Now it's my turn to plateau!
Jthanmyfitnesspal
Posts: 3,522 Member
I've responded so many posts of people reporting a brief plateau during weight loss, recommending they just stick with it and it will resolve. But, I acknowledge that when it happens it is both aggravating and de-motivating.
I started the cut at the new year at 189lbs, shooting to reclaim 170lbs (BMI of ~25). My net deficit goal is 500kcals/day, which should give a weight loss of 1lb/week. I exercise regularly (swim, ride, run) and log fairly accurately (not perfectly and often quite after-the-fact). Mostly, I stick to a very habitual eating pattern, having the same thing for breakfast and lunch most days. Exercise calorie estimates are provided by my Garmin watch. The point is that I haven't changed my eating habits (much), but my weight trend has clearly changed. And, I don't recall this happening before.
The difference this time (I think) is that I'm older and my metabolism is now capable of cutting way back. When I sit at my desk, my hands sometimes get cold. I'm often extraordinarily tired after dinner and end up lying down early. All of this reduces my calorie burn and I think are examples of "metabolic adaptation" to eating fewer calories. So, even with a ~500kcal workout, my daily caloric burn is not as high as as before, and my plan puts me closer to maintenance than weight loss, which is exactly what I see in my weight trend.
I can also report that I've had true hunger pangs at various moments in the past couple of weeks. It feels like alarm bells going off in my stomach! 🤤 It's ridiculous, of course: I'm not starving to death or anything. My target deficit is perfectly reasonable.
So, taking my own advice, I plan to tough it out, staying on plan, trying to be more active during the day. I may do a fasting day next week and see what happens. I'm open to any other suggestions.
I started the cut at the new year at 189lbs, shooting to reclaim 170lbs (BMI of ~25). My net deficit goal is 500kcals/day, which should give a weight loss of 1lb/week. I exercise regularly (swim, ride, run) and log fairly accurately (not perfectly and often quite after-the-fact). Mostly, I stick to a very habitual eating pattern, having the same thing for breakfast and lunch most days. Exercise calorie estimates are provided by my Garmin watch. The point is that I haven't changed my eating habits (much), but my weight trend has clearly changed. And, I don't recall this happening before.
The difference this time (I think) is that I'm older and my metabolism is now capable of cutting way back. When I sit at my desk, my hands sometimes get cold. I'm often extraordinarily tired after dinner and end up lying down early. All of this reduces my calorie burn and I think are examples of "metabolic adaptation" to eating fewer calories. So, even with a ~500kcal workout, my daily caloric burn is not as high as as before, and my plan puts me closer to maintenance than weight loss, which is exactly what I see in my weight trend.
I can also report that I've had true hunger pangs at various moments in the past couple of weeks. It feels like alarm bells going off in my stomach! 🤤 It's ridiculous, of course: I'm not starving to death or anything. My target deficit is perfectly reasonable.
So, taking my own advice, I plan to tough it out, staying on plan, trying to be more active during the day. I may do a fasting day next week and see what happens. I'm open to any other suggestions.
1
Replies
-
Your trend still looks downwards to me, I don't see the big change you seem to see?
I would recommend using a weight trending app like Libra or Happyscale, which more clearly shows the trendline.
My example of the last months: dots are weigh-ins, line is the trendline
Patience is the only thing I would recommend, looking at that graph 🙂0 -
When you lose weight and your activities are the same you need to lower your calories to continue losing as your maintenance gets lower however I’d give it another 2-3 weeks to be sure as you’ve only stalled for less than 2 weeks. You may be getting ready for a whoosh.
2 -
I’m going to plump for the opposite. When my weight doesn’t move, I eat more.
I don’t know what contrarian principle is at work, but I start losing.
I think the tiredness is indicative of underfueling. Afternoon nappiness ismy number one red flag that I am not eating enough.2 -
Refeed. High carb but filling (potato, apple). Maintenance calories not above. 2-3 days?
Play with timed snacks. Apple right before or after exercise?
You sure sound as if you're reducing neat possibly in response to exercise and underfueling1 -
There's evidence that aging related metabolic changes are quite small from 20-60, and quite slow/gradual for some time after that. I don't think you're seeing anything dramatic age-related over that timespan.
You say you've been shooting for a 500 calorie deficit, but you've not told/shown us how fast you've actually been losing? With 19 pounds to lose, even a pound a week becomes aggressive fairly soon, and you've been at this for many weeks already. I don't know how tall or old you are, but it seems like going from 189 to 170 isn't going to make maintenance calories 500 lower (maybe 150?).
The part about being cold and tired suggests losing faster than ideal (or losing for too long), so the diet break or eat more options are tempting. Napping or going to bed early of course reduces calorie burn (NEAT). Keep in mind that losing too fast (or trying to) is a stress, and stress potentially increases cortisol, which potentially increases water retention and confuses things on the scale. Hunger pangs may also suggest overdoing either the size of the deficit, or the length of time at that deficit.
So, yeah, maybe try a maintenance break? Not sure about 2-3 days only.
I assume you've read the refeeds and diet breaks thread. In case not:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
4 -
many times eating more isn’t what caused the loss as your body can be a week or 2 behind on getting the calorie amount memo so the loss can be because of a low period from the previous week or even longer sometimes due to water shifting around so much or just an overall slower response.springlering62 wrote: »I’m going to plump for the opposite. When my weight doesn’t move, I eat more.
I don’t know what contrarian principle is at work, but I start losing.
I think the tiredness is indicative of underfueling. Afternoon nappiness ismy number one red flag that I am not eating enough.
I know at 70 the changes happen so damn slowwwww…
I’d just keep the pace. Your graph shows a sudden plateau and that usually is a sign of water retention.
You can raise calories however in the long run that most likely will cause a temporary water shift however to continue losing fat, unfortunately that will require fewer calories or more activity with the latter being the best approach if possible.
If your calories are low enough now it may take you to the finish line but that’s a big if.
1 -
Yep. I'm stuck right at 175 still since 3/30. Cycling season is about to start, and that is a big calorie burner. Done with a slight deficit, it usually makes me lose weight.1
-
I had the same feeling - for about 2 weeks no movement - however it did finally shift and the long term trend is still a fairly consistent down. Messsage is - dont obsess over specific weights or even short periods - stick with it and it will pick up again.
3 -
From what I've learned over the years, the body will plateau every 20 lbs or so, to re-adjust the hips. If a person is large, the hips readjust in size and get smaller as one loses weight. So most times it's a plateau every 20 lbs or so. However long it takes the body to make the hips smaller to match the body weight. It didn't mention gender but it could only apply to women? So not sure.1
-
@cryonic_273 : I'm assuming that is in kg, in which case, you have lost quite a bit overall. I see your reduced delta from 3/30 - 4/13.
I have continued to stall since 3/30. I'm down a small fraction this morning, so maybe things will pick up again. My stomach is not happy about it and hunger signals have been a factor.0 -
@Jthanmyfitnesspal - yes in kg. Had a 2 week period where it felt nothing was happening. Then a fall. The slope is not always at the same gradient - but it is downhill.1
-
This plateau happened to me, too, and based on my chart I’m not reaching my goal weight anytime soon which is just 10 lbs less. I also don’t always feel great digestively. Might try Ayurveda to see if that helps. Not a bad idea to keep a diary to help figure out which foods make you feel good and energized (and help you eliminate) as well as those that may be making you feel gassy, constipated, and sluggish because they could be causing inflammation1
-
After my 2 week pause, I'm starting to lose again. I'm within 5lbs of goal weight, but I want to overshoot by 2lbs as I always bounce up a little bit. Again, this is not a super low weight for my height. My BMI will be ~20 and I expect my %BF will be well into normal for my age, also evidenced by my persistent, stately, and handsome muffin top!
@jenbrowntextile : Your point is very important. We need to determine what foods agree with us. I have honed that pretty well, but my digestive system is aging and temperamental even on a fairly stable diet. Life is full of contradictions, as exercise can be inflammatory and can have a large effect on digestion (particularly jogging), yet seems an overall benefit. I don't think the same can be said of foods. Those that give you an inflammatory response should probably be avoided!1 -
I’m starting to see some changes. I really can’t explain why this happened, and as we all seem to agree, it’s very common. I can only say that I feel like I have more energy, which probably means I’m burning a few more kcals daily. I felt very strong doing my calisthenics last night, and I haven’t been focusing on them lately. (Body weight exercises are easier when you’re lighter, who knew?)
Anyway, I’m ridiculously eager to be done with my cut, but it could take until the end of May. 😫 I’ll just pretend I’m strong. 💪
(Again, I’m just shooting for a BMI of 20, which is the high end of “normal.”)
2 -
Normal BMI range is 18.5 to 24.9. 20 is comfortably within that, but I wouldn't call it "on the high end." Just don't want people unfamiliar with BMI to get the wrong idea 🙂1
-
0
-
SuzanneC1l9zz wrote: »Normal BMI range is 18.5 to 24.9. 20 is comfortably within that, but I wouldn't call it "on the high end." Just don't want people unfamiliar with BMI to get the wrong idea 🙂
It also tends to be low-ish for males. I'm not saying OP is wrong, because I have no idea what his build is. But in a statistical sense, it's more likely for women to be at a good weight lower in the normal BMI range, men to be at a good weight higher in the range (maybe even a bit over if more muscular than average).
If one looks at ideal weight charts - which are also statistical norms, not individual gospel, it's common to see that suggested weights for men are noticeably heavier at the same height.
For example, I'm 5'5". Normal BMI range for my height is about 111-150 pounds. That's unisex. There are web calculators** that will apply multiple research-based so-called "ideal weight" formulas, and consider sex.
For me, as a female, the formulas' "ideal weights" range from 125-132 pounds, which equates to BMI 20.8-22.
If I were male, the same BMI range applies, but the formulas suggest 134-139 pounds, which is BMI 22.3-23.1.
** Random example: https://www.inchcalculator.com/ideal-body-weight-calculator/
That site applies an age-neutral set of formulas. There are others that consider age, and sometimes other factors.
Note that I'm not advocating that calculator specifically, or the concept of universal "ideal weight" generally. Not at all! I think choices about one's weight are very, very individual, and suspect that there's a fairly wide range where any individual has reasonably good odds of long-term good health. From reading here, it seems fairly common for people to target or prefer weights higher than what those formulas suggest, and there are realistic reasons why that might be so. There are also some people who target or prefer lower weights, and there are also realistic reasons to prefer that. (The practice of a sport(s) that rewards lighter body weight is certainly one such thing.)
Like you, I'm not second-guessing JthanMyFitnessPal, just speaking in general contextual and statistical terms.0 -
Typo? Or high end of normal for you due to hill climb cycling?0
-
Ideal body weight doesn’t take into consideration body composition, so it can be very misleading0
-
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Ideal body weight doesn’t take into consideration body composition, so it can be very misleading
Some ways of suggesting good/ideal body weight do. The ones I mentioned above don't. Clearly, body fat percent makes a different, a huge difference - or relative muscularity, to put the same thing in different terms.
IMU, that's the main "why" behind differences in suggested ideal weights for men vs. women, in the formulas that don't make the fat/lean distinction explicit. On average, men have more muscle mass than women at the same weight. On average. Not universally.
As with other statistical kinds of things, these recommended-weights things tend to be semi-reasonable for average people, not so reasonable for non-average ones. For example, I'm aware of a woman here about my height who is tens of pounds heavier than I am, and many percent lower in body fat: She's muscular well beyond the statistical averages for our height range, and she's sometimes above the normal BMI range, but clearly not overfat at that weight. She's statistically unusual, not "wrong" or "non-ideal". With my current body composition, I was overfat at her body weight. There are also women I see here who are around my weight, but clearly lower in muscle mass, even though I'm not massively muscular. Individuals vary.
Quite a few people have no clue what their body fat percentage is. There are ways of estimating that, too, but they're also statistical in nature, and can mislead.
If I were making general recommendations, I'd be suggesting multiple modes for considering goal weight or evaluating current weight, including body fat percent estimation, waist/hip ratio, blah blah blah. (Those kinds of things, and personal aesthetic preference, cultural context, etc.) That wasn't the thread of conversation in this case.
0 -
SuzanneC1l9zz wrote: »Normal BMI range is 18.5 to 24.9. 20 is comfortably within that, but I wouldn't call it "on the high end." Just don't want people unfamiliar with BMI to get the wrong idea 🙂
@SuzanneC1l9zz : Sht, you're entirely right, and I meant that I'm shooting for a BMI of 25, which is on the high end of "normal." Thanks for that correction. (My point is that I'm not shooting for anything particularly slim. And, I think the recommended ranges are pretty much BS. I know lots of very healthy people that have a BMI well over 25.)
@J72FIT : Not much with weights! Sometimes I work with bodyweight and bands. Mostly, I swim, ride, run. I've been pretty constant with my eating and workouts, so the little pause I had is curious.
@PAV8888 : Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt!
@tomcustombuilder : I agree that BMI is a very crude metric (weight in kg divided by height in meters squared). You can't read too much into it, except that it has been used in a lot of epidemiological studies. I'm an average build, so the guideline is pretty good for me. I like to think I have some extra muscle from working out regularly, so I'm shooting for the top of the "normal" range.
@AnnPT77 : Always good comments.
Thanks for the comments!1 -
lol, I’m right on the edge of being overweight at 6-0 and 182. by the calculator I just checked withtomcustombuilder wrote: »Ideal body weight doesn’t take into consideration body composition, so it can be very misleading
Some ways of suggesting good/ideal body weight do. The ones I mentioned above don't. Clearly, body fat percent makes a different, a huge difference - or relative muscularity, to put the same thing in different terms.
IMU, that's the main "why" behind differences in suggested ideal weights for men vs. women, in the formulas that don't make the fat/lean distinction explicit. On average, men have more muscle mass than women at the same weight. On average. Not universally.
As with other statistical kinds of things, these recommended-weights things tend to be semi-reasonable for average people, not so reasonable for non-average ones. For example, I'm aware of a woman here about my height who is tens of pounds heavier than I am, and many percent lower in body fat: She's muscular well beyond the statistical averages for our height range, and she's sometimes above the normal BMI range, but clearly not overfat at that weight. She's statistically unusual, not "wrong" or "non-ideal". With my current body composition, I was overfat at her body weight. There are also women I see here who are around my weight, but clearly lower in muscle mass, even though I'm not massively muscular. Individuals vary.
Quite a few people have no clue what their body fat percentage is. There are ways of estimating that, too, but they're also statistical in nature, and can mislead.
If I were making general recommendations, I'd be suggesting multiple modes for considering goal weight or evaluating current weight, including body fat percent estimation, waist/hip ratio, blah blah blah. (Those kinds of things, and personal aesthetic preference, cultural context, etc.) That wasn't the thread of conversation in this case.
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
lol, I’m right on the edge of being overweight at 6-0 and 182. by the calculator I just checked withtomcustombuilder wrote: »Ideal body weight doesn’t take into consideration body composition, so it can be very misleading
Some ways of suggesting good/ideal body weight do. The ones I mentioned above don't. Clearly, body fat percent makes a different, a huge difference - or relative muscularity, to put the same thing in different terms.
IMU, that's the main "why" behind differences in suggested ideal weights for men vs. women, in the formulas that don't make the fat/lean distinction explicit. On average, men have more muscle mass than women at the same weight. On average. Not universally.
As with other statistical kinds of things, these recommended-weights things tend to be semi-reasonable for average people, not so reasonable for non-average ones. For example, I'm aware of a woman here about my height who is tens of pounds heavier than I am, and many percent lower in body fat: She's muscular well beyond the statistical averages for our height range, and she's sometimes above the normal BMI range, but clearly not overfat at that weight. She's statistically unusual, not "wrong" or "non-ideal". With my current body composition, I was overfat at her body weight. There are also women I see here who are around my weight, but clearly lower in muscle mass, even though I'm not massively muscular. Individuals vary.
Quite a few people have no clue what their body fat percentage is. There are ways of estimating that, too, but they're also statistical in nature, and can mislead.
If I were making general recommendations, I'd be suggesting multiple modes for considering goal weight or evaluating current weight, including body fat percent estimation, waist/hip ratio, blah blah blah. (Those kinds of things, and personal aesthetic preference, cultural context, etc.) That wasn't the thread of conversation in this case.
And your photos suggest you're more muscular than average, so NBD. Outliers don't invalidate the statistical generality, or wipe out utility of averages/statistics for more-average people.1 -
Correct….tomcustombuilder wrote: »
lol, I’m right on the edge of being overweight at 6-0 and 182. by the calculator I just checked withtomcustombuilder wrote: »Ideal body weight doesn’t take into consideration body composition, so it can be very misleading
Some ways of suggesting good/ideal body weight do. The ones I mentioned above don't. Clearly, body fat percent makes a different, a huge difference - or relative muscularity, to put the same thing in different terms.
IMU, that's the main "why" behind differences in suggested ideal weights for men vs. women, in the formulas that don't make the fat/lean distinction explicit. On average, men have more muscle mass than women at the same weight. On average. Not universally.
As with other statistical kinds of things, these recommended-weights things tend to be semi-reasonable for average people, not so reasonable for non-average ones. For example, I'm aware of a woman here about my height who is tens of pounds heavier than I am, and many percent lower in body fat: She's muscular well beyond the statistical averages for our height range, and she's sometimes above the normal BMI range, but clearly not overfat at that weight. She's statistically unusual, not "wrong" or "non-ideal". With my current body composition, I was overfat at her body weight. There are also women I see here who are around my weight, but clearly lower in muscle mass, even though I'm not massively muscular. Individuals vary.
Quite a few people have no clue what their body fat percentage is. There are ways of estimating that, too, but they're also statistical in nature, and can mislead.
If I were making general recommendations, I'd be suggesting multiple modes for considering goal weight or evaluating current weight, including body fat percent estimation, waist/hip ratio, blah blah blah. (Those kinds of things, and personal aesthetic preference, cultural context, etc.) That wasn't the thread of conversation in this case.
And your photos suggest you're more muscular than average, so NBD. Outliers don't invalidate the statistical generality, or wipe out utility of averages/statistics for more-average people.
1 -
@tomcustombuilder : Keep on being you! Nothing wrong with it!
I am 5'9.5" and I've been as high as ~205lbs in my life (about 25 years ago in my 30s). At that time, I was trying to learn how to race on windsurfing boards, where the extra weight and upper body strength was often very helpful! I did a lot of weightlifting and I was just plain burly. I was loving life!
Now I'm 60y+ and my concern is more about staying active and healthy. I started my current cut at 189lbs on Jan 1. Being lighter is an advantage in swim, ride, and run, and a lot of other things. If I really cared about performance, I'd shoot for even lighter. But, god, no!1 -
I have a BMI of 25 as well. 5’10”, 182lbs and according to my scale a body fat % of 15. I suggested weights because we do change as we get older and muscle mass does become an issue. Your training seems cardio heavy and I just though maybe replacing a little bit of it with strength training might tip the balance towards muscle building just enough to goose you out of your plateau.1
-
@J72FIT : It's a reasonable suggestion, thanks!
I'm really trying to push the swim-ride-run because I want to triathlon. (Not the long ones, just the short ones!) Also, I just plain like the training. The critique of cyclists and runners is that the neglect their upper bodies (on purpose). Adding swimming takes care of that nicely. Lately, I've added "paddle sets" to my swim workouts, which increases resistance. In any case, as I've lost weight, I've gotten faster in all of them!
I sometimes "do weights," which really means a workout with bodyweight, dumbbells, and bands. But, I've been saving energy for my regular workouts lately.2 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@J72FIT : It's a reasonable suggestion, thanks!
I'm really trying to push the swim-ride-run because I want to triathlon. (Not the long ones, just the short ones!) Also, I just plain like the training. The critique of cyclists and runners is that the neglect their upper bodies (on purpose). Adding swimming takes care of that nicely. Lately, I've added "paddle sets" to my swim workouts, which increases resistance. In any case, as I've lost weight, I've gotten faster in all of them!
I sometimes "do weights," which really means a workout with bodyweight, dumbbells, and bands. But, I've been saving energy for my regular workouts lately.
Totally understand, and respect.1 -
Wow. I've had some loss, but man it's getting harder! Best resolve to anyone else trying to wring out those last few pounds. It hard to maintain the focus when you get close to the goal, I find.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions