Platue

Options
2»

Replies

  • jaorti95
    jaorti95 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    Other than that if I have time to spare I go in and type what I ate on here
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    Be vary careful with the entries labeled " Homemade " from the database - these can be vary inaccurate entries.

  • erinc5
    erinc5 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    Your logging is not accurate. There are many days missing, and there were only about 3 days total in January that you logged over 1000 calories. So, if your logging were accurate, you'd have lost quite a lot this month. If you need to write everything down and then add it in later in the day, that is fine, but log everything.

    Do you really believe that you are averaging about 800 calories per day only? Or do you think that you are missing some foods or underestimating?
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    uo7w8ag87z4q.jpg
    1.jpg 135.4K
  • jaorti95
    jaorti95 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    erinc5 wrote: »
    Your logging is not accurate. There are many days missing, and there were only about 3 days total in January that you logged over 1000 calories. So, if your logging were accurate, you'd have lost quite a lot this month. If you need to write everything down and then add it in later in the day, that is fine, but log everything.

    Do you really believe that you are averaging about 800 calories per day only? Or do you think that you are missing some foods or underestimating?

    The days that are missing I have in the journal but yes sometimes I don't even consume 1,000 it's not that I don't choose to I just don't have time as much to eat. There are days where I do get to at least spare 100 calories.
    And alright I'll be more accurate with logging in my food in here more than the journal.
  • jaorti95
    jaorti95 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    uo7w8ag87z4q.jpg

    This makes sense a lot.
  • lemonlionheart
    lemonlionheart Posts: 580 Member
    Options
    jaorti95 wrote: »
    How long has it been since you've lost weight?

    If you aren't losing weight, it's more likely that you are at a calorie level to maintain -- and increasing calories won't result in weight loss.

    I would say maybe less than a month

    A plateau is six weeks of being on plan and no weight loss.

    I see this a lot. Serious question, is there actual science behind this or is this just one of those rule of thumbs? It just seems a little illogical to be sticking to something perfectly for 6 weeks without getting some sort of result. I wonder if someone cutting after a bulk would be expected to wait 6 weeks without seeing results before they're move on to something else. Pretty sure those people would start flipping out that they're not going to be beach ready or whatever in time. Why is the answer different for those with a real need to lose?

    All I can say is that it was pretty frequent for my weight loss to pause for 3-5 weeks while I was losing weight even when I was staying on plan. I think just a little over two weeks is too early to begin worrying about a plateau.

    So at the end of the 3-5 weeks do you lose more or just go back to losing the same amount you would have regularly in a week. Why didn't the calorie deficit produce a loss? Don't say muscle. No one is gaining muscle. Ever. (People say this in the forums all the time too.)

    I would usually lose what I planned to lose in a week or just a little bit more.

    And I wouldn't say muscle, because that's ridiculous.

    A deficit won't always produce a loss because our bodies aren't machines. Maybe my hormones were fluctuating, maybe I hit it too hard with cardio and my muscles were taking a long time to repair, maybe I was retaining water. Maybe I switched up some of the foods I was eating so I had more food weight in my body day-to-day. Maybe I was wrong on my best estimate for the calories in my weekly date night dinner out and I had much more than I thought I did.

    But over time, I always resumed losing again, which is why I think it can be dangerous to switch up plans after a couple of weeks just because you think you're in a plateau.

    I guess. Six weeks is just a crippling when you're heavy and need actual results. Especially if you really are doing everything right. It's not exactly fun to do everything right and get zero result.

    To put a little perspective. I've switched to 1500 calories because I've been stuck for weeeeeeeks at the same weight. So let's say I eat 1500 for the next 6 weeks with zero results. I've just starved and driven myself insane for 6 weeks to get the same result I would have gotten if I'd eaten more. I've just wasted 6 weeks of my life for nothing. And I'll still be fat. Meanwhile someone else lost 6 pounds. Someone who should speak up and say what they did differently to get results LOL.

    I'd normally say 3-4 weeks, but yeah, for a woman with hormonal fluctuations who then maybe started a new exercise program it could well be a bit longer in some cases. I would say that if it has been more than 3 weeks, I'd start to investigate but less than that I'd usually say just make sure your logging is accurate and be patient.

    The 6 week thing is where you can pretty much definitively say that there's something off with your logging, you need to re-adjust your calorie goal, or there's something medical going on (it's the logging thing 99% of the time, usually it turns out they're using cup measures instead of a digital scale, not logging nights out, using inaccurate MFP entries etc etc). And you won't get the same result eating more. Less calories = a greater deficit = more weight loss.