Months-long plateau

Options
Springerrr
Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
edited June 2016 in Health and Weight Loss
Has anyone experienced this?? The title says it all.
  • I am 56 years old.
  • 1700 cal/day.
  • Weight 185-187. No change since February. 5'9"
  • Have been careful/religious in my logging.
  • Excericse about five times/week. Always either running (~4mi) or an hour on the eliptical (set high..have been logging only 60% of that the calorie read-out says)

Replies

  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Options
    I can't soft soap my answer..... if you haven't been losing in that long, you have been eating at maintenance :/

    I will ask what countless others will - are you using a food scale ?

    Has anything else changed? taking new meds etc?
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Options
    If your weight hasn't changed in that long a time, it is simply a matter of - in spite of your thoughts to the contrary - you're not in a calorie deficit. You're in maintenance.

    Have you had your thyroid function checked lately?

  • ScoobaChick
    ScoobaChick Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    I agree with the others that if you have been carefully weighing and logging all your food intake and have been at a plateau for 3 months then you are obviously eating at maintenance regardless of the Calorie goal MFP gives you.

    Your body is probably different from the average upon which the MFP formulae are based. I would try cutting your daily Calories by an amount that you are comfortable with and then seeing how that works. Also do not believe what cardio machines give you as a Calorie burn. Invest in a HRM (heart rate monitor) which will give you a much better estimate.

    I went cycling for one hour with my family last Saturday and I only burned 100 Calories. I can find apples that have more Calories. I can do the same one hour Zumba class on two consecutive days and have one day where I burn 550 and another where I burn 700 Calories (same time of day, same songs, same everything). I always wear a HRM when I work out and even then I don't put 100% of my faith in it and only consider that it is safe to eat back around a third of the Calories it tells me I burned.

    Good luck and please don't get discouraged!
  • Vegplotter
    Vegplotter Posts: 265 Member
    Options
    I think you might have been believing the bit of the app that gives you exercise calories. Switch that off for a week or two and see the difference.
  • Weight_less
    Weight_less Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    Your TDEE (maintanance calories) is 2,571 cal per day. 1700 cals sound like undereating. I would recommend you to take a look at Eat more 2 Weigh less group. It might help to overcome plateau.
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    Thank you all for your kind responses. I went out and got a Polar FT4 (off Ebay! $12!). I tried it for the first time last night. I was fascinated by the heart rate and now see easily why I do not run very far before having to walk! The session lasted 55 min, four miles. I ran the first couple of miles then alternatively ran to 160BPM, then walked to 135BPM, then ran again, etc! It was a very cool way to go, challenging but not exhausting! The calories were a crazy 766! Out of curiosity I put it on this morning and found out I can do a "workout" at my desk at 115cal/hour. So I assume you have to subtract that from exercise calories? Or are the calories just BS and should be ignored? Also I was "out of The Zone" (109-138) for almost my entire workout. How does this zone get established?? Is it a so-called fat burning zone??
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    One tip: the Polar Ft4 is only useful for steady state cardio. There is a long winded scientific answer for why, that goes over my head. But if you're using it at your desk, then its not going to be accurate.

    How accurate/consistent is your food logging?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    StaciMarie1974 wrote: »
    One tip: the Polar Ft4 is only useful for steady state cardio. There is a long winded scientific answer for why, that goes over my head. But if you're using it at your desk, then its not going to be accurate.

    How accurate/consistent is your food logging?

    This; it's not made to be worn all day.
  • meritage4
    meritage4 Posts: 1,441 Member
    Options
    My advice would be to change up your exercise routine. Run further than 4 miles some days, other days do speed work, try a zumba class, add some 30 minute walks ro your days, try hiking with a pack, try a spin class.
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    I realize it is not meant to be worn all day. Only that when you weigh a bowl of fruit, you subtract the weight of the bowl. I thought that the FT4 might be including my base-line metabolism (the weight of the bowl) in its calculations. I don't think it is possible that I burned 766 calories by run/walking 4 miles.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Weight_less wrote: »
    Your TDEE (maintanance calories) is 2,571 cal per day. 1700 cals sound like undereating. I would recommend you to take a look at Eat more 2 Weigh less group. It might help to overcome plateau.

    2571 seems hard to believe at 56.

    I do agree that OP is eating at maintenance.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    I think I see what you are saying. If your TDEE (based on stats in first post and profile says you're male) is 1660 - then a sedentary NEAT would be ~ 2075 per day or 86 per hour. Meaning doing your normal daily activities you'd burn 86 in an hour. When Polar shows you burned 766, in theory that would be 86 + an additional 680.

    It seems high but my perspective is that of a female. At my best I walk for 5-6 cals a minute and run for ~7 cals per minute. But guys typically have higher burn rates due to higher muscle mass %, and you weigh 55 pounds more than me. BUT if you're eating 1700 cals a day then it does not really matter if you burn 300 or 700 or 1000 in exercise. Because if you're eating 1700 and you're a 5'9" 185 pound 56 year old guy, you should be losing weight even if you did no exercise.

    So back to the earlier question: how is your food logging? Does religious/careful logging include regular use of a food scale for solids? How often do you need to estimate due to situations where you're not involved in the food prep? Have you checked that you're using accurate entries? USing raw food entries for raw weights and such? Logging condiments/cooking oils/beverages/bites/tastes/etc.?

    Can you open your diary?
    Springerrr wrote: »
    I realize it is not meant to be worn all day. Only that when you weigh a bowl of fruit, you subtract the weight of the bowl. I thought that the FT4 might be including my base-line metabolism (the weight of the bowl) in its calculations. I don't think it is possible that I burned 766 calories by run/walking 4 miles.

  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    StaciMarie1974 wrote: »
    So back to the earlier question: how is your food logging? Does religious/careful logging include regular use of a food scale for solids? How often do you need to estimate due to situations where you're not involved in the food prep? Have you checked that you're using accurate entries? USing raw food entries for raw weights and such? Logging condiments/cooking oils/beverages/bites/tastes/etc.?
    You are very kind to take so much time with me. It seems that I have either 1) an unusually slow metabolism or 2) you're right that I am not tracking food well enough. I had thought I was being rather religious in measuring, looking up restaurant food, etc, etc, but we humans are, I think rather good at deluding ourselves.

    One thing I have been doing for the past couple of weeks is ScoobaChick's and VegPlotter's excellent suggestion of eating only a third of exercise calories. (in my case I record the full time of exercise but log only a fraction of the calories). We'll see how that goes!!
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    2571 seems hard to believe at 56.

    Depends on the weight and activity level. I got 2160 cals/day for 190 pounds at 40 years old and lightly active. She may be older than me, but it sounds like she is much more than "lightly active" (and exercise burns more calories when you're heavier).
  • cebreisch
    cebreisch Posts: 1,340 Member
    Options
    Been there. Sometimes you just have to wait it out and be patient. You could try changing up your exercise routine. If you aren't swimming, try some Aquafit classes. If you're currently swimming, try taking a cardio/steps class instead. Sometimes body gets used to things and gets comfortable. Time to change things up a bit.
  • brichards_
    brichards_ Posts: 113 Member
    Options
    Try high carb low fat vegan :)
  • ericatoday
    ericatoday Posts: 454 Member
    Options
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    Weight_less wrote: »
    I would recommend you to take a look at Eat more 2 Weigh less group. It might help to overcome plateau.

    Eating more and expecting to lose weight is against the scientific principles of weight loss, I'm afraid. She will only gain weight if she does this. If she's currently eating at maintenance level (which is apparent because her weight isn't changing) how can eating *more* make her lose weight?

    If that were the case, none of us would have weight issues, since eating more is what created the problem in the first place. :)

    This is not completely true. I was at a plateau for months at 1250 calories and working out 4 times a week. I upped my calorie intake to 1500 and have lost 3 lbs. Sometimes your body does need extra calories and can aid in weightloss. My body was obviously taking all those calories and everything from my food it could and holding on to it when in reality all i needed to do was eat a little more so my body didnt think it was starving. What works for some doesnt work for everyone.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    ericatoday wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    Weight_less wrote: »
    I would recommend you to take a look at Eat more 2 Weigh less group. It might help to overcome plateau.

    Eating more and expecting to lose weight is against the scientific principles of weight loss, I'm afraid. She will only gain weight if she does this. If she's currently eating at maintenance level (which is apparent because her weight isn't changing) how can eating *more* make her lose weight?

    If that were the case, none of us would have weight issues, since eating more is what created the problem in the first place. :)

    This is not completely true. I was at a plateau for months at 1250 calories and working out 4 times a week. I upped my calorie intake to 1500 and have lost 3 lbs. Sometimes your body does need extra calories and can aid in weightloss. My body was obviously taking all those calories and everything from my food it could and holding on to it when in reality all i needed to do was eat a little more so my body didnt think it was starving. What works for some doesnt work for everyone.

    I know that when i upped my calories i was much more careful/accurate with my logging than i was on lower calories and had more wiggle room, i also found i had more energy, so exercised more/harder. Could this be the case for you too?

Categories