Getting Through a Plateau

sarri44
sarri44 Posts: 8 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi Everyone! I am looking for some help/ideas on getting passed a weight loss plateau. I am 5'9" and started at 174lbs. I am currently at 149-150 and have been stuck at that weight for a month. I am a big runner, and I have switched it up to include running uphill and I also do intervals of sprinting and a slow jog. I also do yoga and have started weights, and aerobics. Maybe I should switch up what I'm eating? On weekends I am more laid back about my diet, and I do very well during the week. I do notice that I go over/if not close to over every day on my carbs and sugar intake. I stay between 1200-1450 calories. I am starting to lose some motivation and have only 2 months until my wedding dress fitting! I would like to get down to 135-140 lbs. Any advice is much appreciated :smile:
«1

Replies

  • BunnieBun
    BunnieBun Posts: 4
    I've also been stuck in a plateau and would love some advice on how to get out of it. Been doing this for about a year, lose a bunch of weight and than gained about 10 pounds back after going on medical leave and not being able to work out. I watch my calorie intake but not to the point that I am starving, I look at it as a guide and not an absolute.
    How to lose those last pounds that refuse to budge on the scale?
    Sorry if I am double posting this is my first time
  • olyrose
    olyrose Posts: 569 Member
    I've been struggling with this for the past few months...Right now I am trying to zig-zag my calories (eat more some days, less some days, but the weekly average still comes out to what my daily goal is). I also upped my protein and lowered my fat, started eating different snacks at different times of the day, and try to have the majority of my meals with as few ingredients/cooking as possible (like salads with protein, low sodium soup, veggies, etc). I just lost a pound, for the first time in about 2 months, so I think maybe it's starting to work? I also heard a B vitamin helps, and changing up your workout can help too.

    Good luck!!
  • corrinnebrown
    corrinnebrown Posts: 345 Member
    Try zig zagging your calories.
  • Annette_rose
    Annette_rose Posts: 427 Member
    Ugh, I can't stand plateaus! I am there too!
  • niftyafterfifty
    niftyafterfifty Posts: 338 Member
    You may not be eating enough; it sounds like you're doing a lot of exercise. I will attach an article I read on MFP; I hope it helps.


    The Most Dreaded Word In Weight Loss: Plateau-

    In the world of weight loss, metabolism is king. Everybody seems to know that a fast one is a good one. Yet, some confusion arises when confronted with the problem of who’s got a fast one, what causes a slow one, and what leads to a metabolism that just won’t do what you want it to do – burn fat!

    Every day desperate pleas rain from those in the weight loss trenches begging for advice on how to get the scale moving again. Inevitably, someone is 35 or 40 pounds away from their goal weight, and for some reason, the weight has stopped coming off. Despite adhering to a strict exercise regimen and a 1200-1500 calorie-a-day diet, weight loss comes to a stand-still. Sometimes, the scale reveals a slight weight gain. For three weeks, the scale records no change. What happened? Why did it stop after such a long period of successful weight loss?
    According to The Mayo Clinic, a plateau means the body has reached a state of equilibrium. The diet and exercise plan that has worked so successfully for the first round of weight loss must now change. The situation feels nothing short of infuriating. The work and sweat and willpower amount to nothing in the face of a plateau.
    So what exactly needs to change? Just like all things with the human body, a one-size-fits-all solution is inappropriate. The Mayo Clinic suggests a further calorie cut or an increase in exercise. After all, weight loss happens when the body burns more than it consumes. Unfortunately, many people on calorie restricted diets exercise to their maximum capacity yet experience the plateau. Suggesting a further cut in calories or increasing exercise proves an irresponsible recommendation. Such a plan could lead to exhaustion, weight gain, decreased brain function, muscle consumption (ketosis), and inevitably, binging and burnout.
    The trick to fat loss is maximizing the body’s potential to burn fat. This involves finding a balance between the three main elements of fitness: nutrient intake, cardiovascular work, and strength building. These three elements work together to supply muscles with glycogen (converted carbohydrates from the liver), build more pathways within the body to bring oxygen and nutrients to the muscles, and adapt the muscles to the stress of strength training by building more muscle fibers. Increased muscle mass consumes more fat. Cardiovascular work increases the body’s ability to endure longer periods of exercise more efficiently, making muscles more efficient fat burners. The human body can accomplish these two goals only when fed properly.
    When one of these elements falls out of balance, the body adjusts to the change and adapts, as the body’s main goal is equilibrium. The goal in weight loss is to change that equilibrium point to a place of healthy weight and body fat, strong muscles, and healthy nutrient intake.
    In my experience, the solution to ending a weight-loss plateau means modifying the most extreme measure of the current weight loss plan. What is the most extreme part of a plan? It’s the part of a plan that a dieter does too much or too little. It’s an extreme of too many or not enough calories, cardio work, or strength training.
    For example, a relatively sedentary person initially gained weight by consuming more calories than they burned. The extra calories were stored as fat. Though counter to what we’ve been taught, their bodies actually adapted to the excess caloric intake by increasing the metabolism. Because of the extra weight, their body was forced to work harder to maintain normal body functions. Working hard uses more energy. Even with an increased metabolism, without exercise, their extra calories were stored. To take the weight back off, the first obvious solution is to identify the extreme. In this case, the extreme is excess calories, and the solution is to decrease calories. The body then adapts by lowering the metabolism to reach a balance with new, lower caloric intake. Because the process of lowering the metabolism is gradual, the body makes up the metabolic deficit with body fat. In short, the body begins consuming fat to fill energy needs in the face of minimal caloric intake. When the body has lowered the metabolism enough to accommodate the new caloric intake, the unsuspecting dieter reaches a plateau.
    So, dear readers, if you’ve hit a plateau, what part of your fitness regimen needs a change? The following example is based on a real-life person on a weight loss journey as they hit a plateau.
    John made the decision to lose weight when the scale tipped 240 lbs. In an effort to get to a healthy weight of 180 lbs., he decided to go from a 3,700 calorie a day diet to a calorie-restricted diet of 1500 net calories, meaning that he would have 1500 “leftover” calories after he exercised. His body needed these "leftover" calories to perform normal body functions like breathing, digesting, and thinking. So, if he burned 700 calories on the treadmill, he would consume 2200 calories. He exercised 5 days a week and strength trained twice a week. He eliminated processed foods from his diet and consumed an abundance of fresh fruits, vegetables, beans, and lean proteins. He lost 38 pounds but still had about 20 to go. He's been losing weight steadily for about 7 months. Now, the scale hasn’t budged in three weeks. He’s tired and frustrated and feels like he’s working hard for nothing! He’s got no idea what to do!
    To start identifying the extreme, let’s look at the three elements of John’s weight loss journey.
    John engages in cardiovascular work 5 days a week. That’s great! His heart rate doesn’t exceed 85% of his maximum (220-your age), and he works out for about 45 minutes each time. John strength trains twice a week, so he’s building more muscle to burn fat, increase bone strength, improve posture, and maximize his efficiency in movement. Both of these activities serve to increase John’s metabolism. These are both reasonable amounts of work. Attempting to increase either may lead to burnout, exhaustion, injury, or even weight gain because John’s caloric intake is still restricted. His decreased calories are now keeping his metabolism lowered. To raise his metabolism without exhausting himself, he must consume more calories. In the same way that he raised his metabolism while gaining weight, he will now do the same thing and lose weight. Only this time, cardiovascular work and strength training will prevent his increased calories from being stored as fat. By increasing his calories, John gives his muscles more energy to consume fat. In a few weeks or months, when he reaches a plateau, signaling that he’s at equilibrium again, he’ll need to increase his calories again. By that time, he might have reached his “goal weight”, so this final increase may be to reach the number of calories he’ll need to maintain.
    Note that John did not increase his exercise and his calories. He increased one only - caloric intake. He increased his calories from 1500 to 1800, still several hundred calories shy of his final number (go halfway down). He'll still be at a caloric deficit, and thus, will continue to lose weight. While increasing calories is terrifying to someone attempting to lose weight, consistent cardiovascular and strength training will prevent weight gain.
    John may represent many dieters on restricted-calorie plans. Others’ extreme may be cardiovascular work. They may work out intensely upwards of 7-8 times per week, leaving the body precious little time to heal and repair. In that case, decreasing exercise and/or intensity a few times a week might be best, or again, increasing calories. Some may eat enough and only do cardiovascular work exclusively. For them, incorporating strength training into their regimen will push them from the plateau onto the losing path again. In all of these cases, water consumption is essential. Water mobilizes fat so that muscles can access it easily. Without water, blood pumps like sludge and causes your body to work less efficiently.
    Here are some general guidelines to identifying the extreme in your weight loss plan. Modifying this extreme is the likely solution to further your weight loss.
    You may need to consume more calories if:
    · You exercise regularly (4+ times per week), strength train 2-3 times per week, and are on a calorie-restricted diet, but you do not consume the minimum calories plus most or all of the calories you burn through exercise
    · You consume less than 1200 at least once a week
    · You consume less than 1500 calories most days of the week
    · You regularly consume fewer calories than your BMR (basal metabolic rate)
    · You have headaches, lethargy, aches, and/or lack of concentration
    You may need to change cardiovascular work if:
    · You are mostly sedentary
    · You engage in cardiovascular work fewer than 4 times per week
    · Your cardiovascular workouts last shorter than 20 minutes
    · Your heart rate does not remain in the 55-70% max. range at least two times per week
    · Your heart rate does not remain in the 70-85% max. range at least three times per week
    You may need to modify strength training if:
    · You do not currently engage in strength training
    · Your weights seem very light, thereby not stressing your muscles
    · You have reached your goal weight, but still feel “flabby”
    This article is not a comprehensive study in why we lose. The plateau is but one obstacle in the path to health. Weight loss takes tremendous willpower and strength. Those who accomplish the goal of changing their lives through increased health are true champions, and those in the midst of the battle are nothing short of warriors. While the fight gets confusing when what has been working suddenly stops, your body, your heart, your bones, and your muscles all work best when the excess weight is gone. You can work through this frustrating time by resetting your equilibrium point. As you review your caloric intake and reflect on your exercise regimen, you can now identify the caloric, cardiovascular, or strength extreme and make the change that will move you back onto the path of weight loss.

    See the article in it's original location here: http://fitnesswithnatalie.blogspot.com/2011/05/most-dreaded-word-in-weight-loss.html - She also links to BMI/BMR calculators in the text on her page.
  • katsmo
    katsmo Posts: 219 Member
    Is this the lowest weight you've been? Do you feel healthy and strong? At 5'9", maybe this is a good weight for you. I am stuck, myself, but I am still losing some inches. Plateaus aren't all bad. At least you know you can maintain without gaining at this weight. Hang in there :)
  • sarri44
    sarri44 Posts: 8 Member
    Thanks for all the replies! I am going to up my calories a bit, I definitely do not want to be starving myself..especially with adding weights.
  • sarri44
    sarri44 Posts: 8 Member
    And my lowest weight was 138 in high school, and I was a runner in track. Right now at 150 I feel healthy and look healthy, but I want to feel stronger and more toned. So I would like to be about 140 :)
  • Zangpakto
    Zangpakto Posts: 336 Member
    Run more, cycle more, if you still stuck, try and try again, your body eventually does listen... hell I disagree with people saying your not eating enough because I know from experience it works, you don't need to eat anything back REALLY.... Also as have studied a fitness instructor course, best is to stick to pre planned meals, up them slightly during training days to get more protein for rebuilding and you don't need to eat like a fat piggy on those days either...

    I mean honestly biggest mistake with training is by trying to eat the calories BACK you actually OVER EAT! Seriously... On a really REALLY hard day training maybe I can burn close to 2k calories, all I do is eat the same, and maybe as a celebration I drink some wine or beer... don't need to eat any more than am... Nor do you. Eat normal, train hard.

    It's a no brainer you need to reduce your intake and train more. How much easier can that be? Sure I have plateau's however I notice during those my shirts are still becoming even looser and same with my jeans... So I might not have been losing weight per se, but I lost inches, then weight eventually comes off again as well.

    It really aint that hard and those that say oh yes but you will pick it up because of such and such and metabolism etc, well from the article metabolism increased because of an increase in weight... duh... in order to maintain a heavier weight you need to eat more... not hard haha... No need quote an article for that...

    To give example, I am racing a 5km this weekend, I will likely only burn 250-300c maybe slightly more, because of the speed, however my muscles will need to recover too, so I will have something after like a protein bar or something similar, I won't go out and have a stupid meal or extra food for that reason, and the same goes when I cycle over 5hrs or run over 4-5hrs... I consume during the workouts as well, as the amount your burning you need to or will seriously affect performance, however I won't change the rest of my eating because of it... I eat to live, not because some person apparently says I need to eat more or less etc. So should you. Do you really need that snack? Why? That chocolate? Again why? Is it going to help you towards your goals by having a chocolate, or will it take you further? I don't care if it is 100c or 30c chocolate, it is still a chocolate full of carbs etc, 1g of carb stores 3g of water...

    Anyway...

    tl:dr version...
    Your body will eventually drop weight, maybe your losing inches instead, train harder as your body does adapt pretty well, eat to live not live to eat, calories are also different as each item requires different calories to digest, so the final calorie isn't what should matter, but the quality of the kcal instead...
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Run more, cycle more, if you still stuck, try and try again, your body eventually does listen... hell I disagree with people saying your not eating enough because I know from experience it works, you don't need to eat anything back REALLY.... Also as have studied a fitness instructor course, best is to stick to pre planned meals, up them slightly during training days to get more protein for rebuilding and you don't need to eat like a fat piggy on those days either...

    I mean honestly biggest mistake with training is by trying to eat the calories BACK you actually OVER EAT! Seriously... On a really REALLY hard day training maybe I can burn close to 2k calories, all I do is eat the same, and maybe as a celebration I drink some wine or beer... don't need to eat any more than am... Nor do you. Eat normal, train hard.

    It's a no brainer you need to reduce your intake and train more. How much easier can that be? Sure I have plateau's however I notice during those my shirts are still becoming even looser and same with my jeans... So I might not have been losing weight per se, but I lost inches, then weight eventually comes off again as well.

    It really aint that hard and those that say oh yes but you will pick it up because of such and such and metabolism etc, well from the article metabolism increased because of an increase in weight... duh... in order to maintain a heavier weight you need to eat more... not hard haha... No need quote an article for that...

    To give example, I am racing a 5km this weekend, I will likely only burn 250-300c maybe slightly more, because of the speed, however my muscles will need to recover too, so I will have something after like a protein bar or something similar, I won't go out and have a stupid meal or extra food for that reason, and the same goes when I cycle over 5hrs or run over 4-5hrs... I consume during the workouts as well, as the amount your burning you need to or will seriously affect performance, however I won't change the rest of my eating because of it... I eat to live, not because some person apparently says I need to eat more or less etc. So should you. Do you really need that snack? Why? That chocolate? Again why? Is it going to help you towards your goals by having a chocolate, or will it take you further? I don't care if it is 100c or 30c chocolate, it is still a chocolate full of carbs etc, 1g of carb stores 3g of water...

    Anyway...

    tl:dr version...
    Your body will eventually drop weight, maybe your losing inches instead, train harder as your body does adapt pretty well, eat to live not live to eat, calories are also different as each item requires different calories to digest, so the final calorie isn't what should matter, but the quality of the kcal instead...

    This is some really misguided and innacurate advice. I'm hoping you will ignore it!
  • Marll
    Marll Posts: 904 Member
    If the typical train harder, eat less, calories in vs. calories out isn't working, try lowering your carbs and sugar and upping your fat. Do that for just 1 month without cheating and I'll be willing to bet that you break through the plateau.
  • bradthemedic
    bradthemedic Posts: 623 Member
    Increase your calories.
  • Zangpakto
    Zangpakto Posts: 336 Member
    Run more, cycle more, if you still stuck, try and try again, your body eventually does listen... hell I disagree with people saying your not eating enough because I know from experience it works, you don't need to eat anything back REALLY.... Also as have studied a fitness instructor course, best is to stick to pre planned meals, up them slightly during training days to get more protein for rebuilding and you don't need to eat like a fat piggy on those days either...

    I mean honestly biggest mistake with training is by trying to eat the calories BACK you actually OVER EAT! Seriously... On a really REALLY hard day training maybe I can burn close to 2k calories, all I do is eat the same, and maybe as a celebration I drink some wine or beer... don't need to eat any more than am... Nor do you. Eat normal, train hard.

    It's a no brainer you need to reduce your intake and train more. How much easier can that be? Sure I have plateau's however I notice during those my shirts are still becoming even looser and same with my jeans... So I might not have been losing weight per se, but I lost inches, then weight eventually comes off again as well.

    It really aint that hard and those that say oh yes but you will pick it up because of such and such and metabolism etc, well from the article metabolism increased because of an increase in weight... duh... in order to maintain a heavier weight you need to eat more... not hard haha... No need quote an article for that...

    To give example, I am racing a 5km this weekend, I will likely only burn 250-300c maybe slightly more, because of the speed, however my muscles will need to recover too, so I will have something after like a protein bar or something similar, I won't go out and have a stupid meal or extra food for that reason, and the same goes when I cycle over 5hrs or run over 4-5hrs... I consume during the workouts as well, as the amount your burning you need to or will seriously affect performance, however I won't change the rest of my eating because of it... I eat to live, not because some person apparently says I need to eat more or less etc. So should you. Do you really need that snack? Why? That chocolate? Again why? Is it going to help you towards your goals by having a chocolate, or will it take you further? I don't care if it is 100c or 30c chocolate, it is still a chocolate full of carbs etc, 1g of carb stores 3g of water...

    Anyway...

    tl:dr version...
    Your body will eventually drop weight, maybe your losing inches instead, train harder as your body does adapt pretty well, eat to live not live to eat, calories are also different as each item requires different calories to digest, so the final calorie isn't what should matter, but the quality of the kcal instead...

    This is some really misguided and innacurate advice. I'm hoping you will ignore it!

    I know right? Because fitness instructor courses and seriously misguided and inaccurate right?

    Also the fact many have used the courses and found success means nothing right? They just don't work for everyone right?

    Seriously, either backup with evidence or just accept I am actually trying to help the person, my method works perfect. I race though, maybe those like you would say, don't race or participate in long endurance events shouldn't follow this, but for those who are looking at times, seconds even, even 100grams difference means a LOT of time % lost.... everything in racing is based either or strength and/or weight alone..... weight is the most deciding factor besides knowing your VO2 max and how it correlates to past winners etc, including how your weight should be according to formulas used and calculated for past winners.

    Maybe you are right, maybe people who aren't occupied with seconds should do something else, but personally, my time keeps improving, I listen to advice from a coach who also trained some TDF winning teams, so no not misguided at all, if your aim is racing, weight loss and performance... Also I do support WADA so don't try attribute my time increases to anything bad lol...
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Run more, cycle more, if you still stuck, try and try again, your body eventually does listen... hell I disagree with people saying your not eating enough because I know from experience it works, you don't need to eat anything back REALLY.... Also as have studied a fitness instructor course, best is to stick to pre planned meals, up them slightly during training days to get more protein for rebuilding and you don't need to eat like a fat piggy on those days either...

    I mean honestly biggest mistake with training is by trying to eat the calories BACK you actually OVER EAT! Seriously... On a really REALLY hard day training maybe I can burn close to 2k calories, all I do is eat the same, and maybe as a celebration I drink some wine or beer... don't need to eat any more than am... Nor do you. Eat normal, train hard.

    It's a no brainer you need to reduce your intake and train more. How much easier can that be? Sure I have plateau's however I notice during those my shirts are still becoming even looser and same with my jeans... So I might not have been losing weight per se, but I lost inches, then weight eventually comes off again as well.

    It really aint that hard and those that say oh yes but you will pick it up because of such and such and metabolism etc, well from the article metabolism increased because of an increase in weight... duh... in order to maintain a heavier weight you need to eat more... not hard haha... No need quote an article for that...

    To give example, I am racing a 5km this weekend, I will likely only burn 250-300c maybe slightly more, because of the speed, however my muscles will need to recover too, so I will have something after like a protein bar or something similar, I won't go out and have a stupid meal or extra food for that reason, and the same goes when I cycle over 5hrs or run over 4-5hrs... I consume during the workouts as well, as the amount your burning you need to or will seriously affect performance, however I won't change the rest of my eating because of it... I eat to live, not because some person apparently says I need to eat more or less etc. So should you. Do you really need that snack? Why? That chocolate? Again why? Is it going to help you towards your goals by having a chocolate, or will it take you further? I don't care if it is 100c or 30c chocolate, it is still a chocolate full of carbs etc, 1g of carb stores 3g of water...

    Anyway...

    tl:dr version...
    Your body will eventually drop weight, maybe your losing inches instead, train harder as your body does adapt pretty well, eat to live not live to eat, calories are also different as each item requires different calories to digest, so the final calorie isn't what should matter, but the quality of the kcal instead...

    This is some really misguided and innacurate advice. I'm hoping you will ignore it!

    I know right? Because fitness instructor courses and seriously misguided and inaccurate right?

    Also the fact many have used the courses and found success means nothing right? They just don't work for everyone right?

    Seriously, either backup with evidence or just accept I am actually trying to help the person, my method works perfect. I race though, maybe those like you would say, don't race or participate in long endurance events shouldn't follow this, but for those who are looking at times, seconds even, even 100grams difference means a LOT of time % lost.... everything in racing is based either or strength and/or weight alone..... weight is the most deciding factor besides knowing your VO2 max and how it correlates to past winners etc, including how your weight should be according to formulas used and calculated for past winners.

    Maybe you are right, maybe people who aren't occupied with seconds should do something else, but personally, my time keeps improving, I listen to advice from a coach who also trained some TDF winning teams, so no not misguided at all, if your aim is racing, weight loss and performance... Also I do support WADA so don't try attribute my time increases to anything bad lol...

    You are a little confused friend. You are the one that made the cockamaine statements about reducing more and increasing activity from and already low calorie intake and lot's of exercise. Do you think because you took a course you aer a sudden expert? You made the statements, you back it up! I didn't see anyting in the OP's post that said they were looking to shave seconds off their time. They said they are stuck in a plateau. They appear to be undereating and very active. Your saying eat less and workout more!! Your looney!
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    I have have seen 200+ lb males in body-building prep, for a show, take in 1400 calories a day, to lose weight. Although extreme its what they have to do, if they could eat more to lose weight don't you think they would do this? I can tell you now they sure would.
    They do what it takes and that's how they achieve their goals and get in the condition they are in. So someone please tell me HOW you can eat more to lose weight and defy the laws of thermo dynamics? Because i sure would like to know.
  • Zangpakto
    Zangpakto Posts: 336 Member
    I have have seen 200+ lb males in body-building prep, for a show, take in 1400 calories a day, to lose weight. Although extreme its what they have to do, if they could eat more to lose weight don't you think they would do this? I can tell you now they sure would.
    They do what it takes and that's how they achieve their goals and get in the condition they are in. So someone please tell me HOW you can eat more to lose weight and defy the laws of thermo dynamics? Because i sure would like to know.

    Agreed, I get called a loony for simple science... Happens all the time with bodybuilders, but hey, if people want to argue with science, they can and they must back it up :) not argue and say we must when the truth actually works.... you need an excess to bulk up and a deficit to lose weight... really simple yet some people don't get it...

    Also as metabolism is tied to current weight what works now, will not work later either as could be equal unless your building muscle or endurance athlete in which case it will be ok...

    Just sick of these people trying to defy science by stating wrong facts :(

    MFP has too many trends, too many jump on the bandwagon people who agree because it sounds right and that is that, not because of things founded in proof and tested throughout time :(
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    I have have seen 200+ lb males in body-building prep, for a show, take in 1400 calories a day, to lose weight. Although extreme its what they have to do, if they could eat more to lose weight don't you think they would do this? I can tell you now they sure would.
    They do what it takes and that's how they achieve their goals and get in the condition they are in. So someone please tell me HOW you can eat more to lose weight and defy the laws of thermo dynamics? Because i sure would like to know.

    You are focusing on the "cut" for competition and to get down to 5% or 6% BF. What about the 4 month bulk before that when they were eating 4500 calories a day to build up the muscle tissue.

    And as far as the whole law of thermodynamics thing goes, I plugged in the OPs stats on fat2fitradio and got the following: I guessed her age at 25, to achieve her weight loss goal she can eat 2280 calories if she is moderately active. Sounds like she is very active. That eating goal would be 2537 calories. Her BMR is 1510 and her maintenance is 2600. Now lets say she has a higher than normal metabolism. Let's lower her calories to 1950. That would have her in a 650 calorie deficit. She would lose about a half pound a week in a healthy way. Which part of the law of thermodynamics isn't being applied?? So the idea is more than what? If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. That's pretty well established with the science to back it up. So no one is suggesting eating more than maintenance or TDEE. They are suggesting eating enough to fuel your body and you workouts while remaining in deficit. So know you know!;)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    I have have seen 200+ lb males in body-building prep, for a show, take in 1400 calories a day, to lose weight. Although extreme its what they have to do, if they could eat more to lose weight don't you think they would do this? I can tell you now they sure would.
    They do what it takes and that's how they achieve their goals and get in the condition they are in. So someone please tell me HOW you can eat more to lose weight and defy the laws of thermo dynamics? Because i sure would like to know.

    Agreed, I get called a loony for simple science... Happens all the time with bodybuilders, but hey, if people want to argue with science, they can and they must back it up :) not argue and say we must when the truth actually works.... you need an excess to bulk up and a deficit to lose weight... really simple yet some people don't get it...

    Also as metabolism is tied to current weight what works now, will not work later either as could be equal unless your building muscle or endurance athlete in which case it will be ok...

    Just sick of these people trying to defy science by stating wrong facts :(

    MFP has too many trends, too many jump on the bandwagon people who agree because it sounds right and that is that, not because of things founded in proof and tested throughout time :(

    Dude with all due respect, I am not a body builder but thanks for the compliment. I am just into health. I lift, I run, I bike, I walk, I do HIIT. I am also a prefesional chef with extensive training in nutrition. You talk about science but you've yet to put up anything that is more than just your opinion. A wrong opinion in MY opinion. You talk about metabolism and being tied to current weight and you are right. So by what commonly accepted method would you calculate her nutritional needs? I posted mine. Whattcha got??
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    Ok let me post up a nice little article for anyone interested to read.

    Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?
    Written by j.novick
    Saturday, 03 January 2009 19:23

    Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorders and saw this common dieting myth was in accurate. Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating to few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.

    Really?

    Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."

    First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere and to maintain a certain level of weight, and equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.

    Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.


    Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30 and attempts to tract exercise and activities levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem tat people are not accurately determining their caloric intake and output.

    Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".

    In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.

    Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight?

    Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether.

    We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.

    But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.

    So, where did this myth come from?

    There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that.

    Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s. Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you then them, then neither are you

    http://gunpowder.quaker.org/starvationimage.jpg



    In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself and if it is not feed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.

    This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually it is due to an inaccurate assesment of their energy balance.

    Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it is easy to diagnose and can be easily treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.

    So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and mantain a healthy level of activity.

    In Health
    Jeff
    Original article here
    http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
  • Justacoffeenut
    Justacoffeenut Posts: 3,749 Member
    Bump for when I have time to read it all
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    I am very confused like many of those newbies here...however as far as I have seen, most of the people who ask questions about plateaus have already been on a 1200 calories...would you suggest them lower the calories? I am not challening your point just honestly curious...
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    Here are a few.

    •MayoClinic.com: Metabolism and Weight Loss
    •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Losing Weight
    •PloS One: Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss
    •Journal of Applied Physiology: Effect of Calorie Restriction on the Free-Living Physical Activity Levels of Nonobese Humans: Results of Three Randomized Trials

    In addition to the reason you listed, in clinical trails on dieting, subjects underreport intake pretty consistently. However, when people are recording like they are here are they are under BMR and recording accurately and very active and not eating back exercise calories, that is just a formula for a weight loss stall. Additionally, every 12 weeks or so, dieters should take a week or 2 at maintenance in order to reset hormonal responses to diet.
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    "Stop eating all together" to lose more weight? Wow...this is the probably the closest thing I have heard to the "death camp"...They were skinny alright...but dead. Please....
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    I am very confused like many of those newbies here...however as far as I have seen, most of the people who ask questions about plateaus have already been on a 1200 calories...would you suggest them lower the calories? I am not challening your point just honestly curious...
    Im on 1400 calories a day most days and a male do i look like im starving? because i certainly am not
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    Here are a few.

    •MayoClinic.com: Metabolism and Weight Loss
    •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Losing Weight
    •PloS One: Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss
    •Journal of Applied Physiology: Effect of Calorie Restriction on the Free-Living Physical Activity Levels of Nonobese Humans: Results of Three Randomized Trials

    In addition to the reason you listed, in clinical trails on dieting, subjects underreport intake pretty consistently. However, when people are recording like they are here are they are under BMR and recording accurately and very active and not eating back exercise calories, that is just a formula for a weight loss stall. Additionally, every 12 weeks or so, dieters should take a week or 2 at maintenance in order to reset hormonal responses to diet.
    Thanks for the links, will read them when i have time.
    mmapags don't forget allot of people here may log their food. but many do not log liqid calories that they drink, most of all milk that goes in their coffee not to mention coffee itself, add that up for a whole 7 days and that could potentially be enough to throw a spanner in the works. So for someone to just say off a whim increase your calories is just ridiculous. I cant be assed to get into huge debates over this. so i will let people make of this thread what they will.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    Here are a few.

    •MayoClinic.com: Metabolism and Weight Loss
    •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Losing Weight
    •PloS One: Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss
    •Journal of Applied Physiology: Effect of Calorie Restriction on the Free-Living Physical Activity Levels of Nonobese Humans: Results of Three Randomized Trials

    In addition to the reason you listed, in clinical trails on dieting, subjects underreport intake pretty consistently. However, when people are recording like they are here are they are under BMR and recording accurately and very active and not eating back exercise calories, that is just a formula for a weight loss stall. Additionally, every 12 weeks or so, dieters should take a week or 2 at maintenance in order to reset hormonal responses to diet.
    Thanks for the links, will read them when i have time.
    mmapags don't forget allot of people here may log their food. but many do not log liqid calories that they drink, most of all milk that goes in their coffee not to mention coffee itself, add that up for a whole 7 days and that could potentially be enough to throw a spanner in the works. So for someone to just say off a whim increase your calories is just ridiculous. I cant be assed to get into huge debates over this. so i will let people make of this thread what they will.

    Agreed that not all accurately log calories but there is no way to measure that so you make your recomedations taking what they tell you at face value. When you plug the young lady's number's in you saw what I got. There are also a lot of people who, once they decide they are done being overweight, they go from one extreme to the other and drop down to 1200 calories to lose as fast as they can. That can lead to a stall and it doesn't develop the habits and life style changes to insure the weight stay off.

    ps: You stated your calories on most days. What are they on training days?
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    Not disagreeing with you, just allot people in general on these forums instantly say " You should increase your calories"
    Which 9 times out of ten is the wrong advice to be giving. Most people get stuck because they don't lower their calories as their weight drops to remain in a deficit. Most people dont realise just how low you have to go sometimes in order to lose weight.
    It sucks but very true. Btw please post up links to these study s That say If you are undereating, your loss will stall out. i would be interested to read these.

    Here are a few.

    •MayoClinic.com: Metabolism and Weight Loss
    •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Losing Weight
    •PloS One: Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss
    •Journal of Applied Physiology: Effect of Calorie Restriction on the Free-Living Physical Activity Levels of Nonobese Humans: Results of Three Randomized Trials

    In addition to the reason you listed, in clinical trails on dieting, subjects underreport intake pretty consistently. However, when people are recording like they are here are they are under BMR and recording accurately and very active and not eating back exercise calories, that is just a formula for a weight loss stall. Additionally, every 12 weeks or so, dieters should take a week or 2 at maintenance in order to reset hormonal responses to diet.
    Thanks for the links, will read them when i have time.
    mmapags don't forget allot of people here may log their food. but many do not log liqid calories that they drink, most of all milk that goes in their coffee not to mention coffee itself, add that up for a whole 7 days and that could potentially be enough to throw a spanner in the works. So for someone to just say off a whim increase your calories is just ridiculous. I cant be assed to get into huge debates over this. so i will let people make of this thread what they will.

    Agreed that not all accurately log calories but there is no way to measure that so you make your recomedations taking what they tell you at face value. When you plug the young lady's number's in you saw what I got. There are also a lot of people who, once they decide they are done being overweight, they go from one extreme to the other and drop down to 1200 calories to lose as fast as they can. That can lead to a stall and it doesn't develop the habits and life style changes to insure the weight stay off.

    ps: You stated your calories on most days. What are they on training days?
    I agree mmapags dropping calories to aggressively is bad, the body needs time to get used to the lowered calorie intake. Thats why im not starving the days i eat 1400 kcals my body has adjusted to the gradual decrease. If i were to drop kcals like a stone i would be starving not literally but yes very uncomfortable.

    Twice a week i eat 2190kcals on my heaviest lifting days. I lift 3x a week and do cardio 5 days a week.
    Steady state cardio walking about 3.5mph incline of 10. 20mins after lifting, 30mins on days i don't lift
  • sarri44
    sarri44 Posts: 8 Member
    Wow, you guys are all making my head spin! But some great points have been brought up that I haven't thought of. However, I don't feel that dropping my calorie intake even further and upping the intensity and pushing my body harder on less calories is the way to go. Just doesn't seem right...the body needs sufficient fuel. As far as upping my calories, I think upping them a bit and seeing how that goes is a good place to start. I do think that eating LESS calories would cause the body to know it isn't getting enough support for the level of activity it's doing, so it will "hold on" to all extra calories..I know it's not in "technical" terminology so I hope my thought process makes sense! I plan on changing up my routine (increasing weight and incorporate more intervals whether it be running or with aerobics), and switching up the foods I eat. I have been getting into a routine of eating the same things for breakfast and lunch. Maybe try some new foods.
  • sniperzzzz
    sniperzzzz Posts: 282 Member
    People do way to much cardio, it can actually be counter-productive!
    Some of the amounts people do is crazy.
    I know from experience if i do **** loads of cardio on low calories my weight loss slows dramatically.
    If i do 20 30 mins 5x a week its all good.

Categories