I Just Keep Losing and Regaining the Same 2-3 Lbs!

AnnPT77 wrote: »

andybing11 wrote: »

How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.

No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.

As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.

Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.

People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.

We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.

For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.

Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).

There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.

She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.

Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.

At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?

Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.

Just my opinion though.

andybing11 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

andybing11 wrote: »

How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.

No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.

As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.

Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.

People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.

We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.

For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.

Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).

There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.

She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.

Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.

At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?

Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.

Just my opinion though.

I'll concede that I may've over-interpreted you, and if so, I apologize sincerely. I've just had that conversation way too many times here, so am probably a little hair-trigger about it.

I disagree with you, still, about interval training. It's complicated, but IME (and some other reports), the best total calorie burn comes from steady state at whatever is the maximum intensity is a person can sustain (without causing fatigue that bleeds NEAT calories out of the rest of the day), for the amount of time they have available to exercise.

Intervals, in particular, can be deceiving. The spikes during the intense phase tend to keep the HR elevated during the lower-intensity intervals, so most consumer devices overestimate the total calorie expenditure. There are a few folks here who have data from running the experiment on a power-metered bicycle, and found that to be true for them - that the total energy output over the time period is lower in intense interval workouts. Add in the fact that intensity is fatiguing (possible can't continue as long, may bleed NEAT calories out of the day), and I don't think there's a clear win in intervals. (I agree that they have certain fitness benefits not available from steady state, among trained people, but that's not the issue for OP.)

The point about muscle gain is true, of course, but muscle gain is too slow to have much impact in the short run (weeks), especially alongside a calorie deficit. Even in the long run, it seems the research suggests something in the range of 2-4 calories per pound per day difference between the metabolic activity of a pound of fat vs. a pound of muscle, at the 'metabolic' level, anyway - pretty minor, on the calorie front. (I suspect that people with more muscle mass tend to move more, because it's easier and more fun, so get better NEAT numbers, but I don't know of research on that front, if there is some.)

I agree that to burn *more* calories by running, she would need to either run faster in the same amount of time, or run at the same intensity (speed) for a longer time, or possibly run in hillier terrain (burns more, but how much more is hard to estimate).

I still don't think that's the problem, though. Her diary over about the last week says she's eating very low some days (like 700-ish gross intake, not net) if her logging as accurate, and not over the mid-high teens (like 1600-1800) but usually well below. USDA thinks an active TDEE at her size would be around 2100, Sailrabbit at least 1800 (if her exercise isn't daily but more like every other day) to low 2000s. If she's been doing this since June, she should be losing weight. Something isn't adding up.

Again, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize.

andybing11 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

andybing11 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

andybing11 wrote: »

How often have you been running 2 miles? Has it been the only cardiovascular exercise you have been doing since your journey? Have you tried changing it up? HIIT - Burpees til failure - rest. Sprint as far as you can. Rest. The body gets complacent after time. Try working it into your routine 2x a week for the same amount of time as your 2 mile runs. Maybe alternate days - 2 mile run, HIIT and so forth. The last 5 lbs are the hardest and sometimes you have to up the ante.

No, your body doesn't "get used to exercise" and burn fewer calories doing the same thing.

As you get lighter, it burns fewer calories doing things that move your body in space, because bodyweight is part of the workload.

Beachbody, other outfits that want to sell diet/fitness programs or equipment, and some trainers like to push that "body confusion" idea. It's not true.

People believe it sometimes because they feel the exercise as easier after a while, see their heart rate get lower doing the same exercise, and have a heart-rate based calorie estimator that tells them they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity at the same bodyweight. All of that comes from improved fitness and cardiovascular capability - heart can pump more blood volume per beat, so it beats less often to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the body.

We have to keep challenging our body to keep improving fitness, which does mean changing the program for *fitness* reasons, but that need not be intensity increase (can be other changes). The reason is not calories, and calories are what's behind bodyfat changes.

For calorie burn, what matters is the work, in basically the physics sense of the term "work". Work requires energy, calories are energy, do the same work, burn the same calories.

Something like jogging doesn't have huge technical efficiency variations between people. Two people of the same size, same max heart rate, but wildly different fitness levels are burning roughly the same number of calories running the same distance at the same speed. The more fit one finds it easy (and has a lower heart rate, maybe much lower) than the very unfit one, who may be struggling to do it, and seeing a very high heart rate (and possibly a higher calorie estimate from a HR-based estimator).

There are various reasons to change workout routine: To keep pushing fitness via challenge, to combat burnout or boredom, to develop slightly different physical systems. To burn more calories because "your body is complacent"? I don't think so. In OP's case, it's a red herring. If she enjoys her routine, that's kind of magical, and she should keep doing it.

She said she is low on time so finding time to adjust the workload to burn more calories in a short period of time is going to be difficult. Either A.) She is going to have to start running 2 miles faster to burn more calories to increase the heart rate as again, the longer we do something, the better we get at it. B.) Will have to start running further at the same pace. C.) Work harder at a higher V02 max in a shorter period aka interval training.

Plus, with C.) you can expect to see muscle increase which helps burn more calories in the long run. Also, C.) helps you do A. which in turn, also burns more calories.

At the end of the day, in order to lose weight, it comes down to calories in and calories out. How do we burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time?

Also, I don't see where I said the body gets "used to" exercise. I said the body gets complacent aka it is no longer challenging. If you do the same thing every day, you're going to look the same every day. It doesn't mean you have to constantly change it up, but 8 weeks on a steady state cardiovascular routine, is begging for intervals to increase results.

Just my opinion though.

I'll concede that I may've over-interpreted you, and if so, I apologize sincerely. I've just had that conversation way too many times here, so am probably a little hair-trigger about it.

I disagree with you, still, about interval training. It's complicated, but IME (and some other reports), the best total calorie burn comes from steady state at whatever is the maximum intensity is a person can sustain (without causing fatigue that bleeds NEAT calories out of the rest of the day), for the amount of time they have available to exercise.

Intervals, in particular, can be deceiving. The spikes during the intense phase tend to keep the HR elevated during the lower-intensity intervals, so most consumer devices overestimate the total calorie expenditure. There are a few folks here who have data from running the experiment on a power-metered bicycle, and found that to be true for them - that the total energy output over the time period is lower in intense interval workouts. Add in the fact that intensity is fatiguing (possible can't continue as long, may bleed NEAT calories out of the day), and I don't think there's a clear win in intervals. (I agree that they have certain fitness benefits not available from steady state, among trained people, but that's not the issue for OP.)

The point about muscle gain is true, of course, but muscle gain is too slow to have much impact in the short run (weeks), especially alongside a calorie deficit. Even in the long run, it seems the research suggests something in the range of 2-4 calories per pound per day difference between the metabolic activity of a pound of fat vs. a pound of muscle, at the 'metabolic' level, anyway - pretty minor, on the calorie front. (I suspect that people with more muscle mass tend to move more, because it's easier and more fun, so get better NEAT numbers, but I don't know of research on that front, if there is some.)

I agree that to burn *more* calories by running, she would need to either run faster in the same amount of time, or run at the same intensity (speed) for a longer time, or possibly run in hillier terrain (burns more, but how much more is hard to estimate).

I still don't think that's the problem, though. Her diary over about the last week says she's eating very low some days (like 700-ish gross intake, not net) if her logging as accurate, and not over the mid-high teens (like 1600-1800) but usually well below. USDA thinks an active TDEE at her size would be around 2100, Sailrabbit at least 1800 (if her exercise isn't daily but more like every other day) to low 2000s. If she's been doing this since June, she should be losing weight. Something isn't adding up.

Again, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize.

No apologies needed. I think it is the structure of the interval. BUT because this conversation of debate isn’t productive to the OP, we can save it for another day. But if she likes running, she should look into Fartlek intervals. Running is my cup of tea. Love it. Every one who enjoys running should want to get better at it.

I agreed with your previous post regarding protein and am curious how much is water retention here from carbs, fats, and sodium. Crazy how the female body can retain such large amounts (up to 10 lbs I believe)?

Yes.

OP, you started your current workout routine in June (later June), so you've been at it about 2 months. New workout routines involve water weight increases, for many people.

You're female, and of an age where I suspect you still have menstrual cycles. That can cause significant water weight fluctuations, for many women (I've seen some say they gain as much as 8 pounds at certain points in their cycle, or only see new low weights once a month at a specific point in their cycle - though those are relatively extreme cases, I admit).

You mention weighing after workouts during some of this time, and right after getting up at other times, so your conditions for scale weight measurements have changed by an amount that you indicate is 0.6lbs. (It's unclear to me whether you work out every day, or only some days, so I'm not sure whether you did the pre-workout weighing, then stopped and replaced it with after-workout weighing entirely; or are varying back and forth between the two still.) That variability will make it harder to use your scale weight as an indicator of fat loss, because that water fluctuation is in there on top of other sources of fluctuation.

I only looked at a few days of your diary, but your eating appears somewhat uneven. I saw some 700/800-some calorie days in there, and I'm not sure whether that's undereating, or a partially logged day with some things missing. I don't know whether you have any kind of regular (so called) "cheat meals" or days. Uneven eating will cause wider scale-weight fluctuations, both from water weight and variations in digestive contents in transit (what will become waste at the end of the digestive process).

As I mentioned, just looking at the weights you showed us, you could be experiencing slow loss . . . but I don't know, partly because of all of the above, as sources of "noise" in the data.

If you're truly eating the 1200-ish (gross calories) or somewhat fewer that seems to be your norm, you should indeed be losing weight. You may actually BE losing weight since June, but not seeing it on the scale very clearly or quickly because of the fluctuations.

The best advice I could give right now would be to be consistent for at least another full menstrual cycle (weigh under the same conditions every time, compare same relative point in two different cycles, maybe use a weight trending app, don't radically change exercise until you get some consistent data, etc.). See what happens.

If your diary is accurate, roughly estimating, you should be losing something over half a pound and up to around a pound a week, on average, possibly more. Water fluctuations can hide that for a surprisingly long time, especially if you don't make an attempt to reduce their impact on the data (by being consistent). That would be a good to fast loss rate, at your current bodyweight, so I wouldn't suggest cutting calories further.

Best wishes!

zebasschick wrote: »

to add more protein without fat or cooking, try non-fat greek yogurt, non-fat cottage cheese or protein shakes. minimal cooking, egg whites are good; just throw some in a non-stick pan stir gently till fully formed and eat. one i like that's pretty easy is soy pasta - plenty of protein, lower carbs, easy to make.

good luck to you!

Another good one is ahi tuna steaks. Super high protein with very very little fat. Just watch the mercury

You might have found your "happy" weight. That weight where you just want to be. That weight where you feel good enough, can eat what you like to be happy, exercise enough to be happy. It's just the weight where you want to be. To be lighter, you'd just have to work too hard and that is just not "happy" for you. If you get heavier, you feel poorly and revert back to your "happy" weight. Congratulations. You found where you want to be.

lilcharmer214 wrote: »

Yeah. I have always noticed that big arch in my back but never thought too much of it. Guess its something to consider.

I have opened my diary now. Note: we did treat ourselves to Red Lobster this weekend but even then, I never ate full portions. M-F though I stick to my diets usually.

I will need to measure my food more. Thanks for checking in.

Not answering your original forum question but, I also have that arch in my back, which I found out is due to hypermobility (basically - over-flexible joints)

It might be an idea to see a doctor/ physio about posture to see if you are hypermobile before doing strenuous workouts because certain exercises can be bad for it.