Plateau

The closer you get to your goal weight, the less margin of error you have. You need to be much more accurate in your logging in order to ensure you are eating at a deficit.

Are you weighing and logging all of your food?

Doesn't a Plateau mean your weight doesn't shift at all? I'm just asking because reading the info in your profile you have continuously lost weight or gained weight over the last 5 month when you say you've hit a plateau. In March you were 191lbs and August 182lbs so you've lost 9lbs, so again is that a plateau? Or do you mean you're not losing as much or as fast as you'd like.

She's lost 65lbs so I'm pretty sure she knows how to measure food and calculate calories. I'd bet 20lbs of bodyfat it's a new "set-point".

Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition

Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).
Conclusions

Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight.

Biggest Loser is extreme but every diet that doesn't break the pattern of caloric deficits does the same thing. If your RMR drops 200-700 calories below where it should be according to weight it will without a doubt cause a plateau.
For those curious on the math that 200-700 cals a day is 20 - 73 pounds a year. It is a significant issue.

The best thing you can do on a plateau is take a break. The longer the plateau the longer the break needs to be. Get your metabolism moving up ASAP before it gets worse.

meritage4 wrote: »

tru upping your exercise as doing the same ones as you did before now burn less calories because you are smaller

Exercise is not the issue, when it comes to losing weight it's far less important than diet and metabolism.
When in a plateau, increasing exercise may help drop a few more pounds in the short-term but it will compound the true issue in the long-term.

Well, if she hasn't lost weight in five months, wouldn't you say she HAS been eating at maintenance.

All this side argument about adaptive thermogenesis is more about a personal agenda of the person posting that (over and aver ins various threads) and not likely to be this person's problem.

Have you changed your weight in settings - update diet and fitness profile? If not, you may still be eating the calories set at your original weight.

cmriverside wrote: »

Are those your Net calories? Meaning, do you enter and eat back the calories "earned" by exercise?

I couldn't eat 1700-2300 Net and lose. I am at a healthy weight (in the middle of the "range" for my BMI range.) I have to Net 1400-1600 to lose. I mean, obviously you and I are not alike, but if I were to maintain on 1700-2300 Net and I knew my logging was accurate, I would cut a couple hundred calories.

In other words, you have been eating at Maintenance.

I think this would depend on height and muscle mass. I eat 1600-2100 a day and am still progressing towards my goals. I'm female, 5'7", and do Insanity most days along with hitting my step goal. I'm only medically 10lbs away from "a healthy weight" and 20lbs from my original goal weight.

While I agree the OP is probably eating at maintenance due to their personal results.

fr33sia12 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Well, if she hasn't lost weight in five months, wouldn't you say she HAS been eating at maintenance.

She has lost weight in the last 5 month though, read her profile.

There's a 5 pound range up and down.

OP, I'd say that there is some things that deserves a second look in regards to total calories being eaten and moreover, the logging and accuracy of intake, etc.. My take is the calorie range of 1700 - 2300 is pretty broad. How many days are at the higher range keeping you in slower loss or even out of a calorie deficit? Is a food scale being used?

I bet there is a possibility that the "weekly" total calories consumed are in a range to currently maintain. The 5 pounds up and down that I see on the profile can account for daily/weekly fluctuations.

I am also in agreement about the strength training aspect and losing lean mass through weight loss. Also curious if at each 10 pound loss is the calorie goal being updated?

cmriverside wrote: »

SCoil123 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Are those your Net calories? Meaning, do you enter and eat back the calories "earned" by exercise?

I couldn't eat 1700-2300 Net and lose. I am at a healthy weight (in the middle of the "range" for my BMI range.) I have to Net 1400-1600 to lose. I mean, obviously you and I are not alike, but if I were to maintain on 1700-2300 Net and I knew my logging was accurate, I would cut a couple hundred calories.

In other words, you have been eating at Maintenance.

I think this would depend on height and muscle mass. I eat 1600-2100 a day and am still progressing towards my goals. I'm female, 5'7", and do Insanity most days along with hitting my step goal. I'm only medically 10lbs away from "a healthy weight" and 20lbs from my original goal weight.

While I agree the OP is probably eating at maintenance due to their personal results.

Oh, for Pete sake. That's what I said. I am also 5'7" and at a healthy weight. 1700-1800 NET is my maintenance/lose a little number. Sometimes I eat more - shocker. I've been at this for many years. Very rarely is it a simple matter of a couple hundred calories on paper. I did say, "I mean, obviously you and I are not alike," I'm a lot older than her, not working, etc.

She hasn't been back, regardless...she likely isn't keeping very close tabs on her numbers, there is a lot of vague wording in her Original Post.

Who is Pete? Lol. No reason to get defensive. I didn't even disagree with you really, just making the point clear for anyone interested.