Doing everything I’m ‘supposed to’ but I’m not seeing weight loss

Would you be willing to share your food diary?

OP hasn't responded so wondering if any info at all is being read.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

josha1105 wrote: »

Hi friends! Wondering if anyone is or has gone through the same situation I currently am ... if so, looking for advice.

I started my diet on 2/8/21 at 167lbs with a goal to get down to 145 (I’m 5’7”). It’s been a little over 8 weeks now and I’m down to 156. But, I’ve been at this weight for almost 3 weeks now. I’m doing nothing different and even kicked up my exercise (cardio and weight) to 4-5 days/week. I’m eating 1200 calories, no more than 30-35g carbs, and macros are in line with what I should be matching. I feel like I’m doing everything I should be doing but I just don’t see the weight coming off. (I’m also 53 and peri-menopausal in case that factors in). Help! Thanks in advance to all for your advice.

Here is a slightly different view of things assuming that all of your measurements of CICO are correct:

First- It is possible for your body to need a period of 'rest' to play 'catch up' and see the resulting loss later (as long as six weeks later is not unheard of). This is part of the reason for not using the scale alone to judge how you are progressing on your weight loss journey. And as we get closer to our 'ideal weight', weight loss slows anyway.

Second- Have you considered that with also doing weights and cardio, that you may also be building muscle and it is making your loss appear stalled? 'Muscle weighs more than fat' is not exactly true-after all, a pound is a pound. However, it is more dense and a pound of muscle takes up less 'space'. Another reason for not using scale alone to measure weight loss. Are you seeing a loss in size?

Third- due to the differences in body composition-larger bones, more dense bones, more muscle mass-what we think is our 'ideal' based on insurance charts may NOT be OUR ideal. Where you are now-156- is inside of the 'ideal range' for women your height (127-159). What IS important, is 'how much of that weight is fat?' BMI measurements are not perfect, but a good starting place to know how much fat we have and how much is 'average' for our height and age. When we reach OUR body's 'happy' weight (different than a 'plateau'), it becomes very hard to reduce beneath that and maintain it.

Fourth- What is your fiber intake? Water? Is your 'outgo' of each appropriate for your food intake?

and Fifth-scales are not perfect and may need re-calibration. Compare yours to your physician's scale. Replace batteries if needed.

All of that said, Scales are just a start for checking our weight loss: BMI, tape measure, clothing fit, mirror check are all very useful tools for tracking our progress towards our goals. Bottom line-when we work on 'getting healthy'-eating, not dieting and staying active-it is whatever size and weight you are healthy and happy with

Best wishes and keep us posted!

g2renew wrote: »

josha1105 wrote: »

Hi friends! Wondering if anyone is or has gone through the same situation I currently am ... if so, looking for advice.

I started my diet on 2/8/21 at 167lbs with a goal to get down to 145 (I’m 5’7”). It’s been a little over 8 weeks now and I’m down to 156. But, I’ve been at this weight for almost 3 weeks now. I’m doing nothing different and even kicked up my exercise (cardio and weight) to 4-5 days/week. I’m eating 1200 calories, no more than 30-35g carbs, and macros are in line with what I should be matching. I feel like I’m doing everything I should be doing but I just don’t see the weight coming off. (I’m also 53 and peri-menopausal in case that factors in). Help! Thanks in advance to all for your advice.

Here is a slightly different view of things assuming that all of your measurements of CICO are correct:

First- It is possible for your body to need a period of 'rest' to play 'catch up' and see the resulting loss later (as long as six weeks later is not unheard of). This is part of the reason for not using the scale alone to judge how you are progressing on your weight loss journey. And as we get closer to our 'ideal weight', weight loss slows anyway.

Second- Have you considered that with also doing weights and cardio, that you may also be building muscle and it is making your loss appear stalled? 'Muscle weighs more than fat' is not exactly true-after all, a pound is a pound. However, it is more dense and a pound of muscle takes up less 'space'. Another reason for not using scale alone to measure weight loss. Are you seeing a loss in size?

Third- due to the differences in body composition-larger bones, more dense bones, more muscle mass-what we think is our 'ideal' based on insurance charts may NOT be OUR ideal. Where you are now-156- is inside of the 'ideal range' for women your height (127-159). What IS important, is 'how much of that weight is fat?' BMI measurements are not perfect, but a good starting place to know how much fat we have and how much is 'average' for our height and age. When we reach OUR body's 'happy' weight (different than a 'plateau'), it becomes very hard to reduce beneath that and maintain it.

Fourth- What is your fiber intake? Water? Is your 'outgo' of each appropriate for your food intake?

and Fifth-scales are not perfect and may need re-calibration. Compare yours to your physician's scale. Replace batteries if needed.

All of that said, Scales are just a start for checking our weight loss: BMI, tape measure, clothing fit, mirror check are all very useful tools for tracking our progress towards our goals. Bottom line-when we work on 'getting healthy'-eating, not dieting and staying active-it is whatever size and weight you are healthy and happy with

Best wishes and keep us posted!

This is great overall advice, but I do have one sad quibble.

Under excellent conditions, a really good result for a woman would be to gain about a quarter pound of new muscle mass per week, on average (for a man, maybe twice that). Excellent conditions include relative youth, good genetic potential, a well-designed progressive strength training program faithfully performed, excellent nutrition (especially but not exclusively adequate protein), being relatively new to strength training, and a calorie surplus.

OP says she's 53, and eating 1200 calories (which is probably an aggressive deficit for someone her size, more so if not eating back exercise calories). Those are not ideal conditions. I'm not saying she can't have gained muscle, just that any gain will likely have been less than a quarter pound per week.

On the flip side, half a pound of fat loss weekly is about the slowest normally observable average rate of fat loss, and even that can take multiple weeks to show up on the scale, amongst normal water weight fluctuations of a pound or few daily. Sadly, the implication is that pretty much no realistic rate of muscle mass gain is going to outpace a satisfyingly rapid rate of fat loss, to the point of misleading results on the scale as a consequence. I wish it were different, but I think that's the reality.

It's not super unusual to see people believing they've gained muscle mass quickly, when they experience quick, satisfying strength gain, perhaps alongside an improvement in the appearance of muscle definition. Early strength gain is likely to be predominantly from neuromuscular adaptation, basically recruiting and using existing muscle fibers more efficiently. The water retention that comes with increased exercise, for muscle repair, potentially can lead to a bit more defined appearance. That appearance change is especially likely if there's been some loss of overlying subcutaneous fat over the same timespan, letting the muscle structure show a bit more than previously. The strength gains and appearance improvements are great stuff, but not a sure sign of mass gain (i.e., addition of new muscle fibers).

I wish that muscle mass were easier and quicker to gain, especially for women (like me), and especially for older women (also me). It's a thing that requires work and patience. As a rough rule of thumb, in the context of a basically fairly consistent eating/exercise routine, quick scale changes within a couple/few days are likely to be about water weight; sensible-rate fat changes show up over multiple weeks to small numbers of months; and muscle-mass changes are more likely to affect scale weight over many weeks to many months, even years. 🤷‍♀️

I still think OP is seeing a water weight effect, and that patience will result in the scale moving (but it would be better to target a slower loss rate, health-risk-wise, despite frustration with slowness).

I'm completely on board with your other points - good stuff! 🙂

PAV8888 wrote: »

To Ann's post above.... some of the apparent muscle gain is increased glycogen near the muscles that are being used and water retention due to tissue repair.....so truly not net new muscle fibers....yet they do FEEL like newer bigger muscles and they perform as such due to neuromuscular adaptation even if their net muscle fibers number hasn't changed.. so are they? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[hides now]

Yes, PAV, bigger geometrically, that's possible . . . but the weight hiding fat loss on the scale is still (sigh) water, not added muscle. That's the point . . . the sad, sad, point.

I can't even begin to tell you how much I wish that muscle gain were fast and easy, because (like so many others) I'd love to get me some of that, without doing much work, or taking much time. 💪💪💪🎉

Ain't gonna happen. 😢