burn the glucose (simply put). When we don't eat enough carbs to fuel us all day, our liver takes protein and stored fat and chains them together to *create* glucose.

If you low carb for long enough, your liver gets REAL tired of this, and your cells will switch over to something called beta oxidation, where your cells take fatty acids (from your fat cells) and burns them directly, instead of first processing the fatty acids INTO glucose in the liver. Burning fat directly through beta oxidation is called Ketosis.

Without going into much more detail, there is an entire dieting sect that is based around trying to get the body into ketosis, and trying to get their bodies to burn fat directly through beta oxidation and ketosis rather than through a balanced lower calorie diet, causing the liver to make glucose out of fats and proteins (called gluconeogenesis).

Low carb diets are great for helping people who are severely overweight, and pre-diabetic or insulin resistant. They are helpful with people who have Poly-cystic Ovarian Syndrome, and other hormonal issues that cause a problem with insulin regulation and general hormone imbalance. In these individuals, their baseline for insulin production is higher, and the cellular response to insulin is exceptionally muted, meaning that they have elevated insulin levels in their body constantly, suppressing the liver's fat oxidizing capabilities.

Carbs and protein spike blood sugar, meaning that insulin has to be produced to regulate that spike in blood sugar. When insulin is elevated, it suppresses fat oxidation in the liver, IE, fat from a balanced meal of equal amounts of fats, proteins, and carbs will be stored in your fat cells immediately, since your liver is busy shuttling carbs and protein around. Once your blood sugar returns to baseline - and subsequently your insulin level, that stored fat from that balanced meal is taken out of your fat cells, and processed in the liver, giving you energy in between meals.

In my own small limited opinion, I think that the body is too good at adapting, and there is no "one strategy" that will take you from fat to fit. I think that today's restaurants are all making a killing selling deep fried and buttered up carbs. Seeing as how meat and protein is so expensive, it makes sense to sell a cheap food source at a decent markup, instead of selling an expensive food source with a thinner margin.

In my experience, carbs are one of the few "ready to eat" sources of food out there, take any bag of potato chips, french fries, snack crackers... they're all carbs. Any source of protein you eat has to either be made and cooked first, or paid for at the steakhouse.

do the 5.2 diet, it's marvellous!!

Are you kidding?!? The OP is trying to lose 3...yes THREE...pounds. The 5:2 diet is extreme and unnecessary.

You've only got 3 pounds to lose, and you probably want to reshape your body in different ways, not necessarily towards losing weight, but looking better in a bikini (I'm just guessing, I'm not sure what your goals are).

You have no idea what lengths models go through to fight off hunger every day. They aren't interested in putting on any muscle or filling out their bodies. As such, they have to eat next to nothing, and more than a few of them will use Hollywood tactics to keep their body slim, IE, the recent upswing in recreational Adderall use, and using banned substances like ephedra.

It really is very simple, you being a certain height and weight require X amount of calories per day, your BMR. If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less than you need for each day. That means if you need 1500 calories per day to maintain, then you can either cut calories or work out more.

The problem is, most women do cardio. Cardio only burns calories while you are doing it. If you're an experienced runner, then the moment you catch your breath after running is the moment your body returns to normal. Normal cellular activity, Normal respiration, normal calorie needs. If you want to create a big enough deficit through cardio, then you'll have to do it for hours to see that -300 calories spent at the gym. (This is why biggest loser contestants work out on the exercise bike for 8 hours a day off camera. The goal is to lose weight. Any muscle gain would be a weight gain, and america is too stupid to know the difference).

*when I say starving below, I mean chronically undereating in a sustained effort for weeks. Please don't lump me in with other people who use the phrase "Starvation mode". Undereating makes your metabolism slow down*

People who are trying to lose weight when they are so close to their goal weight find that, the harder you cut, the more your body resists. Your hormones shift, and they force a starving person to conserve energy. People who starve themselves can see up to a 20% reduction in their BMR. This translates into feeling worse day to day, feeling run down, mood swings, general not feeling well, and being unable to put the full effort and intensity into their workout. A workout performed with a half-hearted effort hasn't really done a thing for the body.

The worst part is, the closer you get to your goal weight, and the less body fat you have, more of the weight lost will be from muscle mass, unless you are eating enough protein and hitting them with resistance training to keep them maintained.

Eating less isn't a solution for thin people though. If you maintain at 1500 (just, for example), and you cut your calories by 20%, that's taking 300 calories off each day. If your body resists that steep of a cut, then you can expect your BMR to drop by about the same rate, which would effectively make your cut a net zero. This doesn't mean that your body will adjust your BMR to any level, it won't. -20% is about all it slows down, but its enough to derail 80% of dieters' cuts.

There is one solution, which a majority of women seem to despise:

For each pound of muscle you gain, your BMR increases by 50 calories per day. Gain just 5 pounds of muscle in every part of your body, your arms, legs, back and torso (which, any bodybuilder will tell you is not much of a muscle gain at all, visible muscles take months for MEN to achieve)... Gain just 5 pounds of muscle and keep eating at your old levels, and you'd in fact create a deficit of 250 calories per day.

Gain a modest 10 pounds and have a Jessica Biel booty or Michelle Obama arms, and you'd need to increase your calories by 500 a day just to maintain.

Let me speak candidly, in an adult way about the human body. In my humble opinion, so many women have heard the wrong things for so many years about how to achieve the perfect body. It's not through cardio and eating celery.

The reason why women should gain muscle is to look better. Imagine Kim Kardashian's posterior, and compare it in your mind to any random skinny girl at the beach in a bikini. Most of the women you just pictured had pancake a$$es, didn't they?

Kim Kardashian was just blessed with a genetic makeup which made her glute muscles naturally big, without her having to work to get them. She has to work to keep weight OFF. The same thing goes for the pectoral muscles, women have them just the same as men, and with slightly fuller, stronger pecs you will help to fight gravity and give lift, if you follow my meaning. Gaining muscle in the right places will make you look the way you see yourself in your dreams.

Guys go through the same thing when they lift weights trying to look better naked. They choose the lifts that will grow the muscles they want to grow to make themselves look better.

*****************
The bottom line is, at some point, you reach your potential to weigh less, and there are only two things you can do to lose more:

Eat less. Yes, this means that, even though you are cutting... if you aren't losing, then you are eating as much as your body needs, and it's not taking any energy from stored fat. Calories in DOES equal calories out.

*****************

Engage in MORE exercise to combat the drop in your BMR. But, as soon as you step off the treadmill you stop burning, and this effect gets WORSE as you become a better and more efficient runner.

Including strength training to your workouts does mean that your goals would change though, from an arbitrary number on the scale to TRULY looking better in a bikini. Your goal weight would change from 120 to 130 (or whatever).. but the challenge here is to not overeat, and to make sure that most of the gains come from muscle weight, not fat weight gained.

I went through a sort of transition a year ago. I had just lost 50 pounds off my 5'5" frame, 25% of my bodyweight, and I looked AWESOME in my new clothes. But I looked even WORSE naked, with all the loose areas. Not that I had extra skin everywhere, I just looked almost deflated.

I had to change my goals from getting to 155 pounds, which would be "normal" weight for a man my size with no muscles, to 185 pounds, slowly gaining it while choosing lifts that targeted the muscles I wanted to grow. That BMR chart needs to be burned, every last copy. It's meaningless, because it includes no measures for BF% or for health.

I'm doing squats to give myself a legen - wait for it - dary hard butt, and train my core muscles to have more abilities in the bedroom (of course, also having more abilities in the real world, like helping people to move furniture - but who goes to the gym to get better at that?). I'm also adding in bicep curls and tricep extensions to reshape my arms.. because honestly, what guy doesn't like the feeling of someone swooning over rock hard muscle?

In the same way, find what muscles you want to get bigger and fill out the skin that sits atop them, and choose lifts that challenge those muscles, making them repair and grow bigger.

I hope I didn't talk your ear off, but you're asking the questions that every person asks when they get close to their goal: "It's not going down any more" and in my case, I asked "Why do I look WORSE?"

Let me add a link to help show you what I mean:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/535512-real-mfp-women-weight-training-befores-and-afters

In that thread, you will see woman after woman who gained 10 pounds or more, and each of them look better, have less fat, and have better looking bodies than the before pictures.

And if you wanted to get the inside scoop from a Hollywood trainer, read this article, Jason is AWESOME:
http://jasonferruggia.com/how-to-get-a-body-like-jessica-biel/

Why not stop focusing on the number on the scale and go by how you feel about the way you look? Cause to be honest 3lbs won't change anything look wise.