Can't get rid of the last 6 or 7 pounds!!!
oneallmama
Posts: 108 Member
I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
0
Replies
-
oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?0 -
this is what I am working on now my last 6lbs.0
-
Bump up your intensity of exercise while maintaining your deficit. Try doing "blasts" of 20 second intervals of whatever exercise you're doing currently to force you to gasp for air. Recover till breathing is steady again and repeat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
0 -
Bump up your intensity of exercise while maintaining your deficit. Try doing "blasts" of 20 second intervals of whatever exercise you're doing currently to force you to gasp for air. Recover till breathing is steady again and repeat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This sounds great! I ride a stationary exercise bike and I'll try this out tonight when I workout... I think I need to start lifting to tone up as well.
0 -
oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great!
That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Edit: Just saw you post about the stationary bike. Do you eat back your exercise calories? How do you calculate your exercise calories burned? Also lifting weights is always a good idea.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great! That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Yep I was exercising 5x a week but had to cut it down due to malnutrition and losing hair. Now I'm working out 2 to 3 times a week on a stationary bike for an hour. I think I've been over estimating my calories burned lately lol.
0 -
As all others have said with only a 250 deficit to lose .5 lb a week you need to be VERY accurate with your logging. Great way to increase the deficit is to burn a few extra cals but make sure you are accurate with your burn calories (I usually half MFP burns) and stick at it. One cheat meal day will blow the week!!0
-
Yeah I can't wait to get my food scale and see how off I was using measuring cups. I have a feeling I was going way over my calories the whole time.juleszephyr wrote: »As all others have said with only a 250 deficit to lose .5 lb a week you need to be VERY accurate with your logging. Great way to increase the deficit is to burn a few extra cals but make sure you are accurate with your burn calories (I usually half MFP burns) and stick at it. One cheat meal day will blow the week!!
0 -
If you're experiencing malnutrition and hair loss, maybe you should be more concerned about eating back exercise calories and increasing protein rather than losing the last 6-7 lbs. It could be your body's way of saying this is where you should be. 131 at 5'3" isn't a bad weight. I'm 120-125, and I'm only 5'1.5".oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great! That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Yep I was exercising 5x a week but had to cut it down due to malnutrition and losing hair. Now I'm working out 2 to 3 times a week on a stationary bike for an hour. I think I've been over estimating my calories burned lately lol.
0 -
Yeah I've been losing hair steadily for a year now and am almost afraid that I might go bald lol! I went to the Dr for it and had blood tests and they said everything was normal so I have no idea. Maybe the exercise and cutting back food is causing stress to my body?
If you're experiencing malnutrition and hair loss, maybe you should be more concerned about eating back exercise calories and increasing protein rather than losing the last 6-7 lbs. It could be your body's way of saying this is where you should be. 131 at 5'3" isn't a bad weight. I'm 120-125, and I'm only 5'1.5".oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great! That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Yep I was exercising 5x a week but had to cut it down due to malnutrition and losing hair. Now I'm working out 2 to 3 times a week on a stationary bike for an hour. I think I've been over estimating my calories burned lately lol.
0 -
Really? I never realized that could be the reason why I am losing hair. Ive been thinking abt buying some rogain its so bad!0
-
oneallmama wrote: »
Yeah I've been losing hair steadily for a year now and am almost afraid that I might go bald lol! I went to the Dr for it and had blood tests and they said everything was normal so I have no idea. Maybe the exercise and cutting back food is causing stress to my body?
If you're experiencing malnutrition and hair loss, maybe you should be more concerned about eating back exercise calories and increasing protein rather than losing the last 6-7 lbs. It could be your body's way of saying this is where you should be. 131 at 5'3" isn't a bad weight. I'm 120-125, and I'm only 5'1.5".oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great! That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Yep I was exercising 5x a week but had to cut it down due to malnutrition and losing hair. Now I'm working out 2 to 3 times a week on a stationary bike for an hour. I think I've been over estimating my calories burned lately lol.
I looked at your diary and you're eating under 1200 a day, but you're only 27 and you're exercising. I'm eating that little, but I'm smaller and 30 years older than you are! (Metabolism slows way down after menopause). You may have been too aggressive in your weight loss. How fast did it take you to lose what you did? You should be "eating back" exercise calories. That means that if you work out and MFP adds calories to your daily allotment, you need to eat them, or you will be eating too little to sustain your body's needs. This is when things like hair loss happen. Also, you should be eating .8 to 1 gram of protein for lean body mass to support your workouts. For instance, when I had a fitness, body comp eval, it was determined I had around 85 lbs. lean body mass, so I try to eat between 65-85 grams of protein a day. My goal is 88 grams, but I have a tough time hitting it. I have a thick head of hair (it's layered but looks like a "blunt cut"), but I started experiencing problems with brittle nails breaking down to the nail bed when I cut back too much.0 -
oneallmama wrote: »
Yeah I've been losing hair steadily for a year now and am almost afraid that I might go bald lol! I went to the Dr for it and had blood tests and they said everything was normal so I have no idea. Maybe the exercise and cutting back food is causing stress to my body?
If you're experiencing malnutrition and hair loss, maybe you should be more concerned about eating back exercise calories and increasing protein rather than losing the last 6-7 lbs. It could be your body's way of saying this is where you should be. 131 at 5'3" isn't a bad weight. I'm 120-125, and I'm only 5'1.5".oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »oneallmama wrote: »I'm 5'3 and am trying to get to 125-120 range. It seems nearly impossible though! Right now I'm at 131 even.... Any tips?
The last few pounds are really difficult to lose, and they come off slowly. Your deficit will be smaller (think .5 lb/week), and your logging will need to be as accurate as possible. Do you own a food scale?
I'm going to purchase one this weekend. Measuring cups and teaspoons/tablespoons don't seem to be cutting it anymore.
Great! That will help a lot with the logging accuracy. Do you exercise?
Yep I was exercising 5x a week but had to cut it down due to malnutrition and losing hair. Now I'm working out 2 to 3 times a week on a stationary bike for an hour. I think I've been over estimating my calories burned lately lol.
I looked at your diary and you're eating under 1200 a day, but you're only 27 and you're exercising. I'm eating that little, but I'm smaller and 30 years older than you are! (Metabolism slows way down after menopause). You may have been too aggressive in your weight loss. How fast did it take you to lose what you did? You should be "eating back" exercise calories. That means that if you work out and MFP adds calories to your daily allotment, you need to eat them, or you will be eating too little to sustain your body's needs. This is when things like hair loss happen. Also, you should be eating .8 to 1 gram of protein for lean body mass to support your workouts. For instance, when I had a fitness, body comp eval, it was determined I had around 85 lbs. lean body mass, so I try to eat between 65-85 grams of protein a day. My goal is 88 grams, but I have a tough time hitting it. I have a thick head of hair (it's layered but looks like a "blunt cut"), but I started experiencing problems with brittle nails breaking down to the nail bed when I cut back too much.
I was losing a pound a month for my weightloss... I didn't know I was supposed to eat back exercise calories.. I always thought that you needed a deficit. I know I'm most likely not eating enough protein and was eating protein bars a couple of months back. I probably should start doing that again.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
If someone has 5lbs to lose and says they can't everyone jumps in to support the idea that the body seems to want to hold on to weight the leaner it gets. I'll ask again, if the body seems to do this at low weights why does it not seem to do it at higher weights? Does "just eat at a deficit" not apply anymore the less you weigh?
Nobody has said that the OP's body is holding onto weight more than anybody else's body. What people have pointed out is that her deficit is now smaller so it is even more important to be accurate when logging. A person who has a scheduled daily deficit of 500 calories but slips and actually ends up with a daily deficit of 400 calories will lose, on average, .8 lbs per week. A person with a scheduled deficit of 250 calories who slips by 100 calories and ends up with only a 150 deficit will lose .3 pounds per week. That little change often doesn't even register on a scale, which is how a lot of people who are close to goal end up looking at the scale and seeing what appears to be no change.0 -
Wait, so why not just adjust your calories down to match then? What I'm asking is is it physically/biologically more difficult to lose the last 5lbs than it is the first, I dunno, 50?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.
I assume it has something to do with the leaner you are, the smaller your calorie goal becomes to continue losing. Since both calories in and calories out are estimates, when you have a smaller calorie target, the allowable margin of error becomes significantly smaller. So, I am not sure about a biological reason, but from a statistical one, it seems to make sense to me that the closer you are to target, being off on estimates (and the occasional day being over your calorie goal) have a greater impact.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wait, so why not just adjust your calories down to match then? What I'm asking is is it physically/biologically more difficult to lose the last 5lbs than it is the first, I dunno, 50?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.
EDIT: I mean, the body doesn't know that the last 5lbs is the last 5lbs. Isn't it all just a bunch of fat randomly stored in placed? Why is 1lbs any different than the other?
Every pound that you lose is harder than the last one. Or don't you understand how this works?
Of course you adjust your calories down, but I'm at 1200 a day. You're not supposed to go lower than that. Right now, at 1200 a day and very light exercise, I can lose a pound a week.
Not many people are happy on 1200 calories a day. So most people would do a bit more exercise and set their calories at 1500 and lose half a pound a week.
Are you being obtuse deliberately, or do you REALLY not understand the basic physics of it? You seem to have been on here a long time and have had not great success and seem to post this stuff a lot.
If so, that would really explain a lot.....0 -
If someone has 5lbs to lose and says they can't everyone jumps in to support the idea that the body seems to want to hold on to weight the leaner it gets. I'll ask again, if the body seems to do this at low weights why does it not seem to do it at higher weights? Does "just eat at a deficit" not apply anymore the less you weigh?
Nobody has said that the OP's body is holding onto weight more than anybody else's body. What people have pointed out is that her deficit is now smaller so it is even more important to be accurate when logging. A person who has a scheduled daily deficit of 500 calories but slips and actually ends up with a daily deficit of 400 calories will lose, on average, .8 lbs per week. A person with a scheduled deficit of 250 calories who slips by 100 calories and ends up with only a 150 deficit will lose .3 pounds per week. That little change often doesn't even register on a scale, which is how a lot of people who are close to goal end up looking at the scale and seeing what appears to be no change.
OK, so next obvious question: Why not just keep the 500 calorie deficit? Why lower it to 250 at all?
If you're a petite female, and your TDEE drops to, say, 1650 calories, a 500 calorie deficit would mean 1150 net calories. That's not a lot of food, and may not be sustainable for many people. Plus a smaller deficit will make it much easier to transition to maintenance.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »If someone has 5lbs to lose and says they can't everyone jumps in to support the idea that the body seems to want to hold on to weight the leaner it gets. I'll ask again, if the body seems to do this at low weights why does it not seem to do it at higher weights? Does "just eat at a deficit" not apply anymore the less you weigh?
Nobody has said that the OP's body is holding onto weight more than anybody else's body. What people have pointed out is that her deficit is now smaller so it is even more important to be accurate when logging. A person who has a scheduled daily deficit of 500 calories but slips and actually ends up with a daily deficit of 400 calories will lose, on average, .8 lbs per week. A person with a scheduled deficit of 250 calories who slips by 100 calories and ends up with only a 150 deficit will lose .3 pounds per week. That little change often doesn't even register on a scale, which is how a lot of people who are close to goal end up looking at the scale and seeing what appears to be no change.
OK, so next obvious question: Why not just keep the 500 calorie deficit? Why lower it to 250 at all?
If you're a petite female, and your TDEE drops to, say, 1650 calories, a 500 calorie deficit would mean 1150 net calories. That's not a lot of food, and may not be sustainable for many people. Plus a smaller deficit will make it much easier to transition to maintenance.
Also, there are potential consequences of eating below BMR for extended periods of time, when not overweight.0 -
If someone has 5lbs to lose and says they can't everyone jumps in to support the idea that the body seems to want to hold on to weight the leaner it gets. I'll ask again, if the body seems to do this at low weights why does it not seem to do it at higher weights? Does "just eat at a deficit" not apply anymore the less you weigh?
Nobody has said that the OP's body is holding onto weight more than anybody else's body. What people have pointed out is that her deficit is now smaller so it is even more important to be accurate when logging. A person who has a scheduled daily deficit of 500 calories but slips and actually ends up with a daily deficit of 400 calories will lose, on average, .8 lbs per week. A person with a scheduled deficit of 250 calories who slips by 100 calories and ends up with only a 150 deficit will lose .3 pounds per week. That little change often doesn't even register on a scale, which is how a lot of people who are close to goal end up looking at the scale and seeing what appears to be no change.
OK, so next obvious question: Why not just keep the 500 calorie deficit? Why lower it to 250 at all?
For me, hunger and comfort. I am pretty active so my maintenance calories are pretty good (2400-2500.) But I am just no longer comfortable eating at a 500 daily deficit at this point. I am currently maintaining but earlier this year it was easiest for me when I had a 500 calorie on non-weightlifting days and then at at maintenance on other days. Since I was lifting 3-4 times a week that was pretty much a 250 deficit. If you take a less active or smaller woman, her maintenance calories could be a fair bit under mine. So let's say her maintenance calories are 1900. A 500 calorie deficit would mean a 1400 daily goal which just isn't a whole lot of food even if you are smaller. (And for the record I don't think that hunger is entirely proportional.)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
Wait, so why not just adjust your calories down to match then? What I'm asking is is it physically/biologically more difficult to lose the last 5lbs than it is the first, I dunno, 50?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.
EDIT: I mean, the body doesn't know that the last 5lbs is the last 5lbs. Isn't it all just a bunch of fat randomly stored in placed? Why is 1lbs any different than the other?
Every pound that you lose is harder than the last one. Or don't you understand how this works?
Of course you adjust your calories down, but I'm at 1200 a day. You're not supposed to go lower than that. Right now, at 1200 a day and very light exercise, I can lose a pound a week.
Not many people are happy on 1200 calories a day. So most people would do a bit more exercise and set their calories at 1500 and lose half a pound a week.
Are you being obtuse deliberately, or do you REALLY not understand the basic physics of it? You seem to have been on here a long time and have had not great success and seem to post this stuff a lot.
If so, that would really explain a lot.....
The basic physics of it says just eat less. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Physics wise there shouldn't be a difference between the first pound and the last pound. It just burn off just the same. If the difference is somehow psychological (as in the number you have to hit just doesn't provide a satisfying amount of food) I get that. I'm just asking from a real scientific point of view, is the last pound literally harder than the first I guess? And is there evidence to back that up.
The evidence is in what everyone else has been saying. Yes, technically you could maintain a 500-calorie deficit even down to the last pound. The point is, for most people, that is neither sustainable nor healthy.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
Wait, so why not just adjust your calories down to match then? What I'm asking is is it physically/biologically more difficult to lose the last 5lbs than it is the first, I dunno, 50?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.
EDIT: I mean, the body doesn't know that the last 5lbs is the last 5lbs. Isn't it all just a bunch of fat randomly stored in placed? Why is 1lbs any different than the other?
Every pound that you lose is harder than the last one. Or don't you understand how this works?
Of course you adjust your calories down, but I'm at 1200 a day. You're not supposed to go lower than that. Right now, at 1200 a day and very light exercise, I can lose a pound a week.
Not many people are happy on 1200 calories a day. So most people would do a bit more exercise and set their calories at 1500 and lose half a pound a week.
Are you being obtuse deliberately, or do you REALLY not understand the basic physics of it? You seem to have been on here a long time and have had not great success and seem to post this stuff a lot.
If so, that would really explain a lot.....
The basic physics of it says just eat less. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Physics wise there shouldn't be a difference between the first pound and the last pound. It just burn off just the same. If the difference is somehow psychological (as in the number you have to hit just doesn't provide a satisfying amount of food) I get that. I'm just asking from a real scientific point of view, is the last pound literally harder than the first I guess? And is there evidence to back that up.
You have PHYSIOLOGICAL amount of food that you should eat to keep up things like a regular heart rhythm and normal brain function. The difference between this amount and how much you burn in a day decreases continuously as you diet.
And of course there's evidence to back it up.
Why don't you lose half a pound a day simply by not eating? Do you think it's just a psychological dependence on food? Otherwise, you could just starve yourself to a healthy weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not healthy? But if that deficit gave you a pound a week then it would only take you 5-6 weeks to lose the last bit of weight? That's a little over a month. That doesn't seem THAT unhealthy.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
Wait, so why not just adjust your calories down to match then? What I'm asking is is it physically/biologically more difficult to lose the last 5lbs than it is the first, I dunno, 50?MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They're the hardest to lose because you weigh the least and your BMR/RMR goes down and all your exercises count for less calories, silly kitty.
EDIT: I mean, the body doesn't know that the last 5lbs is the last 5lbs. Isn't it all just a bunch of fat randomly stored in placed? Why is 1lbs any different than the other?
Every pound that you lose is harder than the last one. Or don't you understand how this works?
Of course you adjust your calories down, but I'm at 1200 a day. You're not supposed to go lower than that. Right now, at 1200 a day and very light exercise, I can lose a pound a week.
Not many people are happy on 1200 calories a day. So most people would do a bit more exercise and set their calories at 1500 and lose half a pound a week.
Are you being obtuse deliberately, or do you REALLY not understand the basic physics of it? You seem to have been on here a long time and have had not great success and seem to post this stuff a lot.
If so, that would really explain a lot.....
The basic physics of it says just eat less. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Physics wise there shouldn't be a difference between the first pound and the last pound. It just burn off just the same. If the difference is somehow psychological (as in the number you have to hit just doesn't provide a satisfying amount of food) I get that. I'm just asking from a real scientific point of view, is the last pound literally harder than the first I guess? And is there evidence to back that up.
The evidence is in what everyone else has been saying. Yes, technically you could maintain a 500-calorie deficit even down to the last pound. The point is, for most people, that is neither sustainable nor healthy.
I actually tend to agree with you here. I know that Waldo, who used to be active here on MFP and is the guy who maintains strengthunbound.com goes in something like 8 week bulk 2 week cut cycles where his cut is pretty major. He's pretty science based and while I can't get to his site to find any info on it right now, I feel like he's written something on how short term extreme cuts are not unhealthy and can be successful in cutting mostly fat as opposed to a large amount of muscle. It's something that I've thought about recently, actually. Could I just maintain for 2 months at a clip and then buckle down and cut my calories to 1500 (or less?) for 2 weeks?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions