when is a "plateau" really just your "right" weight?
nkseiler
Posts: 3 Member
Hi all -
I'd appreciate any advice about how to identify a plateau you can/should move beyond, vs. your body just sort of saying "Hey, I'm good here."
I've been using MFP for about three months. I am 5'1" and 38yo, and I was between 135-140 lbs after two kids. I had probably been about 120 before kids. While I was ok with weighing more than pre-motherhood (who doesn't??), I recently discovered that my a1c was still elevated (5.8) a couple years after my second round with gestational diabetes. So I decided I needed to lose some weight to get on top of that and hopefully not develop Type 2 diabetes.
I've been losing at a pretty steady pace since then - I guess about 1 lb/week. But now that I'm in the low 120s, I've hit a plateau of bouncing between 121 and 124 (my earlier plateaus were briefer and less likely to bounce back up).
My question is, how can you tell when your body is just sort of at its "right" weight? Even at 124, my BMI is 23.4, which seems fine. Of course, I need to retest my a1c and talk to an endocrinologist, which is scheduled for September. But for the time being, I can't figure out whether I should just accept that this is my new weight range, or try to keep reducing it. I had been hoping to go down to about 115, in part to have more of a "cushion" (ironically) between me and the extra padding that was contributing to my glucose intolerance.
[Please know that I am very aware these are low weights to a lot of people! I have never had an eating disorder, and it's just that my very short and rather small frame seems to react to extra weight, pregnancy or otherwise, by getting diabetic, which is not good].
Oh, one additional note is that I am still nursing a little bit (yes, me and my nearly two year old are having a hard time ending it!), which I think may make my body sort of hold one to some fat reserves, understandably. But again, I may be sort of making that up!
Thanks in advance,
Naomi
I'd appreciate any advice about how to identify a plateau you can/should move beyond, vs. your body just sort of saying "Hey, I'm good here."
I've been using MFP for about three months. I am 5'1" and 38yo, and I was between 135-140 lbs after two kids. I had probably been about 120 before kids. While I was ok with weighing more than pre-motherhood (who doesn't??), I recently discovered that my a1c was still elevated (5.8) a couple years after my second round with gestational diabetes. So I decided I needed to lose some weight to get on top of that and hopefully not develop Type 2 diabetes.
I've been losing at a pretty steady pace since then - I guess about 1 lb/week. But now that I'm in the low 120s, I've hit a plateau of bouncing between 121 and 124 (my earlier plateaus were briefer and less likely to bounce back up).
My question is, how can you tell when your body is just sort of at its "right" weight? Even at 124, my BMI is 23.4, which seems fine. Of course, I need to retest my a1c and talk to an endocrinologist, which is scheduled for September. But for the time being, I can't figure out whether I should just accept that this is my new weight range, or try to keep reducing it. I had been hoping to go down to about 115, in part to have more of a "cushion" (ironically) between me and the extra padding that was contributing to my glucose intolerance.
[Please know that I am very aware these are low weights to a lot of people! I have never had an eating disorder, and it's just that my very short and rather small frame seems to react to extra weight, pregnancy or otherwise, by getting diabetic, which is not good].
Oh, one additional note is that I am still nursing a little bit (yes, me and my nearly two year old are having a hard time ending it!), which I think may make my body sort of hold one to some fat reserves, understandably. But again, I may be sort of making that up!
Thanks in advance,
Naomi
0
Replies
-
When you were about 120 before kids what was your lifestyle like? Reasonably active and reasonable balanced eating? If so I would say 120 is probably a good weight, if you like so many of drank soda, ate out a lot, sedentary habits then your best weight might be a little bit lower. Keep going with good eating/exercise habits and be curious about what happens with your fitness, weight, and health markers.0
-
I don't think your body knows anything about a "right" weight. You may just be at the point where additional losses aren't worth the incremental effort to achieve them.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't think your body knows anything about a "right" weight. You may just be at the point where additional losses aren't worth the incremental effort to achieve them.
Thanks - so is it normal that it gets harder as you lose more?
0 -
The less fat you have to lose, the harder it usually is and the more precise with logging, etc. you have to be.0
-
When you look in the mirror and you're happy with what you see.0
-
no a plateau is a sign you are eating at maintenance instead of a deficit.
Bodies don't decide anything...otherwise there would be no starving children anywhere.0 -
no a plateau is a sign you are eating at maintenance instead of a deficit.
Bodies don't decide anything...otherwise there would be no starving children anywhere.
I really don't see how the fact that it is possible to starve undermines the idea that the body does do things to regulate bodyweight/bodyfat.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't think your body knows anything about a "right" weight. You may just be at the point where additional losses aren't worth the incremental effort to achieve them.
Thanks - so is it normal that it gets harder as you lose more?
Yes. It can be very difficult. Small bodies use less calories, so you need less to maintain, and even less to lose. It's harder to create a deficit. Plateaus aren't real, it's just a word people use when they think they're doing everything right, but they're actually eating at maintenance.0 -
I don't really see how the fact that the body does do things to regulate body weight/body fat means that there's a "right" weight or that the body makes that decision.girlviernes wrote: »no a plateau is a sign you are eating at maintenance instead of a deficit.
Bodies don't decide anything...otherwise there would be no starving children anywhere.
I really don't see how the fact that it is possible to starve undermines the idea that the body does do things to regulate bodyweight/bodyfat.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »no a plateau is a sign you are eating at maintenance instead of a deficit.
Bodies don't decide anything...otherwise there would be no starving children anywhere.
I really don't see how the fact that it is possible to starve undermines the idea that the body does do things to regulate bodyweight/bodyfat.
to lose weight you consume fewer calories than you burn...simple.
Our bodies don't do anything except burn the calories it is given...as we lose weight our BMR lowers, our TDEE can be lower (not always) but other than that???? yah no.
People starve due to lack of calories...if our bodies could regulate it to a point where it "sets" us at the right weight...no body would be fat/overweight/obese or underweight/starving...
0 -
BMR actually lowers by greater than would be expected based on change in mass though. It is super clear in animals that the body is actively regulating body weight. NEAT is decreased and drive to eat increased at suppressed weight and vice versa.
How it works in humans is harder to sort out due to the many factors that influence energy intake/output. Does the body have a specific amount of body fat or range of body fat that it regulates around, does the strength or direction of the regulation vary by person? Not yet answered. I'm not confident that there is a single "right" weight, in fact I think it is probably a range and not weight per se but a range of body fat. And this regulation can be overridden.0 -
I'm 5'0, 37 years old, and have 3 kids (my youngest is 2.5). So very similar to you
I weighed about 122 before having babies and after my 3rd I thought I was destined to be 120-122 for the rest of my life... I found MFP, learned some tricks, learned I will be a lifelong food weigher (cause I'm horrible at estimating portions), and I'm down to about 115. Right now, I fluctuate between 113-117. I'm happy and since I plan on doing this forever, I'd like to see how much more weight I can lose on my current food/exercise plan.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »BMR actually lowers by greater than would be expected based on change in mass though. It is super clear in animals that the body is actively regulating body weight. NEAT is decreased and drive to eat increased at suppressed weight and vice versa.
How it works in humans is harder to sort out due to the many factors that influence energy intake/output. Does the body have a specific amount of body fat or range of body fat that it regulates around, does the strength or direction of the regulation vary by person? Not yet answered. I'm not confident that there is a single "right" weight, in fact I think it is probably a range and not weight per se but a range of body fat. And this regulation can be overridden.
your talking about set point which I feel is a load of bullocks....my dogs new nickname is tubby so don't tell me her body is regulating her body weight...oh the cat phatty...yes is fat...horses at the farm are fat due to not being ridden enough...so no animals bodies don't regulate either.
I have lost 60lbs and my BMR is not that much lower than before...
When I came to MFP it was appx 1650 it is now 1420 a difference of 230 calories because I am not carrying around an extra 60lbs...but my TDEE was about 1800 when I first got here it is now 2300...
choices override any smaller BMR...and a weight loss plateau is not the bodies choice...it's the person running the body.0 -
This is an interesting debate. I certainly didn't mean to overstate the body's "decisionmaking ability" in any way - I was totally oversimplifying, but I guess I was asking more along the lines of subtle regulation that others mentioned. Especially when breastfeeding is going on - after two pregnancies and nursing two kids, I am fairly confident that my body treats calories differently when different things are going on hormonally.0
-
Very good question, in my opinion. And you've gotten some balanced answers.
It definitely does get more difficult once within a healthy bmi range. I think we all have to decide for ourselves whether it is worth the time, effort, and perceived deprivation (depending on your preferred eating habits) to be at the lower end of healthy, or the upper.0 -
Very much so. You have to be a lot more precise as your body fat gets lower if you want to keep dropping fat. I'm a little taller with a large bone structure and at age 45 I couldn't get below 122 without restricting my lifestyle to a point where I was no longer happy. Of course, I was strictly running at that point. Last year I added strength training into the mix and now I'm nearly as small at 132 as I was at 122. Have you given any thought to focusing on body recomposition rather than just losing pounds?DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't think your body knows anything about a "right" weight. You may just be at the point where additional losses aren't worth the incremental effort to achieve them.
Thanks - so is it normal that it gets harder as you lose more?
0 -
Well so we're talking about asymmetry in the regulation of weight, that there may be much stronger regulation for going under than over the range. I think there may also be a fair amount of genetic variation in this as well.
I like Lyle McDonald's writing on the subject: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html/
0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't think your body knows anything about a "right" weight. You may just be at the point where additional losses aren't worth the incremental effort to achieve them.
Thanks - so is it normal that it gets harder as you lose more?
Yes. It can be very difficult. Small bodies use less calories, so you need less to maintain, and even less to lose. It's harder to create a deficit. Plateaus aren't real, it's just a word people use when they think they're doing everything right, but they're actually eating at maintenance.
^^This. Also i have not noticed it any harder to lose body fat from 13% to 7-8% as it was from 20% to 13%. It just requires the logging to be precise but it all comes off at the same rate. At least for me...0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Well so we're talking about asymmetry in the regulation of weight, that there may be much stronger regulation for going under than over the range. I think there may also be a fair amount of genetic variation in this as well.
I like Lyle McDonald's writing on the subject: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html/
From the 2nd part of the articleAs well, clearly the environment plays a huge role in eating behavior. Increasing portion sizes, exposure to food advertising and a host of other factors all impact on eating behavior regardless of homeostatic systems.And, I’d note again, it’s becoming abundantly clear that, regardless of set points or settling points or whatever you want to call it, the prevailing environment and individual behaviors can overcome either.
For most people given the current environment (which researchers are now terming obesigenic, meaning that it generates obesity), this means maintaining a much higher bodyweight/body fat level than you’d expect based on the set point concept (note again that any homeostatic system defending against weight gain appears to be pretty weak).
Again a weight loss plateau has nothing to do with our bodies except the part that decides to eat at maintenance...either with knowledge or crappy logging.
0 -
I think we agree on this except I would say that it is inaccurate to say that a plateau has nothing to do with those bodily adaptations (e.g., drive to conserve energy/reduce NEAT and increased drive for food), but environmental and individual effects are a very big part of the story. Generally, plateaus people see will be related to inaccurate logging or overestimating TDEE since both are very easy to do.0
-
your talking about set point which I feel is a load of bullocks....my dogs new nickname is tubby so don't tell me her body is regulating her body weight...oh the cat phatty...yes is fat...horses at the farm are fat due to not being ridden enough...so no animals bodies don't regulate either.
Animals (and people) do regulate to a set point, but the set point can be pushed up but maybe not down. The "set point" appears to be levels of the hormone Leptin, which is produced by fat cells and consequently tracks with levels of fat cells. Our bodies want to maintain whatever the "high water mark" of Leptin is. That becomes the "set point". If Leptin levels increase, that will be the new set point. Unfortunately it does not seem to reset with lowered Leptin levels. At least, the effect for higher leptin levels appears to last for years.0 -
No such thing as a plateau- you're eating at maintenance.
I feel your pain- I am also short. I have to be SO meticulous with my logging to lose more weight.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »your talking about set point which I feel is a load of bullocks....my dogs new nickname is tubby so don't tell me her body is regulating her body weight...oh the cat phatty...yes is fat...horses at the farm are fat due to not being ridden enough...so no animals bodies don't regulate either.
Animals (and people) do regulate to a set point, but the set point can be pushed up but maybe not down. The "set point" appears to be levels of the hormone Leptin, which is produced by fat cells and consequently tracks with levels of fat cells. Our bodies want to maintain whatever the "high water mark" of Leptin is. That becomes the "set point". If Leptin levels increase, that will be the new set point. Unfortunately it does not seem to reset with lowered Leptin levels. At least, the effect for higher leptin levels appears to last for years.
sorry there is not enough science yet behind this theory to convince me...0 -
I'm 5'1 as well, and while we're definitely not in the same situation -i haven't had children yet at all haha, give me time! i'm still young, weight loss rules are usually the same for everyone. i went from 128 to 120-115 pretty easily, but after that losing the last 10-15 pounds took me literally forever. It's like, i was so near my goal but it surprinsingly would take me twice the effort i used to have to do before. It's probably because your body remembers the weight you've been at for the longest, and tries to hold on onto it...and the thinner you get, the less calories you need, and it is constantly changing so you have to adjust your eating/exercice plans quickly before it catches up and makes you plateau or gain. I'm around 100 lbs now and it's definitely hard to maintain, takes a lot more work than just floating around the comfortable 115-120 lbs, even though i didn't feel good about myself at that weight at all yet. Losing the last pounds and then maintaining, especially if you're looking into getting actually *thin* and not just 'any normal weight will do'', takes dedication...good luck, i'm sure you can do it though, i've seen so many beautiful peopel getting awesome results around here! :')0
-
I don't have any issue continuing to lose weight even at low weights. I recently upped my calories to maintain from what I was losing a pound a week on but can hardly keep the weight on despite eating more and I'm at a much lower weight than most posting. Fact is if you eat less than you require you'll lose weight regardless of what you weigh.0
-
I don't have any issue continuing to lose weight even at low weights. I recently upped my calories to maintain from what I was losing a pound a week on but can hardly keep the weight on despite eating more and I'm at a much lower weight than most posting. Fact is if you eat less than you require you'll lose weight regardless of what you weigh.
No one is denying that. It can be more difficult to maintain a decent deficit, though, when your TDEE is lower.
0 -
sorry there is not enough science yet behind this theory to convince me...
The fact that when they inject Leptin to restore levels to their previous high it makes the symptoms go away was pretty convincing to me.
"Recent studies of the short-term administration of leptin to weight-reduced lean and obese subjects suggest that restoration of circulating concentrations of leptin to levels present prior to weight loss reverses the decreased energy expenditure, and its associated declines in thyroid hormone and SNS activity and increase in skeletal muscle work efficiency, and increased energy intake, measured behaviorally and by functional magnetic resonance imaging of neuronal responses to food, that characterize the weight-reduced state(78, 82, 97). In this sense, the weight-reduced state may be perceived by CNS components relevant to energy homeostasis as a state of relative leptin deficiency. Pharmacotherapy activating the leptin-signaling pathway may help weight-reduced individuals to sustain their weight loss(98)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions