Question about deficit for tall women

Lietchi wrote: »

Lcounsellor wrote: »

@Lietchi Its not totally new, but I did have a few months off before December yes. I use another TDEE calculator rather than what MFP works out as I don't eat back exercise calories.
Was wondering if it might be water retention.

Well, all calculators are based on statistical averages, whether it's MFP out that TDEE calculator you used. So there's still the possibility of your body not fitting the statistical averages
And having stopped the weightlifting for a few months, I would certainly expect some water retention when starting again. One of these two options, or a combination of both, could explain a slower rate of loss (as well as the accuracy of your tracking, which you haven't mentioned).

I agree with this. It's worth it, IMO, to try to figure out your own TDEE and adjust your caloric intake accordingly - the average is not a good fit for me either. If you've tracked through a whole menstrual cycle (if applicable) and kept up roughly that same level of activity, your TDEE might be closer to 2000 rather than 2500. 1 lb/week isn't *bad*, by any means, though, and depending on your goal weight might be more appropriate.

There might be some tightening up you can do of your food logging, in case you are underestimating intake. I think 1500 sounds low for that much exercise at your height but maybe not! It could also be (having experienced this) that fairly intense exercise might tire you out and you move less the rest of the day in incidental ways, even if you still get steps counted. If you feel really fatigued your body might deliberately be slowing other processes down to conserve calories. The sweet spot for intake IMO is enough to lose steadily but still have basically the same level of energy to live your life. It means slower rather than rapid loss, but it's much less painful! And has the bonus of being more like what your life will be like to maintain afterwards.

Hi! I’m 44 years old and 5’10”. Started at 195 pounds so very similar to you! I wear a fitbit, so even though my calorie goal starts low, I usually end up eating between 1800 - 2000 calories per day.

Someone else asked about food tracking accuracy, and I want to echo this point. The average person underestimates their calorie intake by 20 - 40 percent! That is enough to close a deficit. I weigh most foods that I eat, especially calorie dense foods like peanut butter. I also require myself to input my food before eating it. That way I don’t forget that I grabbed an apple on my way out the door or whatnot. You might already be doing this so my apologies if this advice isn’t helpful! Happy to meet another tall girl who is at a similar weight as me!

Water retention is an overwhelming candidate. HOW are you determining your weight trend? Do you have sufficient back data (a couple of months)?

Beyond that you're overweight not obese. And all indications are that you're choosing correct values as you ARE talking about an expected TDEE in the 2500 range which seems to be supported for the average cat that moves as much as you do.

Having said that, your one lb a week effective loss rate is FAR from a terrible rate of loss. WANTING to lose faster does NOT mean it is BETTER FOR YOU to lose faster. Honestly. I would celebrate that things are working for losing for now and START WORKING ON MAKING THE LOSS STICK LONG TERM.

And for that you may want to consider avoiding sharper drops and regains and aim to FLATTEN THE WAVE. I would NOT court potential health issues or even simple long term adherence issues that COULD be generated by larger deficits. They are NOT needed to achieve weight loss within a reasonable time span. And I am weird and seem to believe that health comes before vanity!

Best of luck.

Hi, I've only just started but I'm the same height as you and 2 years older and also looking to lose 2lb a week, also probably a similar level of exercise although I've never counted calories before. Perhaps we can spur each other on?

I do Body Combat / Body Pump and running, and similar step count to you depending on whether it's a work day (office job!) or an at-home day (much more active).

noodlesno wrote: »

Lcounsellor wrote: »

@tomcustombuilder Yes thanks agreed! hoping its fluid retention from the heavy lifting, but will double check my logging

Hey,

The other thing that may be happening is that if you are doing heavy lifting again after a break and focusing on a good level of proteins you may be building muscle. Muscle is great for so many reasons, higher metabolism, better health in old age...etc. So it really is a great thing. Also, muscle weighs so much more than fat so you will be losing the cm's even though you are gaining muscle.

On my last weight loss journey, I added so much muscle at the same time as losing body fat so totally possible to do.

While it's certainly possible over a longer period, there is unlikely to be very much muscle added in 4 weeks. Being a woman and being in a calorie deficit aren't prime conditions for fast muscle growth. Lots and lots of potential for water retention however in those muscles!
I'm not arguing against weight lifting, just nuanceing the possibility of extra muscle mass at this stage already.

noodlesno wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

While it's certainly possible over a longer period, there is unlikely to be very much muscle added in 4 weeks. Being a woman and being in a calorie deficit aren't prime conditions for fast muscle growth. Lots and lots of potential for water retention however in those muscles!
I'm not arguing against weight lifting, just nuanceing the possibility of extra muscle mass at this stage already.

I am not sure what a woman has to do with anything...Women have the same potential to grow muscle as men. Here is a good peer-reviewed journal which demonstrates this exact point. I am afraid that thinking anything else is just 'bro' science and has been discounted a while ago.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11890579/

I would agree that being in a calorie deficit is not ideal for gaining muscle for individuals over the long term and those that regularly train. However, the possibility of growing muscles when coming back to weightlifting in the short term with in an energy deficit is very possible.

Again this is scientifically proven... https://www.strongerbyscience.com/muscle-caloric-deficit/

This demonstrates that in a study of untrained individuals energy restriction does not meaningfully impair strength gains.

Saying all that, it is more rational that it would be water retention but muscle building is possible and should not be taken off the table.

Strength gains and muscle gains in untrained individuals even in a deficit has been known well, forever. The point was, how much muscle can a person gain in 4 weeks even if a person is untrained, answer, not much. 1 % in 4 weeks appears to be what this study is saying.

It would have been nice if they included the upper body in your first study as opposed to just measuring upper thigh and leg muscles, it helps with a complete picture.

OP, a pound a week is a pretty great loss rate for most people (sustainable long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight), and 2 pounds a week would be fairly aggressive for someone of your height and current weight, as you say.

I started here at a little higher relative weight (183 pounds at 5'5"), lost at close to 2 pounds a week for a while by accident . . . and it was not a good thing. I got weak and fatigued, took multiple weeks to recover once a realized and started eating more, may've had some hair thinning as a delayed reaction. Nobody needs that.

Fast loss, for whatever reasons, has down-sides. I'm not saying that for sure bad things will happen, but health risk increases with loss rate. Comparing the risks/benefits of slow vs. fast loss is an individual decision, of course. We all want to lose fast, but there are reasons to give it some thought.

On top of that, sometimes a slow loss rate gets us to goal in less calendar time than a fast attempt that brings on "cheat days", longer breaks, or even giving up altogether.

I'd also say that slow loss is a better path to revamping eating gradually and preparing for easier long-term maintenance. (Saying that from the perspective of year 7 in a healthy weight range after previous literal decades of overweight/obesity.)

Your call, though . . . and best wishes for long-term success no matter what you decide.

noodlesno wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

While it's certainly possible over a longer period, there is unlikely to be very much muscle added in 4 weeks. Being a woman and being in a calorie deficit aren't prime conditions for fast muscle growth. Lots and lots of potential for water retention however in those muscles!
I'm not arguing against weight lifting, just nuanceing the possibility of extra muscle mass at this stage already.

I am not sure what a woman has to do with anything...Women have the same potential to grow muscle as men. Here is a good peer-reviewed journal which demonstrates this exact point. I am afraid that thinking anything else is just 'bro' science and has been discounted a while ago.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11890579/

I would agree that being in a calorie deficit is not ideal for gaining muscle for individuals over the long term and those that regularly train. However, the possibility of growing muscles when coming back to weightlifting in the short term with in an energy deficit is very possible.

Again this is scientifically proven... https://www.strongerbyscience.com/muscle-caloric-deficit/

This demonstrates that in a study of untrained individuals energy restriction does not meaningfully impair strength gains.

Saying all that, it is more rational that it would be water retention but muscle building is possible and should not be taken off the table.

I think the question is not "can it happen" but "can it happen that fast".

For sure, it can happen, no matter what the bros may say.

But even under ideal conditions, 2 pounds of muscle mass gain per month would be a really good result. The most favorable conditions include relative youth, relative maleness (yes, because testosterone), a good progressive strength training program faithfully performed, overall good nutrition (especially but not exclusively adequate protein), favorable genetics, relative newness to strength exercise, a calorie surplus, and more.

It's not that it can't happen in less favorable conditions, but it's likely to be slower than that 2 pounds a month/half a pound a week if the conditions are less ideal.

On the flip side, half a pound a week of fat loss is about the slowest rate many people would consider satisfying, and even that can take multiple weeks to show up on the scale amongst normal daily water weight fluctuations.

The nearly inescapable conclusion is that no realistic rate of muscle mass gain is going to outpace any reasonable rate of fat loss on the bodyweight scale, generally. Sad, but true.

Sometimes people think they've gained muscle mass because they've gotten stronger, or look more firm/"toned". Those are great things, but early strength gain tends to be from better recruiting and using existing muscle fibers (neuromuscular adaptation), which happens quite fast. The "toned" look can be from that water retention in the muscles that others have mentioned (a bit of pump, basically) plus loss of some overlying fat that was hiding muscle definition more at the start.

Strength gain is worthwhile for its own usefulness in daily life, and looking better is a good thing, too. Strength training is worth doing, no question.

It's maybe a kind thing to tell someone "maybe you're gaining muscle" as reassurance . . . but I also think it's kind to be realistic, and I don't think muscle mass gain is the reason after 4 weeks for a 40 y/o woman eating 1500 calories not to be losing scale weight as fast as her initial goal.

More likely explanations are water retention from new/progressive exercise, being early on the learning curve for calorie logging/estimating, or having an unusual TDEE for one's demographic, IMO.