Major Tip for those in a Plateau!
Options
Thanasi99
Posts: 40 Member
***Please note that I'm just sharing what has worked well for me, personally, when facing a plateau.
Okay, so I had been in a "mini-Plateau" for several weeks. I was staying at about 192 lbs. and I couldn't get down to the 180's (and also finally reach 20 pounds lost).
Upon examining my diet, I realized that I wasn't eating nearly enough. I started to eat the suggested amount of food on MFP (without eating too many exercise calories), and in a matter of 4 days I finally hit 189.2 lbs.
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
If you feel like you ARE eating enough but you are still in a Plateau, you need to shock your body. At this point it has become used to your routine, so start changing your exercise routine and vary up your diet a little bit to keep your body on its toes.
Okay, so I had been in a "mini-Plateau" for several weeks. I was staying at about 192 lbs. and I couldn't get down to the 180's (and also finally reach 20 pounds lost).
Upon examining my diet, I realized that I wasn't eating nearly enough. I started to eat the suggested amount of food on MFP (without eating too many exercise calories), and in a matter of 4 days I finally hit 189.2 lbs.
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
If you feel like you ARE eating enough but you are still in a Plateau, you need to shock your body. At this point it has become used to your routine, so start changing your exercise routine and vary up your diet a little bit to keep your body on its toes.
0
Replies
-
Okay, so I had been in a "mini-Plateau" for several weeks. I was staying at about 192 lbs. and I couldn't get down to the 180's (and also finally reach 20 pounds lost).
Upon examining my diet, I realized that I wasn't eating nearly enough. I started to eat the suggested amount of food on MFP (without eating too many exercise calories), and in a matter of 4 days I finally hit 189.2 lbs.
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
If you feel like you ARE eating enough but you are still in a Plateau, you need to shock your body. At this point it has become used to your routine, so start changing your exercise routine and vary up your diet a little bit to keep your body on its toes.
absolute complete and utter bullcrap0 -
absolute complete and utter bullcrap[/quote]
!00% spot on!
0 -
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
No... drinking more water helps remove water weight, not the other way round. It means your body doesn't hold onto water as much if you're drinking more of it. One of the biggest suggestions to help get rid of water weight is to drink more water.0 -
They may not be agreement on macros, but there should be agreement on this. "Shock your body" makes me want to throat punch a baby.Okay, so I had been in a "mini-Plateau" for several weeks. I was staying at about 192 lbs. and I couldn't get down to the 180's (and also finally reach 20 pounds lost).
Upon examining my diet, I realized that I wasn't eating nearly enough. I started to eat the suggested amount of food on MFP (without eating too many exercise calories), and in a matter of 4 days I finally hit 189.2 lbs.
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
If you feel like you ARE eating enough but you are still in a Plateau, you need to shock your body. At this point it has become used to your routine, so start changing your exercise routine and vary up your diet a little bit to keep your body on its toes.
absolute complete and utter bullcrap
0 -
Eating more will not make you lose weight more quickly. That's just not how it works. Perhaps drinking more water helped you lose some water weight, or maybe you tightened up on your logging since you weren't losing. But the bigger the deficit, the more weight you lose, it's not the other way around.0
-
Thanks, Tips! <eye roll>0
-
Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."0
-
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
0 -
That doesn't distinguish between coincidence and causation, though. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That doesn't distinguish between coincidence and causation, though. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
Of course correlation does not imply causation. However, when a direct correlation has been observed on several unique occasions, with no other major (or rather, observed) factors in play, it does seem that the correlation may imply causation in this case.
0 -
0
-
Okay, so I had been in a "mini-Plateau" for several weeks. I was staying at about 192 lbs. and I couldn't get down to the 180's (and also finally reach 20 pounds lost).
Upon examining my diet, I realized that I wasn't eating nearly enough. I started to eat the suggested amount of food on MFP (without eating too many exercise calories), and in a matter of 4 days I finally hit 189.2 lbs.
Additionally, I did not drink any less water than normal, if anything I drank more, so water weight likely had little to do with this.
If you feel like you ARE eating enough but you are still in a Plateau, you need to shock your body. At this point it has become used to your routine, so start changing your exercise routine and vary up your diet a little bit to keep your body on its toes.
I actually agree with this to a degree. My loss seemed to be greater when I ate closer to my goal vs going way below. Now the simple math would contradict this so I will assume that my exercise was less due to low energy or maybe a binge or two became the norm. The other thing I found is that not a "shock" but a small change would help a stalled loss get moving. Of course my small change meant adding a new exercise or upping miles so I guess, Duh.0 -
Or it may not. Unless your different exercises caused you to burn more calories, it's much more likely to be correlation.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That doesn't distinguish between coincidence and causation, though. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
Of course correlation does not imply causation. However, when a direct correlation has been observed on several unique occasions, with no other major (or rather, observed) factors in play, it does seem that the correlation may imply causation in this case.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or it may not. Unless your different exercises caused you to burn more calories, it's much more likely to be correlation.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That doesn't distinguish between coincidence and causation, though. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
Of course correlation does not imply causation. However, when a direct correlation has been observed on several unique occasions, with no other major (or rather, observed) factors in play, it does seem that the correlation may imply causation in this case.
Perhaps you're right, but I've just found that the same process has worked with several different transpirations of the same event, and thus I feel that it's unlikely to be coincidence at this point.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you know that the "rut" hasn't pretty much run its course by the time you recognize that it exists and that any changes you make toward the end of the rut weren't coincidence rather than causation?Well, don't throat punch a baby. I'm just sharing what seems to have worked for me, and every time I've hit a plateau of sorts, switching up my routine (even with the same net calories, active calories) has seemed to get me out of the "rut."
Typically, it's because I've observed the plateau for several weeks (at least 3) while adhering to the same diet/exercise plan. However, when I alter the plan, but still maintain the same net calories and activity time, I begin to see results within days, after weeks of stagnant results.
Three weeks is not a plateau. You may have experienced a "whoosh" which was helped along by your increased water intake.0 -
I'm not an expert at weight loss by any means, as I'm sure a lot of people on here aren't either. However, I am part of a fitness group that is lead by a certified personal trainer and this method, done correctly, can work. It's called "reverse dieting". It repairs the damage many have done to their metabolisms.
For example, I myself, was eating only 1200 cals a day (what MFP recommended to lose 2lbs a week). I was working hard, so I was hungry all of the time - meaning most days, I would eat back my calorie deficit. My weight loss stalled between losing and gaining the same 5lbs for 3 months. Then, I slowly started adding 100 calories to my daily goal. I started by eating at least 1400 calories a day for one month, then the next month 1500 and so on. Yes, you will note a little bit of weight gain for the first week or two each time you adjust calories, but as your body gets used to it, you will either lose or stay at the same weight. The goal is not to necessarily lose weight while "reverse dieting", but to repair your metabolism. That way, when you do cut calories, you can still eat a good amount of calories and not starve every day. I built my daily goal up to 1900 lbs and then I gained a couple of pounds, so it was time to cut my calories. I cut back to 1600 per day and I will keep it there for a month. I've lost a steady 1.5lbs per week the last three weeks (which is a healthy/steady amount to lose each week). After the month is over next week, I will up my calories to 1700 again and repeat the same cycle above.
I am certainly not suggesting that anyone do this on their own and before you try anything new, do your research. I just wanted to share what I have found works for me.0 -
thanks for the tips0
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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions