Stuck weight...your body wont let go

This is the same for me. This is probably contrary to this site but intermittent fasting and calorie counting didn't work for me. I lost 10 lbs on the Fast Metabolism Diet which is only certain kinds of bread, pasta, and rice. No potatoes, dairy or sugar. It focuses more on vegetables and healthy fats. It forced me to add those things to my diet. Once I started calorie counting again and trying to fit all sorts of things into my calorie count, I gained again. I honestly thing it has to do with my age (58) and medication I'm on that causes you to be hungry more and impacts your metabolism.

I don't have a set point, or at least I've never found one within a range that's sometimes gone down to within a 5 pounds of officially underweight, and up to class 1 obese, over my lifetime.

If I eat the right number of calories, I lose weight, in the long run. The right number of calories is:
(1) Not so many calories that I'm eating more than I burn, and
(2) Not so few calories that I get fatigued, move less, and persuade my body to slow down less life-vital autonomic processes (hair growth, body temp, etc.) because it thinks we're in a famine.

Over a day or few, I can manipulate water retention to cause my scale weight to drop: For example, eating fewer carbs will trigger water-weight decreases (body needs water to metabolize carboHYDRATES), so the scale drops.

Routinely, the magnitude of water weight changes (and digestive contents changes) easily outpaces the smaller magnitude of any sensible rate of fat loss, hides the fat loss on the scale . . . sometimes for days or a small number of weeks, even. (A month was roughly the longest, but I was losing fat really slowly at the time.)

Over the past week, my AM weigh-in has varied across a range of 4.6 pounds - not all up or all down, but up and down in that range, because I'm in year 5+ of maintenance. Fast fat loss for a week would be 2 pounds (too fast, at my current weight!). If I lost 2 pounds of fat, and had that same 4.6 pounds of water/digestive contents fluctuating, I could think I hadn't lost weight at all, and I'd be wrong.

So far, patience and careful calorie counting has always worked. When averaged over a month or so and beyond, my weight does what I expect it to do, when calorie counting carefully. Given that, I don't bother changing what I eat or when I eat it, in ways that don't make me happier in some other way.

I'm not saying that my weight behaves as some calculator estimates, because it doesn't. MFP and some other so-called calculators are literally hundreds of calories off, for me, in their sound, statistically-based estimates. IMU, that's rare, but it's obviously possible. For some reason, I'm not statistically average.

When I calorie count to lose weight, I use calorie needs estimates based on my own experiential data, because after almost 6 years of logging through fast loss, slow loss and maintenance, I have a boatload of experience-based data. My weight behaves as expected, averaged over multi-weeks, based on that baseline data.

I'm not trying to tell you how your body works, in the above. You asked about our own personal experiences and strategies. What's above is my answer to that.

Every method that works is a good method. But, every method that works is a reduction in calories below consumption and discharge. Except for a diet of that special candy brought by the Easter Bunny.

penguinmama87 wrote: »

I often think that the idea behind "set points" is really more psychological than anything else - we become very used to eating a certain number of calories or amount of food and that becomes normal to us. Deviating from that is uncomfortable and weird, and so we feel tempted to go back to what we used to do because it's familiar, even if not ideal.

I believe similarly: I think I tend to have comfortable sets of habits that I revert to, that are easy to sustain, and a certain body weight and body composition tend to result from those habits. Trying to do something that's difficult, alien, and unpleasant usually doesn't have good long-term results. Success is more about finding a new, different set of reasonably-comfortable habits (so ones that are sustainable under life stresses) that lead to a different bodily outcome.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

iam4scuba wrote: »

I disagree with the posts here saying there's no such thing as your body adjusting your metabolism to maintain a certain level of "internal numbers", i.e. hormones.

There is scientific evidence and peer reviewed studies that suggest this occurs. I haven't seen anything scientific indicating it doesn't, though admittedly that'd be hard to prove and I'm not sure you could ethically do an experimental study. Regardless, I don't think you can dismiss the claim just because you think it's incorrect.

Further, people are suggesting eating a bit more for a couple days to start the body going again on weight loss and numerous people have said that works. If it does work, and your metabolism doesn't change, what could the explanation be? And it can't *just* be that your body is holding onto water.

In fact, I think people on here contradict themselves when they say you shouldn't have too large of a deficit. The explanation many give for that is because your metabolism will slow down. But if your body can't change your metabolism, how would a deficit too large reduce your metabolism?

I don't see the contradiction.

Your metabolism (if we're talking about basal metabolic rate) is the sum of your cellular processes, and your cellular processes (in one sense) *are* your body. (I can't parse "if your body can't change your metabolism" in that frame of reference.) And I really don't understand what you're trying to say in the bolded. Of course your eating and other behaviors affect various hormone levels which then dynamically affect your behaviors and your "metabolism" in complex, interactive ways.

Your metabolism can change, but not usually in the sense that you can manipulate it intentionally or bend it to your will, especially not over short time-spans. Some strategies are sort of nudges, but without a guaranteed result.

So, yes, if you undereat, some body processes will be underfueled and slow down. Natural selection has favored genetics that slow down less vital processes before slowing down more essential ones. IMU, that's what's usually meant by casual statements about "metabolic slowdown". If you build muscle, your metabolism will increase (by a truly tiny amount) because muscle tissue is metabolically active, more so than fat tissue. Further, if you lose weight, you'll have a lower metabolic activity, just from having a lighter body so (all other things equal) a smaller body will burn fewer calories than a larger one. (Usually, in real life, all other things are *not* equal.)

More simply, if you seriously undereat/underfuel, you'll have less energy, you'll be more fatigued, and you'll move less, in ways that range from subtle to obvious. When that happens, you burn fewer calories than normal by moving less. That's not exactly metabolism, it's NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

Over long time spans, that reduction in activity affects body composition (and habits), so you can get into a negative spiral of reduced activity causing reduced capability for activity, which further reduces activity . . . etc. To put it baldly, when I was fat and inactive, I was on a course that would tend to lead me to become even more fat and inactive, unless I made serious changes in my behavior.

As an aside, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment did provide quite a lot of information about what happens to people who severely underfuel. It's not good.

There's good information in these threads, maybe would help resolve what you're perceiving as contradictory:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

The bolded part is the only statement I was trying to make with my posts. Since the obvious consequence (and presumably the reason why the body slows down the processes) is that you will burn fewer calories.

Honestly, it sounds like we're not really disagreeing at all. You may call it NEAT and take issue with me phrasing it as metabolism, which is certainly fair because I do think precision in language is important for these types of discussions, and I don't know the specific definitions of each of these terms, but whatever it is, your body is burning fewer calories because it is reducing the allowable expenditure in certain processes.

In other words, since you are taking in fewer calories, your body does what it can to eliminate waste of energy activities. Which causes you to burn fewer calories. That's all I'm saying, and that's all the research says based on my readings. And I think we're agreeing here.

Of course, we have the ability to make our own decisions. So even though your body is forcing you to feel tired, you still can go to the gym and lift weights, run, etc. That's why people are able to successfully lose weight.

ETA: just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that people can manipulate their metabolism at will.

wunderkindking wrote: »

iam4scuba wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

iam4scuba wrote: »

I disagree with the posts here saying there's no such thing as your body adjusting your metabolism to maintain a certain level of "internal numbers", i.e. hormones.

There is scientific evidence and peer reviewed studies that suggest this occurs. I haven't seen anything scientific indicating it doesn't, though admittedly that'd be hard to prove and I'm not sure you could ethically do an experimental study. Regardless, I don't think you can dismiss the claim just because you think it's incorrect.

Further, people are suggesting eating a bit more for a couple days to start the body going again on weight loss and numerous people have said that works. If it does work, and your metabolism doesn't change, what could the explanation be? And it can't *just* be that your body is holding onto water.

In fact, I think people on here contradict themselves when they say you shouldn't have too large of a deficit. The explanation many give for that is because your metabolism will slow down. But if your body can't change your metabolism, how would a deficit too large reduce your metabolism?

I don't see the contradiction.

Your metabolism (if we're talking about basal metabolic rate) is the sum of your cellular processes, and your cellular processes (in one sense) *are* your body. (I can't parse "if your body can't change your metabolism" in that frame of reference.) And I really don't understand what you're trying to say in the bolded. Of course your eating and other behaviors affect various hormone levels which then dynamically affect your behaviors and your "metabolism" in complex, interactive ways.

Your metabolism can change, but not usually in the sense that you can manipulate it intentionally or bend it to your will, especially not over short time-spans. Some strategies are sort of nudges, but without a guaranteed result.

So, yes, if you undereat, some body processes will be underfueled and slow down. Natural selection has favored genetics that slow down less vital processes before slowing down more essential ones. IMU, that's what's usually meant by casual statements about "metabolic slowdown". If you build muscle, your metabolism will increase (by a truly tiny amount) because muscle tissue is metabolically active, more so than fat tissue. Further, if you lose weight, you'll have a lower metabolic activity, just from having a lighter body so (all other things equal) a smaller body will burn fewer calories than a larger one. (Usually, in real life, all other things are *not* equal.)

More simply, if you seriously undereat/underfuel, you'll have less energy, you'll be more fatigued, and you'll move less, in ways that range from subtle to obvious. When that happens, you burn fewer calories than normal by moving less. That's not exactly metabolism, it's NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

Over long time spans, that reduction in activity affects body composition (and habits), so you can get into a negative spiral of reduced activity causing reduced capability for activity, which further reduces activity . . . etc. To put it baldly, when I was fat and inactive, I was on a course that would tend to lead me to become even more fat and inactive, unless I made serious changes in my behavior.

As an aside, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment did provide quite a lot of information about what happens to people who severely underfuel. It's not good.

There's good information in these threads, maybe would help resolve what you're perceiving as contradictory:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

Honestly, it sounds like we're not really disagreeing at all. You may call it NEAT and take issue with me phrasing it as metabolism, which is certainly fair because I do think precision in language is important for these types of discussions, and I don't know the specific definitions of each of these terms, but whatever it is, your body is burning fewer calories because it is reducing the allowable expenditure in certain processes.

In other words, since you are taking in fewer calories, your body does what it can to eliminate waste of energy activities. Which causes you to burn fewer calories. That's all I'm saying, and that's all the research says based on my readings. And I think we're agreeing here.

Of course, we have the ability to make our own decisions. So even though your body is forcing you to feel tired, you still can go to the gym and lift weights, run, etc. That's why people are able to successfully lose weight.

I don't think anyone here really disagrees with you.

What most of us disagree with is the idea that you have a pre-determined weight that you will be and your body will be determined to maintain, regardless of human input. That it is some immutable thing and if your set point is fat, well, you're just going to be fat forever.

That's.

That's not how it works.

I completely agree with this, wasn't trying to dispute this at all.

iam4scuba wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

iam4scuba wrote: »

I disagree with the posts here saying there's no such thing as your body adjusting your metabolism to maintain a certain level of "internal numbers", i.e. hormones.

There is scientific evidence and peer reviewed studies that suggest this occurs. I haven't seen anything scientific indicating it doesn't, though admittedly that'd be hard to prove and I'm not sure you could ethically do an experimental study. Regardless, I don't think you can dismiss the claim just because you think it's incorrect.

Further, people are suggesting eating a bit more for a couple days to start the body going again on weight loss and numerous people have said that works. If it does work, and your metabolism doesn't change, what could the explanation be? And it can't *just* be that your body is holding onto water.

In fact, I think people on here contradict themselves when they say you shouldn't have too large of a deficit. The explanation many give for that is because your metabolism will slow down. But if your body can't change your metabolism, how would a deficit too large reduce your metabolism?

I don't see the contradiction.

Your metabolism (if we're talking about basal metabolic rate) is the sum of your cellular processes, and your cellular processes (in one sense) *are* your body. (I can't parse "if your body can't change your metabolism" in that frame of reference.) And I really don't understand what you're trying to say in the bolded. Of course your eating and other behaviors affect various hormone levels which then dynamically affect your behaviors and your "metabolism" in complex, interactive ways.

Your metabolism can change, but not usually in the sense that you can manipulate it intentionally or bend it to your will, especially not over short time-spans. Some strategies are sort of nudges, but without a guaranteed result.

So, yes, if you undereat, some body processes will be underfueled and slow down. Natural selection has favored genetics that slow down less vital processes before slowing down more essential ones. IMU, that's what's usually meant by casual statements about "metabolic slowdown". If you build muscle, your metabolism will increase (by a truly tiny amount) because muscle tissue is metabolically active, more so than fat tissue. Further, if you lose weight, you'll have a lower metabolic activity, just from having a lighter body so (all other things equal) a smaller body will burn fewer calories than a larger one. (Usually, in real life, all other things are *not* equal.)

More simply, if you seriously undereat/underfuel, you'll have less energy, you'll be more fatigued, and you'll move less, in ways that range from subtle to obvious. When that happens, you burn fewer calories than normal by moving less. That's not exactly metabolism, it's NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

Over long time spans, that reduction in activity affects body composition (and habits), so you can get into a negative spiral of reduced activity causing reduced capability for activity, which further reduces activity . . . etc. To put it baldly, when I was fat and inactive, I was on a course that would tend to lead me to become even more fat and inactive, unless I made serious changes in my behavior.

As an aside, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment did provide quite a lot of information about what happens to people who severely underfuel. It's not good.

There's good information in these threads, maybe would help resolve what you're perceiving as contradictory:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

The bolded part is the only statement I was trying to make with my posts. Since the obvious consequence (and presumably the reason why the body slows down the processes) is that you will burn fewer calories.

Honestly, it sounds like we're not really disagreeing at all. You may call it NEAT and take issue with me phrasing it as metabolism, which is certainly fair because I do think precision in language is important for these types of discussions, and I don't know the specific definitions of each of these terms, but whatever it is, your body is burning fewer calories because it is reducing the allowable expenditure in certain processes.

In other words, since you are taking in fewer calories, your body does what it can to eliminate waste of energy activities. Which causes you to burn fewer calories. That's all I'm saying, and that's all the research says based on my readings. And I think we're agreeing here.

Of course, we have the ability to make our own decisions. So even though your body is forcing you to feel tired, you still can go to the gym and lift weights, run, etc. That's why people are able to successfully lose weight.

ETA: just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that people can manipulate their metabolism at will.

I think (no proof) that many people will have a "sweet spot" calorie level or range where they will lose weight, but not incur much energy-loss penalty. That's some of what people here are getting at, telling people not to set calorie goals punitively low, super aggressive.

It would be good to find a sweet spot where your body still behaves as if it can thrive, while burning a bit of stored fat, rather than convincing it there's a famine and it should figure out how to limp along on minimum calories. In general, bodies tend to get good at things we train them, through repetition, to do. Maybe they get better at slowing down in the face of repeated or lengthy famine? Physiology can't tell food scarcity from food self-denial, I think.

While I agree with you that people can increase their NEAT (or exercise calorie expenditure, which isn't NEAT) by working at it, there are parts of the NEAT-related slowdown that aren't conscious, probably. Spontaneous movement has been studied a bit - basically, it's fidgeting or something akin. Adequately fueled people - at least some of them - move in small ways all day long, and it can amount to low hundreds of calories across a day. If fatigue makes a person materially reduce spontaneous movement, that's meaningful.

Exercise in a deficit is tricky, too. If the deficit's extreme, likely exercise performance will be impaired, even if the exercise is done. So, lower calorie burn, plus one doesn't get the full exercise benefits (reduced energy/nutrient availability to rebuild challenged muscle, for instance). Further, there's some research suggesting that overdoing exercise can lead to compensatory slowdown (fatigue triggered) in daily life activities, so one doesn't reap the expected calorie benefits from the exercise, once all is netted out. The "what is overdoing" threshold for exercise is lowered by underfueling, effectively.

These are all dynamic systems, not static ones. All the parts interact, with feedforward and feedback among them. Bodies are complicated.

Beyond that, what's eliminated in any slowdown isn't necessarily all what I'd call "waste of energy" calories. For example, most of us would prefer not to have thinning hair, y'know? But that can be a slowdown effect (potentially delayed a bit after the calorie shortage that triggered it), as can feeling cold often, which isn't pleasant. At true extremes, much worse is possible. One woman who posted here literally experienced heart failure, when previously young/healthy, via eating at 1200 calories and exercising lots, effectively creating a big deficit. That won't happen to lots of people, but risks of many negative things are increased by undereating/losing too fast.