Thoughts on weight loss plateau for the petite lady!

Options
2»

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Not a negative net deficit, either.

    You want Goal - Food + Exercise to be about 0, since your deficit is built into your goal. But it has to be logged accurately.
  • macgurlnet
    macgurlnet Posts: 1,946 Member
    Options
    I'm on the app so I can't look at your diary right now. How old are you?

    I'm 28, 5 feet even, and I can lose 0.5lb/week (averaged out over time) on 1500 calories. MFP gives me a goal of 1250 and I make sure I at least walk enough to earn 250 additional ones through exercise.

    When I'm actively trying to lose, I cut way back on going out for food and weigh everything I possibly can to ensure accuracy, plus I shoot for leaving 100 calories to account for logging errors.

    If you're 100% sure you are logging everything accurately, it's time for a doctor visit to rule out medical conditions that could be contributing.

    ~Lyssa
  • tarap003
    tarap003 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Well thanks for all the responses, I am positive i'm logging correctly, there's no medical condition i've had that checked. So from your responses it seems that I'm going to have to accept that anything over 800 calories a day is putting me in maintenance. As I said before I have already lost 20lbs through consistent accurate logging and exercise, so i guess it makes sense now that lighter my energy requirements are less.
  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 698 Member
    Options
    First, how long have you been on a plateau? Second, what exercises are you doing that you're burning 1500 calories per week? I'm 5'1" and have had many plateaus, all due to inaccuracy somewhere. One of them was due to the inaccuracy of my HRM (Polar FT4). My heart rate is naturally higher than most peoples during cardio, so I was getting inflated burns.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Agree with everyone else that you're probably overestimating your calorie burns. The heart rate monitors are notoriously inaccurate at estimating burns for anything other than steady-state cardio. And since you're quite petite (as am I, I'm 5'1") then the algorithms used, which are calculated for more average-sized folks, can sometimes be off for those of us a couple of standard deviations away from the mean.

    I'd suggest trying the TDEE method for a while, instead of eating back exercise calories. Ignore "net" calories and try targeting a certain gross calorie amount for a while, e.g. 1200. If you eat at 1200 gross calories for 6 weeks, you should see the scale start to move again.

    Both methods come to the same thing, in theory. In practice, I find that it's far too easy to eat back too many exercise calories if you're using that method.

  • tarap003
    tarap003 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Thanks again for the responses, in response to the questions raised I've been in plateau for three months now, I have never eaten back calories and in all honesty I have never really understood the net calorie thing so I have been ignoring it. As for the heart rate monitor as I said in a previous reply I'm aware of the inaccuracies of them, but through a lot of trial and error I found over the past year or so that if the HRM was telling me that I had burned around 1500 cals that week in conjunction with a daily calorie intake of the minimum 1200 MFP was telling me to eat that I consistently lost a pound or so a week, I did this and consistently lost 20lb, but now I've stalled.

    The cardio comes from walking the dog for an hour or more every day, which is the best I can do exercise-wise as I have three jobs and study which take up the rest of my time. Plus as I'm only currently eating between 800-1000 calories a day you would think there would be some kind of deficit there already!?

    I did at one point test the theory that perhaps i was eating too few calories and upped my daily calories to about 1350 for about a month, but that resulted in me gaining back about 6lbs.

    So I think the answer to my original question, given that everything was working until recently has to be that the daily intake of calories has to come down, either through not eating it or burning off the excess which seems harsh as 800 calories a day or less isn't very much at all. But it does kind of make sense that for sticking to 1200 or less for a prolonged period got me 20lb lighter but then there comes a point where you hit maintenance on that amount and it has to come down further to enable me to get rid of the last 10-15lbs.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    You're only eating 800-1000 calories a day???

    Whoa. Stop the presses. Ignore all the previous responses. Eat more.
  • KBmoments
    KBmoments Posts: 193 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    If you're stalled for three months, you're eating at maintenance.

    This.
  • timrpm
    timrpm Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    Two possibilities:-

    1) God has supplied you with an additional calorie supply because you're small, so it's impossible for you to lose weight.

    2) You're not at a deficit of calories. Ruling out inaccurate logging, I'd suggest building in some high energy intervals into your cardio walking to which you maybe have acclimatised. Run/jog with the dog a few minutes at a time, recover, then run again? Do some hill work, speed walking up the hill?
  • MarcyKirkton
    MarcyKirkton Posts: 507 Member
    Options
    I'm small too....5'2", but no, it's not any different than for anyone taller. I have to hit a deficit just like a taller person does to lose. Now, is it harder? I guess, since I won't lose at a moderate amount of exercise and eating what this program suggests. We cannot discuss reality here, btw. Not allowed. But if you follow actual USDA guidelines, you'll be fine.

    My extra calories come from coffee creamers, which add quite a lot in my world. I leave wiggle room for those. So I might say I'm eating 900 calories but in reality it's more like......1035.

    And the weight comes off consistently. If you were losing before and you're not losing now, something has changed. That's your challenge......to figure it out.

    Now, my theory is, and believe me, I use that term loosely.....My theory is that any type of exercise I do, I eventually figure out how to do it without burning as many calories. It's just how it goes. My body learns the moves and, voila, starts getting efficient. Next comes the......boy, this seems easier stage. Well, that's because it is. lol And, it's less effective at burning calories.

    My theory is that we're hardwired to be that way. Otherwise, we have to kill too many lions. :)

    Good luck!
  • mtwtm
    mtwtm Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    How do you function at only 30g of carbohydrates per day? That is an extremely low amount of carbs, of course you're going to gain it all back. How about replacing some of the meat, cheese, butter, and oil with fruits, vegetables, and beans? They are naturally low calorie foods and you can eat more of them. Every nutrition textbook I've ever read says that low carb diets are not beneficial and can sometimes harm your health. You definitely need more natural fiber.
  • kirstengeffen
    kirstengeffen Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    Welcome to the club!! I'm 4"11 too and hear EXACTLY what you're saying :/ it's a giant pain... I literally feel stuffed eating 1200 calories and only seem to gain weight even though I'm a long distance runner and see a personal trainer several times a week.

    petite women seem to defy scientific laws...
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I'm 5'1" and lost 50 pounds eating 1300-1400 calories per day. Yes, we need fewer calories than our taller counterparts, but not to the point of starving ourselves.

    Look at it this way: We may be losing more slowly in absolute terms, but in relative terms we're right on pace with larger people. 0.5lbs/week loss for us is the same percentage of body weight being lost every week as 1lb/week is for a larger man.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Your maintenance should be something like 1500 at the moment, even without exercise, so you should be losing on the calories you are eating (or even 1200). At that narrow a margin any inaccuracies in the logging can really mess you up, and you eat a lot of calorie dense foods and seem to use various estimate (egg=70 cal, fruit by estimated size, not sure how the calories for the "Chinese" meals were calculated, so on). That's not criticism, for some things, like restaurant meals, it's impossible to be precise, but it's something to be aware of.

    That said, if you are certain your logging isn't off, I'd see a doctor, as maintaining on the calories you are eating wouldn't be just due to height, and you are going to be low on nutrients and protein given the few days of your log I looked at, which is always the risk with low calories. Discussing your logs and frustration with a dietitian might be helpful too in figuring out what might help, if you were to get a referral (not sure how it works in the UK).

Categories