"The last 5 pounds are the hardest." Why?

It is because you weigh less, so you have to work harder to lose. It takes less energy to move your body. An example I like to use is if a 300 lb man and a 160 lb man decided to lose weight, the 300 lb man will lose faster than the other guy. The body works harder if it is obese, because it TAKES more energy (calories) to move the body, so that 300 lb man will burn almost twice the calories in the same time frame as the other guy doing similar things (hr is same, effort is same) just because he is heavier. If you are close to your goal, you ARE the 160 lb man, and you WERE the 300 lb man.

For me (as I'm currently kind of frustrated with the last 5 lbs):

cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »

Is it simply the transition from targeting 1 pound per week to .5 pound per week a la MFP settings?

I think this is part of it. It's more difficult to believe you are consistently losing because the loss is covered by fluctuations longer, so it feels like it takes even longer than it does.

And for me that kills some of the motivation which makes it easier to be more lax.

I'd also add that at this point I've been on a reduced calorie allotment for a year and am getting tired of it and in the last 5 lbs one is probably not feeling like it's that urgent (I'm happy with how I look, more interested in fitness goals, and more worried about losing muscle than the last bit of fat, all things which encourage me to be slow about it).

Is this slowdown true of any target weight, or only target rates on the lower end of normal BMI/body fat percentage?

The psychological bit probably relies somewhat on you being happy enough at +5 lbs, but that's probably common wherever you place your goal. My guess is the exception is probably someone who starts close to goal and doesn't mind going low to get there (and isn't yet burnt out).

My guess is that if I take a break and go back to it the loss might be easier, but I guess I'll find out.

dougpconnell219 wrote: »

RockstarWilson wrote: »

It is because you weigh less, so you have to work harder to lose. It takes less energy to move your body. An example I like to use is if a 300 lb man and a 160 lb man decided to lose weight, the 300 lb man will lose faster than the other guy. The body works harder if it is obese, because it TAKES more energy (calories) to move the body, so that 300 lb man will burn almost twice the calories in the same time frame as the other guy doing similar things (hr is same, effort is same) just because he is heavier. If you are close to your goal, you ARE the 160 lb man, and you WERE the 300 lb man.

Mental note...

Buy a 50 lb weight vest...

There's something to be said for that. When I was a kid, one of my chores was to carry feed sacks to the shed where we stored the feed. The sacks weighed right at 50 lbs and I might have had fifty yards to carry them. I remember breathing pretty heavy from doing that. (Though I eventually started carrying two at a time.) If a person were carrying around 50 extra pounds all day, it would burn quite a few calories.

Could be a lot of reasons, but generally, as we approach our weight loss endpoint, the curve flattens out, i.e. the weight loss slows and eventually stops. I've lost 185 pounds, I had hope to weigh just under 200, but I've had to realize that my body wants me to weigh just over 200.

I didn't think it was harder. Just slower. By the time I was in the "last five pounds" mode last time around, I was focused more on progress photos and how clothes fit than the scale.

As you lose weight the amount of energy that your body needs to move about goes down.:

1) Less lean mass = you need less energy for day to day, anything else gets stored.

At lower weight and if you have been dieting longer, the adrenal/thyroid hormonal function modifies and one's metabolism adjusts. These adjustments also result in less non-exercise movement... hence less burn.

2) Metabolic adjustments = you need less energy for day to day, anything else gets stored.

At lower body fat levels - aside from significant metabolic adjustments, hunger signaling and protein substrate use for energy increase.

3) Increase hunger = harder to maintain deficit.

4) protein substrate recruitment leads to 1)

There are other elements but those are the primary ones.

Stroutman has a great thread on the subject. His first mention is the shrinking margin of error.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/737101/relatively-light-people-trying-to-get-leaner/p1

I dunno...I'm down to my last 7 and the scale has been all over the place for the past 2 weeks. I also started doing pilates so maybe that has something to do with it.

I guess my best advice would be to be extra diligent when it comes to logging your food, and to skip those occasional cheat/treat days.

I keep thinking "it's ok...I'm 55 pounds lighter than I was in July..." but knowing that my goal is so close and so hard to get to gets a bit depressing.

WickedPineapple wrote: »

Personally, it hasn't been a lack of discipline or not adjusting my calories for my lower weight. I've plateaued several times over the last few years, usually due to inaccuracy of some kind or eating maintenance on purpose (on holidays). With such a small deficit now (250 calories/day), accuracy is incredibly important since it's easy to eat away the deficit on accident. This last 4 or 5 month plateau, with 2 lbs to go, I've identified my problem to be eating out too much (at places with no nutritional information available) and overestimating burned exercise calories using an HRM. My heart rate tends run higher than normal during exercise, inflating my burns. I always suspected this, but after doing some research I came to this conclusion and decided to forgo my HRM and use online calculators. I've just started losing again.

I think this was my problem too. I had a birthday 2 weeks ago and between my boss taking me to lunch, my co-workers taking me to lunch, friends taking me out after work and a big family dinner all in the span of 2 weeks...well, thanksfully birthdays only come once a year!