Hit A Massive Plateau

Options
2

Replies

  • fifilan
    fifilan Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I was on a plateau for about a month and was eating 1200 calories a day and I am a 4'11", 124 lb woman. I increased my calories to 1500 and the scale started moving again. I think you need to increase your calories and see if that helps.
  • FireStorm1972
    FireStorm1972 Posts: 1,142 Member
    Options
    I agree increase your daily calories for a week or 2 and see what happens , then maybe calorie cycle thru the week.
  • alan1e
    alan1e Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    This happens to me sometimes. I just stick with the plan then usually I start losing aging. But, I think everyone is a little different.
  • carrieous
    carrieous Posts: 1,024 Member
    Options
    you are not burning 2000 calories per work out. You just aren't. Stop that.
  • AsaThorsWoman
    AsaThorsWoman Posts: 2,303 Member
    Options
    Yep...

    Carrieous is right on...

    If there was a way to burn 2,000 kcal in a workout we'd of all done figured that **** out.
  • k1ttyk1tty
    k1ttyk1tty Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    Yep...

    Carrieous is right on...

    If there was a way to burn 2,000 kcal in a workout we'd of all done figured that **** out.

    If you're big enough I'd think that it would be possible, you'd just feel like dropping after the first 1,000.... Unless you have a bad coke habit...
  • AnswerzPwease
    AnswerzPwease Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    You're only eating 1200 calories and you're burning 1000 calories at the gym!? Eat MORE and you'll start losing again.

    Is there actual evidence that shows this?
  • daybehavior
    daybehavior Posts: 1,319 Member
    Options
    You're only eating 1200 calories and you're burning 1000 calories at the gym!? Eat MORE and you'll start losing again.

    Is there actual evidence that shows this?

    No there's not. It goes against the principles of thermodynamics. Eating at a calorie deficit = weight loss. Eating at calorie surplus = weight gain. Eating at maintenance = plateau. There are no other options. '

    The only circumstance in which eating more will indirectly help you lose weight is in the case of water weight. When you're dieting and exercising, it put stress on your body and it may retain water. Eating more will de-stress your body and aid in releasing that water weight.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    You're an obese male who claims to burn 2000 calories in your workout alone, while only eating 1200 calories, but hasn't lost more than a pound in over a month.

    You're either:

    A. A medical miracle. At which point head to your doctor ASAP as you could be the key to solving world starvation.
    B. Eating far, far more calories than you think while burning far less than you imagine.

    Which option do you think is more likely?
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    I can only go by own experience im smaller than you and have less than you to lose yet I eat more than you and im a woman 1200 calories is my opinion why this isn't working and if you really are exercising that much your running on empty feel free to add me, my advice is calculate BMR and TDEE and start eating calories halfway between these numbers and tweak if needed

    When you have excessive, non-essential body fat, especially in large quantities, there is no such thing as "running on empty".

    If you, and half the people in this thread talking about starvation mode, or claiming his eating too little is causing the "plateau" were correct, there would be no such thing as the millions of emaciated people currently starving to death all over the world. If not eating, and running on "empty", led to weight loss "plateaus" then where do all those pictures come from of concentration camp victims and African children looking like flesh colored skeletons? Shouldn't all these bodies have gone into starvation mode and protected them from losing body fat?
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    I've been at it diligently since the beginning of April and have lost 30+ lbs...however I've only lost 1 lb since the end of May. I'm very strict and take in only 1200 calories a day. I also have increased my workouts from 20 minutes a day to almost 120 minutes a day and I'm burning 2000 calories during my workout -- still nothing.

    I can't seem to shake this plateau.

    Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? I still have 60 lbs that I need to lose!

    Congrats on your weight loss!

    How are you burning 2000 calories in one workout? You have to be a mean lean burning machine to do that. :bigsmile:

    Seriously, 2000 calorie for two hours (or 1000 calories an hour, 500 calories for a half hour) seem overestimated. Are you using MFP to calculate calories burned, or are you using a heart rate monitor or some other source?

    Do you weigh your food and log everything you eat?

    Plateau is just another word for eating at maintenance.

    Oh, one last question- have you allowed MFP to recalculate your calories for each ten pounds lost? As we gt smaller
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    All that working out does build muscle mass and burn fat, so you could be making amazing progress with no scale movement (like me!)

    I know that is soooo frustrating...

    Hang in there!
    Not at a calorie deficit, especially a deficit like that, if indeed he is eating only 1200 and burning....gulp....1200 from working out at the gym. That's net zero, and not good.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    I can only go by own experience im smaller than you and have less than you to lose yet I eat more than you and im a woman 1200 calories is my opinion why this isn't working and if you really are exercising that much your running on empty feel free to add me, my advice is calculate BMR and TDEE and start eating calories halfway between these numbers and tweak if needed

    When you have excessive, non-essential body fat, especially in large quantities, there is no such thing as "running on empty".

    If you, and half the people in this thread talking about starvation mode, or claiming his eating too little is causing the "plateau" were correct, there would be no such thing as the millions of emaciated people currently starving to death all over the world. If not eating, and running on "empty", led to weight loss "plateaus" then where do all those pictures come from of concentration camp victims and African children looking like flesh colored skeletons? Shouldn't all these bodies have gone into starvation mode and protected them from losing body fat?

    I don't know if you are referring to me or not but to be clear - there is a difference between outright starvation. I never said it would prevent weight loss, I said temporary plateau. I do agree that overall calories in, calories out rules, but there are other factors. Hormones do play a role as well. Obviously continuing over long periods with too little food will result in weight loss regardless.
    As I said, many have benefited from taking a temporary break from dieting or slightly upping calories.

    FTR - I am also in the "I don't think you are burning as much as you think" crowd.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    I can only go by own experience im smaller than you and have less than you to lose yet I eat more than you and im a woman 1200 calories is my opinion why this isn't working and if you really are exercising that much your running on empty feel free to add me, my advice is calculate BMR and TDEE and start eating calories halfway between these numbers and tweak if needed

    When you have excessive, non-essential body fat, especially in large quantities, there is no such thing as "running on empty".

    If you, and half the people in this thread talking about starvation mode, or claiming his eating too little is causing the "plateau" were correct, there would be no such thing as the millions of emaciated people currently starving to death all over the world. If not eating, and running on "empty", led to weight loss "plateaus" then where do all those pictures come from of concentration camp victims and African children looking like flesh colored skeletons? Shouldn't all these bodies have gone into starvation mode and protected them from losing body fat?

    I don't know if you are referring to me or not but to be clear - there is a difference between outright starvation. I never said it would prevent weight loss, I said temporary plateau. I do agree that overall calories in, calories out rules, but there are other factors. Hormones do play a role as well. Obviously continuing over long periods with too little food will result in weight loss regardless.
    As I said, many have benefited from taking a temporary break from dieting or slightly upping calories.

    FTR - I am also in the "I don't think you are burning as much as you think" crowd.

    The men in the infamous Minnesota Starvation Experiment became emaciated and skeletal thin on approximately 1,500 calories a day.

    And most of them were nowhere near overweight, much less obese, at the start of the experiment.

    There was no plateau.

    These long plateaus where people are apparently stall for months on end, while apparently still eating at a deficit, never seem to happen in clinical settings, with controlled caloric intake, only in the dieting world. Why is that?
  • JasonPC2
    JasonPC2 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    I can only go by own experience im smaller than you and have less than you to lose yet I eat more than you and im a woman 1200 calories is my opinion why this isn't working and if you really are exercising that much your running on empty feel free to add me, my advice is calculate BMR and TDEE and start eating calories halfway between these numbers and tweak if needed

    When you have excessive, non-essential body fat, especially in large quantities, there is no such thing as "running on empty".

    If you, and half the people in this thread talking about starvation mode, or claiming his eating too little is causing the "plateau" were correct, there would be no such thing as the millions of emaciated people currently starving to death all over the world. If not eating, and running on "empty", led to weight loss "plateaus" then where do all those pictures come from of concentration camp victims and African children looking like flesh colored skeletons? Shouldn't all these bodies have gone into starvation mode and protected them from losing body fat?

    I don't know if you are referring to me or not but to be clear - there is a difference between outright starvation. I never said it would prevent weight loss, I said temporary plateau. I do agree that overall calories in, calories out rules, but there are other factors. Hormones do play a role as well. Obviously continuing over long periods with too little food will result in weight loss regardless.
    As I said, many have benefited from taking a temporary break from dieting or slightly upping calories.

    FTR - I am also in the "I don't think you are burning as much as you think" crowd.

    The men in the infamous Minnesota Starvation Experiment became emaciated and skeletal thin on approximately 1,500 calories a day.

    And most of them were nowhere near overweight, much less obese, at the start of the experiment.

    There was no plateau.

    These long plateaus where people are apparently stall for months on end, while apparently still eating at a deficit, never seem to happen in clinical settings, with controlled caloric intake, only in the dieting world. Why is that?

    Did some research on that and it appears they were also being forced to move 22 miles per week, expending about 2500 calories per day (while only eating 1500-1800).


    I do not know about the validity of plateaus though. I feel as though you should always lose weight if you keep a big enough deficit, but fluid balance etc is dynamic so it might strike someone as a "plateau." You won't suddenly be able to thrive on 1500 calories without needing to tap into your fat stores. That's just logic.
  • toptestpilot
    Options
    you are not burning 2000 calories per work out. You just aren't. Stop that.
  • toptestpilot
    Options
    Yes, I really am. Verified with an MD that yes, indeed I'm burning 2000 calories.

    Sorry, some people can burn more than others - just like some people can lose weight faster.

    Why on earth would someone tell me not to work out that much? That makes absolutely NO sense...
  • toptestpilot
    Options
    So today I went for my weekly weigh-in: lost 3 lbs from last week.

    I made several significant changes: I upped my caloric intake to 1800 lbs of lean (meat) protein, better glycemic index foods, and cut my routine back to 90 minutes & 1100 calories.

    It seems as though the higher calories helped move me off my plateau, luckily.

    Thanks to everyone for their help!
  • toptestpilot
    Options
    you are not burning 2000 calories per work out. You just aren't. Stop that.
    Yes, I really am. Verified by an MD.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    you are not burning 2000 calories per work out. You just aren't. Stop that.
    Yes, I really am. Verified by an MD.

    How?