Has anyone broke their plateau by eating more??
Options
Replies
-
What actually happens is there is a third party variable that causes the weight loss when upping your calorie intake (like you get upset you didnt lose, so you track better) and people attribute this to eating more even though its scientifically impossible.0
-
I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.
Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.
When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.
Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.
What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.
If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.
My understanding is that this is not adaptive thermogenesis. Adaptive thermogenesis is the adjustment of the actual metabolism -- lowering or increasing -- in response to deficit or surplus, not a near-term shifting of the energy expenditure away from non-essential bodily functions in order to maintain fat stores for longer. It's my understanding that adaptive thermogenesis is a long term effect and it takes quite awhile until the body adjusts -- months and months of deprivation -- but that the energy expenditure paradigm shift occurs in the near term. If the body is not given fuel (either by increasing calories or reducing deficit), adaptive thermogenesis will eventually result in the overall metabolism slowing but that that big of a shift takes a much longer time.
What I'm describing is a shorter term effect. Not an overall reduction in metabolism, but a shift in the energy expenditure paradigm (i.e. the overall numbers are the same, but less fat is being released for the deficit, instead other bodily functions are being decreased or being more "efficient"). And that's why people in large deficits for a prolonged time usually feel pretty crappy -- fatigue, sometimes cold, lethargic, unable to exercise as much, poor sleep, etc.
Do you have a name for this short-term effect? Can you provide any studies? Or just give me the name and I will do my own search on it. I have never heard of this and I have my doubts.
I can't remember it. I had a discussion with a specialist a while ago about it and we talked water retention, hormonal response, RMR, etc. so I just remember the theories behind it and the mechanism -- not sure about the name or if it even had one.
But, it made a lot of sense to me. The funny part I have is that some people will say this is impossible and then at the same time admit that weight loss isn't linear. But, they never seem to think about why it isn't linear? Because if the deficit is linear and weight loss has a direct relationship with the deficit, then logic dictates that weight loss should be linear as well. But, almost everyone agrees that it often is not linear -- at least not in the short term.0 -
Yes it has worked for me. I wasn't ever eating that low but I raised my cals from 1700 to 2200 and lost 3lbs. over a period of weeks where as I had been in a plateau for months before that.0
-
So, when do people usually plateau? I am 29 lbs down and still have 27 more to go but I am stuck at this weight for over three weeks now.
Should I up it and see how it goes?0 -
I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.
Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.
When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.
Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.
What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.
If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.
My understanding is that this is not adaptive thermogenesis. Adaptive thermogenesis is the adjustment of the actual metabolism -- lowering or increasing -- in response to deficit or surplus, not a near-term shifting of the energy expenditure away from non-essential bodily functions in order to maintain fat stores for longer. It's my understanding that adaptive thermogenesis is a long term effect and it takes quite awhile until the body adjusts -- months and months of deprivation -- but that the energy expenditure paradigm shift occurs in the near term. If the body is not given fuel (either by increasing calories or reducing deficit), adaptive thermogenesis will eventually result in the overall metabolism slowing but that that big of a shift takes a much longer time.
What I'm describing is a shorter term effect. Not an overall reduction in metabolism, but a shift in the energy expenditure paradigm (i.e. the overall numbers are the same, but less fat is being released for the deficit, instead other bodily functions are being decreased or being more "efficient"). And that's why people in large deficits for a prolonged time usually feel pretty crappy -- fatigue, sometimes cold, lethargic, unable to exercise as much, poor sleep, etc.
Do you have a name for this short-term effect? Can you provide any studies? Or just give me the name and I will do my own search on it. I have never heard of this and I have my doubts.
I can't remember it. I had a discussion with a specialist a while ago about it and we talked water retention, hormonal response, RMR, etc. so I just remember the theories behind it and the mechanism -- not sure about the name or if it even had one.
But, it made a lot of sense to me. The funny part I have is that some people will say this is impossible and then at the same time admit that weight loss isn't linear. But, they never seem to think about why it isn't linear? Because if the deficit is linear and weight loss has a direct relationship with the deficit, then logic dictates that weight loss should be linear as well. But, almost everyone agrees that it often is not linear -- at least not in the short term.
A deficit is never linear. I can't and don't hit a 1000 calorie deficit every single day. Some days I am at 900, sometimes 980, etc. Also water plays a huge role.0 -
So, when do people usually plateau? I am 29 lbs down and still have 27 more to go but I am stuck at this weight for over three weeks now.
Should I up it and see how it goes?
People only plateau if you aren't eating at a deficit. It isn't real.
Yes if it will make you track better in the long run.
No if you don't want to gain weight0 -
Bimp0
-
Yep. Same thing.0
-
To be completely honest here, I think the "plateau" is nothing more than a need to up the intensity of your exercises. Your body's been conditioned. You've lost weight. Now your body is at its norm and if you want to be smaller you have to start pushing yourself again.0
-
So, when do people usually plateau? I am 29 lbs down and still have 27 more to go but I am stuck at this weight for over three weeks now.
Should I up it and see how it goes?
It seems to vary according to people. I had a stall like that that went on for almost a month, then the "whoosh" happened a week later, showing the weight loss. For me, the biggest indicator is how you feel (if you're already carefully tracking your calories). Do you feel fatigued, possibly overtrained, etc.? If so, you may want to back off a little and give your body time to recover. If not, then you're probably fine and just keep plodding along and wait for the whoosh to catch up.
For me, I was maintaining a large deficit -- averaging over 800 daily deficit -- which worked great for about 6 weeks, then dead stall. I was doing the exact same things, so I was pretty darn confident in my calorie and expenditure calculations. I dropped back to about a 550 daily deficit for a week -- mostly by having two big refeed days and taking a rest week (which for me, meant no lifting and no HIIT -- just lots of walking). The next week, 4 lbs gone. And I'm back to my old routine.
From what I've seen, especially for women, many of us seem to need these breaks. And from what I've read, it has to do with hormonal responses that large deficits cause.
I don't understand people that say these "plateaus don't exist", though I understand we can have different definitions of plateau, and that water plays a huge role in what the scale says as well -- so much of the confusion may be due to this difference in definition. But, the ones that say "no you're wrong about your deficit" confuse me the most because if you were losing previously, obviously you know how to create a deficit. If you're not doing something different -- like got lazy on calorie tracking, not exercising the same, etc. -- then it has to be something else.0 -
I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.
Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.
When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.
Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.
What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.
If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.
My understanding is that this is not adaptive thermogenesis. Adaptive thermogenesis is the adjustment of the actual metabolism -- lowering or increasing -- in response to deficit or surplus, not a near-term shifting of the energy expenditure away from non-essential bodily functions in order to maintain fat stores for longer. It's my understanding that adaptive thermogenesis is a long term effect and it takes quite awhile until the body adjusts -- months and months of deprivation -- but that the energy expenditure paradigm shift occurs in the near term. If the body is not given fuel (either by increasing calories or reducing deficit), adaptive thermogenesis will eventually result in the overall metabolism slowing but that that big of a shift takes a much longer time.
What I'm describing is a shorter term effect. Not an overall reduction in metabolism, but a shift in the energy expenditure paradigm (i.e. the overall numbers are the same, but less fat is being released for the deficit, instead other bodily functions are being decreased or being more "efficient"). And that's why people in large deficits for a prolonged time usually feel pretty crappy -- fatigue, sometimes cold, lethargic, unable to exercise as much, poor sleep, etc.
Do you have a name for this short-term effect? Can you provide any studies? Or just give me the name and I will do my own search on it. I have never heard of this and I have my doubts.
I can't remember it. I had a discussion with a specialist a while ago about it and we talked water retention, hormonal response, RMR, etc. so I just remember the theories behind it and the mechanism -- not sure about the name or if it even had one.
But, it made a lot of sense to me. The funny part I have is that some people will say this is impossible and then at the same time admit that weight loss isn't linear. But, they never seem to think about why it isn't linear? Because if the deficit is linear and weight loss has a direct relationship with the deficit, then logic dictates that weight loss should be linear as well. But, almost everyone agrees that it often is not linear -- at least not in the short term.
A deficit is never linear. I can't and don't hit a 1000 calorie deficit every single day. Some days I am at 900, sometimes 980, etc. Also water plays a huge role.
I guess it depends on your deficit. For me, my deficit is far more linear than my weight loss. It may not be exactly linear, but the line of best fit is far closer to my deficit calculations than my weight calculations. And, yes, I agree with you that water plays a big role as well.0 -
I used to be really grouchy and hangry at 1600 cals a day. I am at 2200 cals a day now and am losing weight faster now than I was at 1600. But I never really had a "plateau" or stalled, I just lost weight slower and was a miserable human being at 1600/day.0
-
I used to be really grouchy and hangry at 1600 cals a day. I am at 2200 cals a day now and am losing weight faster now than I was at 1600. But I never really had a "plateau" or stalled, I just lost weight slower and was a miserable human being at 1600/day.
That's what I've seen too, and that's why the whole "sweet spot" of weight loss makes sense to me. Because otherwise things like you describe would be physically impossible, and yet it's not an uncommon experience.0 -
So if your BMR is 1792, why would you want to eat under that? Your BMR is your bottom line. That is the amount of calories your particular body needs to function at an absolute least. Although it is not a perfect number. Could be off by +/- 50. A great example of this that I enjoy quoting is think of that amount of calories your body needs if you were comatose. You cannot get any more in a resting state than that! For you, it's 1792. So, if you're eating 1750, and you're obviously not comatose, then your body is not getting the minimal amount of calories it needs for proper function.
Suggesting your body cannot function when you eat under your BMR shows a clear misunderstanding of how the body functions and how the body can pull energy from fat stores. Your body will continue to function so long as you have fat stores that your body can use to meet your caloric deficit. Eating below your BMR is not necessarily a problem.
What you're describing from people eating a VLCD is metabolic slowdown but that's not restricted to just VLCD's. That said, I don't disagree that it occurs, but it has little to do with breaking plateaus by eating more. If your metabolism has slowed to the point where you're plateauing at 1200 calories, eating 1500 calories won't cause you to lose more - in fact, you seem to be agreeing with this, as you refer to people returning to their "predicted" maintenance calories and gaining weight. At the end of the day, it may be a language issue and we may not entirely disagree on the subject.0 -
To be completely honest here, I think the "plateau" is nothing more than a need to up the intensity of your exercises. Your body's been conditioned. You've lost weight. Now your body is at its norm and if you want to be smaller you have to start pushing yourself again.
I had lost 50 pound with no exercise at all. Once i started to exercise my loss stopped for 2 1/2 months. Backed off on the intensity/days and scale dropped immediately. Everyone is different. What works for one may not work for the next.0 -
Really, everyone is different. I do think if you are not losing to look at your intake/outtake first. Make sure you are logging correctly. After maybe up your cals for a day or two and than lower and see how that goes. I see many people have cheat days and it seems to work for them. I upped my cals/exercises and yes I am losing weight still, but it is very slow now. Also, you have to give change time. I am waiting another week before I change anything again. Good luck.0
-
So if your BMR is 1792, why would you want to eat under that? Your BMR is your bottom line. That is the amount of calories your particular body needs to function at an absolute least. Although it is not a perfect number. Could be off by +/- 50. A great example of this that I enjoy quoting is think of that amount of calories your body needs if you were comatose. You cannot get any more in a resting state than that! For you, it's 1792. So, if you're eating 1750, and you're obviously not comatose, then your body is not getting the minimal amount of calories it needs for proper function.
Suggesting your body cannot function when you eat under your BMR shows a clear misunderstanding of how the body functions and how the body can pull energy from fat stores. Your body will continue to function so long as you have fat stores that your body can use to meet your caloric deficit. Eating below your BMR is not necessarily a problem.
What you're describing from people eating a VLCD is metabolic slowdown but that's not restricted to just VLCD's. That said, I don't disagree that it occurs, but it has little to do with breaking plateaus by eating more. If your metabolism has slowed to the point where you're plateauing at 1200 calories, eating 1500 calories won't cause you to lose more - in fact, you seem to be agreeing with this, as you refer to people returning to their "predicted" maintenance calories and gaining weight. At the end of the day, it may be a language issue and we may not entirely disagree on the subject.
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues.
You do not understand BMR. And I doubt you read the quotes I provided. Please read this:
In this person's situation, 1792 (again, it's not exact and can be off up or down), is the minimal amount of daily calories he needs for proper body functioning. What that means is heart pumping, blood flowing, lungs inhaling and exhaling, kidney and liver functions, waste removal, skin and hair growth, cell functions, etc. It is dependent upon a persons gender, age, height and weight. This number, again not 100% accurate, depicts the minimum at a complete resting state. If you still don't understand it, then I suggest you gather some books and read.
Let me try this differently.
Man. Age 45. BMR: 1792.
Man eats 1750 calories per day.
Man is not in a resting state.
Man is exercising.
Man is working.
Man is active.
Man burns between 600 and 800 calories per day being active, exercising and working.
Man's body needs 1792.
Man should add 600 - 800 to 1792 for maintenance (TDEE).
Man eats 1750.
Man subtracts 1792 from 1750 (does not compute).
Man's body needs 42 calories for proper organ function.
Man burned 600 - 800 calories today.
Man's body has been short-changed.
Man's body not happy.
About the plateaus... I was agreeing. Again, comprehension.0 -
I've been on a plataeu for the last 5 months and I've tried just about everyhting in that ammount of time... Doubling my work outs to 2 hrs a day/ 4-5 days a week from 1 hr and eating a little more sometimes to eat some of those calories back.... Still nothing has changed, I'm a far cry from a goal weight and I'm just gonna keep trying it.
Everyone is different and there is no magic cure in my opinion, you just have to try different things until you find whats right for you. This topic has brought a lot of mixed advise from people and I would probably just try a couple of things, give it more than a week or two and see what happens. I wish you the best, good luck!0 -
This seems apropos considering the current conversation - not weighing in on one side or the other btw - just noticed this article in my Facebook News Feed right now.
It's from Lyle McDonald and he is sharing an interview on "Metabolic Damage" he did for Alan Aragon's Research Review. So it sheds some light on the topic, plus you get a look at the type of awesome content Alan's Research Review includes monthly.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html0 -
Let me try this differently.
... Man's body needs 42 calories for proper organ function.
Man burned 600 - 800 calories today.
Man's body has been short-changed.
Man's body not happy.
Actually, man's body may be perfectly happy. Man's body still burns those 42 calories and pulls them from man's fat stores if it can (which it almost certainly can unless this man is incredibly lean). You're spelling out a hypo of "eating under your BMR makes your body unhappy" in more detail but my point is that eating under your BMR has little to do with how well your body functions and whether your body has been shortchanged. In other words, providing hypos that illustrate an idea doesn't make that idea true. Just like your body pulls deficit calories from your fat stores when you eat below your TDEE, your body will look to pull deficit calories from your fat stores when you eat below your BMR. It doesn't suddenly say "Oh no, you've crossed a calculated estimated number of calories and now I will enter 'preservation mode.'" BMR is useful for calculating TDEE, but it's not a threshold amount of calories recognized by your body.
Rather than telling me to go read books and linking fitday, do you have any sort of medical study suggesting that BMR is a threshold that should not be crossed or that BMR is the point at which metabolic damage/slowdown occurs or whatever else "body is not happy" means? While I see people on forums and blogs suggesting that eating below BMR may be problematic, I have yet to see any actual literature suggesting as much. To see where I'm coming from, you might take a look at Alpert SS. "A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia," J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13. Their research suggests that how much of a deficit you can run without catabolizing muscle depends largely on how much fat you're carrying around and that maximum deficit is way less than your BMR for almost everyone saved for someone who is incredibly lean (perhaps too lean to even be practical). And that research actually tracks pretty well with real-life examples. Incredibly large people get by with losing pounds of fat per week (i.e., running a much more aggressive caloric deficit with a caloric intake well below their calculated BMR) while lean individuals don't really have that option.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions