Article: Weight loss is not always by the numbers

ldarter
ldarter Posts: 131 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have been tracking my food and exercise calorie expenditures carefully and have had a daily deficit that should have me losing 2 pounds per week. But after an initial quick loss of 4 pounds, the scale hasn't budged. I was feeling a little discouraged when I happened across this article written by Nancy Clark, MS RD CSSD, who has a private practice in the Boston-area. It was just the encouragement I needed and thought it might be informative for others.

https://cuencahighlife.com/weight-loss-is-not-always-by-the-numbers/

Replies

  • IllustriousBee
    IllustriousBee Posts: 70 Member
    "But when they get close to their race- and/or dream-weight, fat loss can slow to a crawl. That’s when frustration sets in." This is exactly where I am right now. The article has issues, for sure, and I'm not really sure if it even applies to you (the OP) but if you are close to your goal, results slow to a mostly unnoticed crawl. Eventually you'll finally get there, but the last few pounds, or whatever you're measuring are always the most stubborn. Right now it really feels like I'll never reach my goals, especially since it looks like they're right around the corner, but it'll happen.

    For the OP, the issue could easily just be incorrect tracking. It happens to all of us, which is why I got a food scale. You might be surprised to find out that you've been eating way more than you thought.
  • Speakeasy76
    Speakeasy76 Posts: 961 Member
    I actually think this article points out a lot of what the advice I see given here on MFP when someone's weight loss slows down and the person asks if they should cut back further. Sure, there's a few things NOT recommended on here, like stopping tracking altogether and moving to more mindful eating. It's usually the complete opposite, where it's recommended that people tighten up their logging if weight loss slows down. I also don't think it's possible for most people to just read few lines about "mindful eating" and actually be able to implement it into their daily routine. However, I do think there were a lot of valid points made in the article. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  • EyeOTS
    EyeOTS Posts: 362 Member
    Exercise is really hard to calculate acurately. How long did you stick to it before being discouraged, because it doesn't sound like you gave calorie tracking that long of a try.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,304 Member
    OK: I broke down and read it. It is unfortunate to see all the references to elite athletes, competitions and all such.

    Don't know if the article was botched during editing, or if it was originally written for a more narrow audience. Had the editing been better and references to athletes and competition weights removed... then it would still make sense and be of broader interest as even non elite athletes can exhibit these conditions.

    However, I don't think that the article is likely to directly apply to the OP. Sure, the 2lb a week deficit target is probably excessive unless the OP has a lot of weight to lose. There is generally a component of time to the level of adaptive thermogenesis described in the article and I would not expect it to be reached within a few weeks of reduced calories.

    A few weeks, however, can easily involve a considerable amount of water weight variation as well as water weight losses and gains.

    In brief the OP may be better served by a trend weight app or web site, a smaller deficit, and patience, regardless of the extreme yet possible exceptions to the rules that are referenced in the article.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    Yours in a common situation. Generally speaking it's a miscalculation of calories burned with exercise or your
    actual calorie deficit or both. I suspect your initial weight loss is mostly water. Try a different calculator and be mindful of your stats including age. Keep in mind that calories burned with exercise are different for everybody and therefore miscalculation is a given. If your in a deficit you will lose weight, period unless you have some body decomposition going on. I suspect your calories are higher than you think.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    My weekly weight loss goal is a pound a week and that is what I averaged over the last six months. However, I rarely averaged an exact pound per week, or 4 pounds per month.

    Also, my deficit is appropriate (and was conservative) for the amount of weight I have to lose.

    9kjwnia17qv9.jpg
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,616 Member
    edited July 2021
    I think that the article is not really inaccurate, but is sloppy in parts (whether sloppy writing, thinking, or editing is hard to tell).

    It's obvious she doesn't like calorie counting, and that shows. (NB: I agree that it's not the best route for everyone.)

    I think it's accurate that most people probably have a "sweet spot" range for calorie intake, where they're eating enough under maintenance to lose weight, but not so little that they become over-fatigued, move less, and convince their body to slow down optional processes because there's a famine happening. Adaptive thermogenesis has been documented, and it seems rational that natural selection would've favored genetics that responded in survival-preserving ways (slowing down less important stuff) when there was food shortage, since food shortages have been historically very common. Gene sets that handled famine poorly would've tended to be wiped out more often, y'know?

    So, yeah, don't train your body to limp along on minimum calories in pursuit of fast short-term weight loss, because that will be counter-productive longer term. Bodies are dynamic, not static, so proper fueling helps them optimize activity level thus calorie burn. Bodies get better, generally, at whatever we train them to do. Train our bodies to thrive by properly fueling them, calories and nutrition, and we'll get better results in activity level and health.

    One thing in the article I really hated:
    If your mom or partner says you are too thin, listen up and stop striving to be leaner yet. Rather than struggle to lose those last few pounds, gently accept your physique . . . .

    That's terrible advice. From reports here, it's nearly universal that people around us start saying "you're too thin" when we're still objectively not, because they're used to seeing us heavier (maybe used to seeing everyone in their social circle heavier than optimally healthy), so they over-react. On top of that, partners can fear we're about to get cuter and abandon them, or feel threatened/guilty that we're changing and they're not, etc.

    Instead, if your partner or family says that, talk to your doctor about your weight loss goals. That may not be perfect advice, either, but it's better than just falling in with the first opinions from very non-disinterested partner, family, or friends.

    Do we have a "genetic body type" or most favorable leanness level that's individual? I have no idea. I'm certain that our families and upbringing exert a social, psychological, normative influence on our behavior, so we have certain ideas about what's normal eating and exercise, and tend to fall into those same patterns ourselves. Which dominates, genetics or social factors? Dunno.

    I do agree with others that the author's practice with athletes (recreational or pro) has biased how she's conceived or written this, making the information less useful to those of us who are more like regular people who are materially over-fat. Heck, I was a pretty serious recreational athlete while over-fat, and this would've been terrible advice for me back then (. . . marginally better now that I'm thin, but I'm still not at *aggressively* low bodyfat, which is where some of her advice makes most sense).

    OP, without knowing more details about yourself and your timeline, it's impossible to comment on your experience. It's super common to see some quick scale drop from some fat loss plus some water weight loss, then go through a period where water weight increases again so that continuing fat loss doesn't show up on the scale (even though it's actually happening). For men, that will usually sort out after 4-6 weeks, but there are factors that can make it take longer. For example, we don't know if you recently started a new exercise routine, which can add water weight and obscure fat loss on the scale.

    Could you be shooting for too-fast loss, and shooting yourself in the foot? Maybe. We don't have enough details to know.

    Could it be that you're one of the statistically unusual people for whom the calorie calculator estimates are less than accurate? Sure, but - by definition - that's not very probable. Can happen, though. That's not an indictment of calorie counting, but can mean we need to adjust calorie goal to our personal reality. (I do agree with the article that cutting further, as a kneejerk reflex, may not be the right answer for everyone.)

    Could it be that your food logging or your exercise calorie estimates (or your fitness tracker, if you use one) are far enough off that what you think is happening with calories doesn't exactly match reality? Sure, because learning how to log accurately takes time and effort for all of us, can require some fine-tuning. (If you open your diary, experienced folks could give you feedback about estimates.)

    There are lots of possibilities.

    The article has some good info. It could be reassuring, or it could convince people to complacently give up (a.k.a., stated baldly, decide to be as fat as our family, eat intuitively based on distorted norms, and give up on getting healthier, when getting healthier would've been achievable with a different attitude).

Categories