Scientifically Are the Last 10 lbs REALLY the Hardest?
Replies
-
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight. There are models for this stuff. Yeah, you really can treat it like a math equation. If you eat 300 "extra" calories for the rest of your life you don't gain weight forever as you surmised in the linked post, you gain until your weight adjusts your BMR to account for the extra 300 and you stabilize at a new maintenance weight...a weight that you can calculate with the Harris-Benedict equation.0 -
your body evolved to survive food shortages, not to have 6 pack abs in a society that has a constant, abundant supply of food.
when you realise that, then it makes total sense.
the more fat you have, the easier it is to lose, because you're in no danger of starving to death. However, once your body fat pecentage is in the healthy range, then if you are continuously not eating enough food to meet your body's energy needs, then your body's going to change how it burns fat in order to protect you from starvation. When you don't eat enough, your body will start to burn skeletal muscle as well as fat to make the energy shortfall... this makes your fat stores last longer and greatly increase your chances of surviving the food shortage. The less fat you have in your body, the more likely your body's going to burn muscle along with the fat, as opposed to just burning fat. Loss of lean mass = slower metabolism, because your muscle cells are an energy expensive tissue. Your body saves energy this way... good news for surviving a food shortage but bad news if you want 6 pack abs.
And yes the does make losing the last 10lb of fat more difficult, and it makes it more likely you'll lose 10lb of weight yet still have more flab than you want, because a significant amount of the weight you lost was muscle, not fat. Additionally, adaptive thermogeneis can further slow the metabolism and make fat loss even harder... again, the less fat you have to lose the more likely your body's going to do this, because it's a mechanism for surviving a food shortage.
The less you have to lose, the more conservative you need to be with your deficit to avoid loss of lean mass along with the fat.
Great post. I'm exercising a lot and eating very well and losing about .5lb a week or less. It's a bit disheartening since I started this journey obese and it wasn't "easy" to drop weight fast before but it did happen a lot. Now I'm really trying to stay motivated as I'm only about 15lb from goal weight.0 -
There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.
I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.0 -
For me, the last ten pounds was harder mentally. I wanted so badly to "get there" and I was really excited about it, which made it seem like the last weeks were taking forever. In my opinion though, maintenance is way harder than losing the last ten pounds.
Edited for punctuation and spelling0 -
There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.
I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.
It's actually very hard to lose fat without losing muscle at any weight.0 -
In my opinion though, maintenance is way harder than losing the last ten pounds.
you don't say~0 -
There is an "essential" fat level at about 4% for men and I think around 10% for women (could be wrong on the exact numbers). Presumably if you get that low and continue to try to caloricly restrict your body would switch from getting calories from fat and start to burn your muscle instead. My understanding though is that this process is switched on only when you get down to essential fat. You can see evidence for this in competitive bodybuilders who maintain extremely high muscle mass while cutting down to 4-5% bodyfat. The suggestions I've seen here about it actually getting harder seems to be that when you get low percent bodyfat (like 8-10% for a man) that your body starts to "resist" losing fat.
I'm not sure that is true...I am skeptical of that and would want more than a "common sense" explanation before I accepted it. If I have learned anything from science its that peoples common sense has a real bad reputation for describing actual reality.
It's actually very hard to lose fat without losing muscle at any weight.
Oh yeah I believe that, I'm just not sure it is harder at one percent bodyfat than at another percent bodyfat unless you are down to your essential fat.0 -
I've been told by my trainer, that the last 10 lbs are the most difficult to lose, because the longer you stay in a calorie deficit, the slower your metabolism becomes over time. I lost 10 lbs and have another 10 to go. I didn't have much to lose anyway, so I'm finding it very difficult to get the last lbs off. The idea is, that when you hit a plateau, which is what you are going though now I'm assuming, you should slowly increase your calories (very slowly and only macro-targeted, healthy calories) so that your body's metabolism increases.
You do this until your weight stabilizes. It took me about a month and half for my weight to become stable (within a pound) and it should stay that way for a week at least. I gained a couple, and then I stabilized. Once you've accomplished this, you drop your caloric intake to what it was -- 1-1.5 lbs loss per week. I'm just starting this phase, accompanied by 3 days of strength training and 2 days of long cardio. I'm told, they will come off much easier because my metabolism is functioning normally again. It does make sense though, from a scientific standpoint. If your metabolism drops by staying in a deficit for too long, your body can go into starvation mode -- in other words -- fat-storing mode, and those 10 last pounds will never come off because your body is working hard to store fat. This is the best explanation that anyone has ever given me, and it makes the most sense. He also told me, you should do this program as a cycle. So 3 month slight deficit with more cardio, and then 3 month maintenance plain with strength training. It'll keeps your metabolism in check, I'm told. Hope that helps!0 -
In my opinion though, maintenance is way harder than losing the last ten pounds.
you don't say~
Unequivocally, but then I'm relating only my experience. YMMV0 -
As most others said already, towards the ultimate goal weight, it takes longer because of the deficeit factor.
However, in the last 3 weeks I lost 2.4 lbs, which puts me at 7.4 to goal.
So needless to say, I don't find these last lbs the hardest. Just have to really focus on staying within your numbers.
This coming from a non exerciser , just portion control works for me.0 -
So, with the OP's question in mind. At what point do you re-evaluate your BMR/TDEE and adjust to figure out the appropriate number of calories for a deficit (albeit a smaller deficit)? I only have 14 lbs to go to my current goal, so I assume I won't be adjusting, but if I had 40 lbs to go....?0
-
*0
-
So, with the OP's question in mind. At what point do you re-evaluate your BMR/TDEE and adjust to figure out the appropriate number of calories for a deficit (albeit a smaller deficit)? I only have 14 lbs to go to my current goal, so I assume I won't be adjusting, but if I had 40 lbs to go....?
I seem to remember that MFP automatically asks if you want to reset your macros about every ten pounds you lose. Other than that, you can always plug your numbers into a TDEE calculator whenever you wish. Check out: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/0 -
OP, that was a really good question that a lot of people needed to see the answer to so they can understand what an uphill battle weight loss can be sometimes. Don't worry about the condescending replies.0
-
I've been told by my trainer, that the last 10 lbs are the most difficult to lose, because the longer you stay in a calorie deficit, the slower your metabolism becomes over time. I lost 10 lbs and have another 10 to go. I didn't have much to lose anyway, so I'm finding it very difficult to get the last lbs off. The idea is, that when you hit a plateau, which is what you are going though now I'm assuming, you should slowly increase your calories (very slowly and only macro-targeted, healthy calories) so that your body's metabolism increases.
You do this until your weight stabilizes. It took me about a month and half for my weight to become stable (within a pound) and it should stay that way for a week at least. I gained a couple, and then I stabilized. Once you've accomplished this, you drop your caloric intake to what it was -- 1-1.5 lbs loss per week. I'm just starting this phase, accompanied by 3 days of strength training and 2 days of long cardio. I'm told, they will come off much easier because my metabolism is functioning normally again. It does make sense though, from a scientific standpoint. If your metabolism drops by staying in a deficit for too long, your body can go into starvation mode -- in other words -- fat-storing mode, and those 10 last pounds will never come off because your body is working hard to store fat. This is the best explanation that anyone has ever given me, and it makes the most sense. He also told me, you should do this program as a cycle. So 3 month slight deficit with more cardio, and then 3 month maintenance plain with strength training. It'll keeps your metabolism in check, I'm told. Hope that helps!
He is giving you terrible advice that has been scientifically proven wrong. Anorexics are constantly in a deficit, yet they seem to lose fat/weight quite well. Starvation mode is called adaptive thermogenesis and I suggest you do some research for yourself as it is largely a myth, especially concerning your particular case.0 -
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight. There are models for this stuff. Yeah, you really can treat it like a math equation. If you eat 300 "extra" calories for the rest of your life you don't gain weight forever as you surmised in the linked post, you gain until your weight adjusts your BMR to account for the extra 300 and you stabilize at a new maintenance weight...a weight that you can calculate with the Harris-Benedict equation.
That's not wholly accurate. There has been at least one study lately where it showed that people who lost 10% or more of their bodyweight had a lower than expected BMR for their new weight (as compared to those with the same weight/body comp who didn't lose weight) -- to the tune of 20% lower BMR. I don't have a link off the top of my head but it was done by that doctor from Cornell that does all the leptin research.0 -
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight. There are models for this stuff. Yeah, you really can treat it like a math equation. If you eat 300 "extra" calories for the rest of your life you don't gain weight forever as you surmised in the linked post, you gain until your weight adjusts your BMR to account for the extra 300 and you stabilize at a new maintenance weight...a weight that you can calculate with the Harris-Benedict equation.
That's not wholly accurate. There has been at least one study lately where it showed that people who lost 10% or more of their bodyweight had a lower than expected BMR for their new weight (as compared to those with the same weight/body comp who didn't lose weight) -- to the tune of 20% lower BMR. I don't have a link off the top of my head but it was done by that doctor from Cornell that does all the leptin research.
Additional variables do not invalidate the validity of an equation. Exceptions do not break the rule they provide modifications under certain specific scenario's. Doesn't mean caloric deficits and weight loss aren't mathematically tractable.0 -
I don't think he was suggesting that I starve myself -- nor am I suggesting that. I think, he was just giving me some good advice on how to move forward, from a 2 month plateau. I'm assuming, since most people that use MFP are trying to lose weight, they are set on eating a calorie deficit diet until they reach their goal weight. I'm just saying, if you stop losing weight with no other factors involved -- I.e, you aren't calorie creeping, and have just been dieting for for far too long, your metabolism can and will likely slow down above and beyond the range if you were eating more calories.
There are some scientific articles supporting calorie cycling as a good way to lose fat, and there is a large number of respected experts who support it. Also, science isn't always ahead of the curve. Alternating low calorie with high calorie days MAY prevent starvation responses from occurring, bring you back to having much more energy, and therefore help to burn more calories. I trust my trainer, he knows what he's talking about and he helps people achieve their goals every day. It's his job. I do my homework too, and I've heard lots of good things from people who calorie cycle.
0 -
Just wanted to throw out that this thread made me feel better, and I read it at just the right time.
I've been stuck on the last 10lbs for about 6mo now, losing .2 or .5 every other week or so. I thought I was just flubbing up, but I can see now it is going to come off, but slower.
Great thread, thanks guys!0 -
I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
This is THE LAST PLACE you should ever come for informed information from educated people based on science or fact. If you're looking for people spouting myths and misinformation as if they did in fact have degrees in kinesiology and nutrition then you've come to the right place...0 -
Losing muscle equates to faster weight loss considering 3500 calories would equate to losing just under 6 lbs of muscle as opposed to losing 1 lb of fat..........Personally I go by how I look and if I'm looking softer I can generally equate that to improper nutrition and/or not working out for a period of time.your body evolved to survive food shortages, not to have 6 pack abs in a society that has a constant, abundant supply of food.
when you realise that, then it makes total sense.
the more fat you have, the easier it is to lose, because you're in no danger of starving to death. However, once your body fat pecentage is in the healthy range, then if you are continuously not eating enough food to meet your body's energy needs, then your body's going to change how it burns fat in order to protect you from starvation. When you don't eat enough, your body will start to burn skeletal muscle as well as fat to make the energy shortfall... this makes your fat stores last longer and greatly increase your chances of surviving the food shortage. The less fat you have in your body, the more likely your body's going to burn muscle along with the fat, as opposed to just burning fat. Loss of lean mass = slower metabolism, because your muscle cells are an energy expensive tissue. Your body saves energy this way... good news for surviving a food shortage but bad news if you want 6 pack abs.
And yes the does make losing the last 10lb of fat more difficult, and it makes it more likely you'll lose 10lb of weight yet still have more flab than you want, because a significant amount of the weight you lost was muscle, not fat. Additionally, adaptive thermogeneis can further slow the metabolism and make fat loss even harder... again, the less fat you have to lose the more likely your body's going to do this, because it's a mechanism for surviving a food shortage.
The less you have to lose, the more conservative you need to be with your deficit to avoid loss of lean mass along with the fat. Once you're in the healthy body fat percentage range, then aim to lose fat really slowly, e.g. 0.5lb/week. Additionally, having refeed days (where you eat at or slightly above maintenance) and even entire weeks where you eat at maintenance, can help.0 -
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight. There are models for this stuff. Yeah, you really can treat it like a math equation. If you eat 300 "extra" calories for the rest of your life you don't gain weight forever as you surmised in the linked post, you gain until your weight adjusts your BMR to account for the extra 300 and you stabilize at a new maintenance weight...a weight that you can calculate with the Harris-Benedict equation.
That's not wholly accurate. There has been at least one study lately where it showed that people who lost 10% or more of their bodyweight had a lower than expected BMR for their new weight (as compared to those with the same weight/body comp who didn't lose weight) -- to the tune of 20% lower BMR. I don't have a link off the top of my head but it was done by that doctor from Cornell that does all the leptin research.
Additional variables do not invalidate the validity of an equation. Exceptions do not break the rule they provide modifications under certain specific scenario's. Doesn't mean caloric deficits and weight loss aren't mathematically tractable.
Well, unless the equation takes into account those variables, it makes a difference. You said:
"Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight."
And that's not wholly correct, or at least we haven't figured out the appropriate equation because those with same bodyweight and composition can have BMRs that differ by 20% based on whether they've lost over 10% of their bodyweight or not. That's why I said, it's not wholly accurate. It's not completely inaccurate, but it's not wholly accurate either.0 -
I don't know about you but i wouldn't want to be eating 500 calories hahaha i would rather take the slower weightloss rate0
-
Many factors effect how calories are burned from one individual to another. Neat can account for very little deviation or upwards of 700 calories for 2 individuals that appear to be the same. All energy is accounted for except it's difficult to generalize how that may effect 1 individual, which is what your trying to do, and somehow make it invalid.Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight. There are models for this stuff. Yeah, you really can treat it like a math equation. If you eat 300 "extra" calories for the rest of your life you don't gain weight forever as you surmised in the linked post, you gain until your weight adjusts your BMR to account for the extra 300 and you stabilize at a new maintenance weight...a weight that you can calculate with the Harris-Benedict equation.
That's not wholly accurate. There has been at least one study lately where it showed that people who lost 10% or more of their bodyweight had a lower than expected BMR for their new weight (as compared to those with the same weight/body comp who didn't lose weight) -- to the tune of 20% lower BMR. I don't have a link off the top of my head but it was done by that doctor from Cornell that does all the leptin research.
Additional variables do not invalidate the validity of an equation. Exceptions do not break the rule they provide modifications under certain specific scenario's. Doesn't mean caloric deficits and weight loss aren't mathematically tractable.
Well, unless the equation takes into account those variables, it makes a difference. You said:
"Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight."
And that's not wholly correct, or at least we haven't figured out the appropriate equation because those with same bodyweight and composition can have BMRs that differ by 20% based on whether they've lost over 10% of their bodyweight or not. That's why I said, it's not wholly accurate. It's not completely inaccurate, but it's not wholly accurate either.0 -
I've been told by my trainer, that the last 10 lbs are the most difficult to lose, because the longer you stay in a calorie deficit, the slower your metabolism becomes over time. I lost 10 lbs and have another 10 to go. I didn't have much to lose anyway, so I'm finding it very difficult to get the last lbs off. The idea is, that when you hit a plateau, which is what you are going though now I'm assuming, you should slowly increase your calories (very slowly and only macro-targeted, healthy calories) so that your body's metabolism increases.
You do this until your weight stabilizes. It took me about a month and half for my weight to become stable (within a pound) and it should stay that way for a week at least. I gained a couple, and then I stabilized. Once you've accomplished this, you drop your caloric intake to what it was -- 1-1.5 lbs loss per week. I'm just starting this phase, accompanied by 3 days of strength training and 2 days of long cardio. I'm told, they will come off much easier because my metabolism is functioning normally again. It does make sense though, from a scientific standpoint. If your metabolism drops by staying in a deficit for too long, your body can go into starvation mode -- in other words -- fat-storing mode, and those 10 last pounds will never come off because your body is working hard to store fat. This is the best explanation that anyone has ever given me, and it makes the most sense. He also told me, you should do this program as a cycle. So 3 month slight deficit with more cardio, and then 3 month maintenance plain with strength training. It'll keeps your metabolism in check, I'm told. Hope that helps!
He is giving you terrible advice that has been scientifically proven wrong. Anorexics are constantly in a deficit, yet they seem to lose fat/weight quite well. Starvation mode is called adaptive thermogenesis and I suggest you do some research for yourself as it is largely a myth, especially concerning your particular case.
Actually, not a myth, and actually, the comment about eating more is the way to fix it.
Perhaps newer research than you've seen.
Would you call a 25% deficit to a measured TDEE causing an effect "largely a myth" - or very possible to hit.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss0 -
Well, unless the equation takes into account those variables, it makes a difference. You said:
"Your metabolism (BMR) changes in a mathematically predictable manner based on your weight."
And that's not wholly correct, or at least we haven't figured out the appropriate equation because those with same bodyweight and composition can have BMRs that differ by 20% based on whether they've lost over 10% of their bodyweight or not. That's why I said, it's not wholly accurate. It's not completely inaccurate, but it's not wholly accurate either.
But it is interesting they are trying to figure out that equation, because it is actually known effect as you say.
How much does your TDEE lower because of becoming more metabolically efficient, above and beyond known effects of weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764961/
Also, it's not the BMR by itself, that doesn't change as much, it's the whole TDEE that actually lowers.
Other links on that fact above.0 -
I don't know the science but it sure ****ing feels like it :grumble:0
-
(Haven't had the time to read all posts)
I just wanted to say that if, according to my scale at home, I would be at 500kcal deficit/week I should net kcal at about 856kcal/day.. every day. But MFP must have 1200 kcal as the lowest for a reason..
Before I listened to MFP, so ofc I I never reached my "goal" weight with that (then didn't give a**** about my weight for a while) and now I'm on it again. But I'm not sure how I would do. If I stick to 1200 net kcal, of course it will take much longer time for me to lose the .(okay I don't even ahve 10lbs to lose, maybe 5.5..because my netkcal to maintain my weight is only 1356 kcal/day...
and to keep my net kcal at 856/day, you know how much I would have to work out then?(can't even run and stuff like that because I have shin splints )0 -
I'm less than 15lbs from goal weight and trying to keep up motivation to continue trying so hard. I bumped up my exercise intensity a lot but it has also made my appetite go kind of crazy. I eat at a rather small deficit and that takes a lot of self-control. I'd like a much larger deficit but I don't have enough control over my eating to restrict further. I wish I could.0
-
I've been told by my trainer, that the last 10 lbs are the most difficult to lose, because the longer you stay in a calorie deficit, the slower your metabolism becomes over time. I lost 10 lbs and have another 10 to go. I didn't have much to lose anyway, so I'm finding it very difficult to get the last lbs off. The idea is, that when you hit a plateau, which is what you are going though now I'm assuming, you should slowly increase your calories (very slowly and only macro-targeted, healthy calories) so that your body's metabolism increases.
You do this until your weight stabilizes. It took me about a month and half for my weight to become stable (within a pound) and it should stay that way for a week at least. I gained a couple, and then I stabilized. Once you've accomplished this, you drop your caloric intake to what it was -- 1-1.5 lbs loss per week. I'm just starting this phase, accompanied by 3 days of strength training and 2 days of long cardio. I'm told, they will come off much easier because my metabolism is functioning normally again. It does make sense though, from a scientific standpoint. If your metabolism drops by staying in a deficit for too long, your body can go into starvation mode -- in other words -- fat-storing mode, and those 10 last pounds will never come off because your body is working hard to store fat. This is the best explanation that anyone has ever given me, and it makes the most sense. He also told me, you should do this program as a cycle. So 3 month slight deficit with more cardio, and then 3 month maintenance plain with strength training. It'll keeps your metabolism in check, I'm told. Hope that helps!
He is giving you terrible advice that has been scientifically proven wrong. Anorexics are constantly in a deficit, yet they seem to lose fat/weight quite well. Starvation mode is called adaptive thermogenesis and I suggest you do some research for yourself as it is largely a myth, especially concerning your particular case.
Actually, not a myth, and actually, the comment about eating more is the way to fix it.
Perhaps newer research than you've seen.
Would you call a 25% deficit to a measured TDEE causing an effect "largely a myth" - or very possible to hit.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
Did you even read what I wrote? Starvation mode as used on this site and as used in the OP's situation IS A MYTH. Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing but the OP is not even close to achieving that status. Eating 75% of your TDEE is not going to put you into starvation mode for Christ's sake.
What the OP's TRAINER, yes TRAINER, has him on is round-a-bout, prolonged program that is completely unnecessary.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