Can't get rid of the last 6 or 7 pounds!!!
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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.
Most people are not very good at maintaining VLCDs for a length of time. 5-6 weeks is a long time to go without enough food to fuel your body. Could you eat a 1,000 calorie diet for 6 weeks and be happy?0 -
But that's what fat stores are for isn't it? To pull from to make up the difference, deficit one might use the term, between what you eat and what you need.MamaBirdBoss 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.
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.
Doooooood... no wonder you're failing.
If you don't mind brain damage and psychosis, suuure you can do it. You won't actually die from starvation in the time it takes you to get down to a "healthy" weight.
You can diet down to the last pound...but you'd still slow down. Very, very few people eat 1200 cal a day voluntarily. There's almost no room for fun stuff, especially if you're hungry from exercise. I'm currently eating low-calorie crepes. :P Not nearly as good as the real thing.
People who successfully lose weight and keep it off generally eat stuff they like.
The recommendations come from people who have stayed relatively comfortable during their weight loss journey. You eat over 2,000 calories a day! That's above maintenance for most people of her size! And YOU ask why it's hard? Why don't you cut to 1,500-1,800 cal a day? That's way, way easier.0 -
Hey op can I friend request you? I'm in a similar boat, 131# with a goal of 123, 5'3.5, cals set at 1280 and 34 year old. Been on it since January and the last three months have been slow to nothing, could do with some support!0
-
So have I been doing this all wrong? It seems that I'm not eating enough and that maybe my body is in starvation.
Today I've been really cranky/agitated and just generally fatigued. Maybe I should raise my calorie intake?0 -
Sure!rowanshepherd3 wrote: »Hey op can I friend request you? I'm in a similar boat, 131# with a goal of 123, 5'3.5, cals set at 1280 and 34 year old. Been on it since January and the last three months have been slow to nothing, could do with some support!
0 -
oneallmama wrote: »
Sure!rowanshepherd3 wrote: »Hey op can I friend request you? I'm in a similar boat, 131# with a goal of 123, 5'3.5, cals set at 1280 and 34 year old. Been on it since January and the last three months have been slow to nothing, could do with some support!
Sent :-)0 -
Failing? I've lost 130+lbs. My body doesn't seem to want to get rid of the lat 30+. You know what everyone says? "Eat less." The exact advice I'm giving her. People had no trouble telling me less than 2000 calories for what will be a whopping 30 weeks but my advice to her to eat less for 5 is somehow bad? Not buying it.MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
But that's what fat stores are for isn't it? To pull from to make up the difference, deficit one might use the term, between what you eat and what you need.MamaBirdBoss 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.
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.
Doooooood... no wonder you're failing.
If you don't mind brain damage and psychosis, suuure you can do it. You won't actually die from starvation in the time it takes you to get down to a "healthy" weight.
You can diet down to the last pound...but you'd still slow down. Very, very few people eat 1200 cal a day voluntarily. There's almost no room for fun stuff, especially if you're hungry from exercise. I'm currently eating low-calorie crepes. :P Not nearly as good as the real thing.
People who successfully lose weight and keep it off generally eat stuff they like.
The recommendations come from people who have stayed relatively comfortable during their weight loss journey. You eat over 2,000 calories a day! That's above maintenance for most people of her size! And YOU ask why it's hard? Why don't you cut to 1,500-1,800 cal a day? That's way, way easier.
You're eating at maintenance. If you're happy with your weight, you shouldn't change. If you're not happy with your weight, you should.
You think that it's harder for you to eat at 2,000 calories (which is 200-400 ABOVE MAINTENANCE for me unless I'm deliberately exercising) that it is for other people to eat 1200?
That doesn't even make any sense.
If you want to lose, eat less than maintenance. If you want to lose fast, eat a lot less than maintenance. If you're in a healthy range by all markers (as I am, finally, as of this week), losing more is more about vanity than health, so there's no reason to go fast other than...vanity. So I'm vain! I'll admit it. LOL.
Everyone's going to tell YOU to eat less because you eat a lot! People aren't going to tell fold to eat less below what makes most people satiated and below what most people can adapt to. Don't like that advice? Then exercise more.
Your last 30 lbs is going to be way harder to come off then the first 30. For EVERYONE. And the last 5 is harder than the first. You can lose or not. It's your choice. You can lose fast. You can lose slow. But for heaven's sake, STOP CRYING ABOUT IT ALREADY and pretending you're special.
Eat my diet for two weeks and then tell me you can't lose weight. *snorts*0 -
oneallmama wrote: »So have I been doing this all wrong? It seems that I'm not eating enough and that maybe my body is in starvation.
Today I've been really cranky/agitated and just generally fatigued. Maybe I should raise my calorie intake?
There is no such thing as starvation mode. But eating below 1500, it's easy to be cranky and hungry unless you're really careful about eating in bulk! And eating very low calorie does make you more tired.0 -
As others have tried pointing out as you get closer to goal weight the margins for error become smaller. Calories in/calories doesn't change but everything we are dealing with here are estimates. Using a scale/measuring your food helps make them better estimates on the in side and exercising with a HR monitor helps on the out side of the equation (for steady state cardio only) but those are still estimates.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions