| Author | Post |
|---|
trimB
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 5 May 2006 02:59 am |
|
Does anyone have any thoughts about why it might be harder to lose weight and/or fat when you get close to your ideal or goal weight? I've heard several people say this and experienced it myself as well, but I'm not sure why this effect occurs.
I've also heard a number of posters who are close to their goal weight remark about how quickly a hard-earned pound or two loss comes back on. Several weeks of diligence seemingly sabotaged extremely quickly. And I don't mean water retention.
Any advice, thoughts, experiences welcome. :)
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 5 May 2006 03:32 am |
|
I just read this today in Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle!
http://cphdiet.burnthefat.hop.clickbank.net/
"The closer you get to your ultimate generic potential for physical development, the slower your progress will become and the more your body will resist changing."
I think it's saying, for example, that it's not natural to be 100 pounds overweight, so it's pretty easy to get your body to move toward a healthier state. But once you're close, it's simply not going to be as easy to make a change. Your body's already so close to where it should be.
Peter
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 5 May 2006 03:01 pm |
|
Quite often it's just a minor change that can kick-start your body again. the trick is to make only one change at a time, otherwise you don't know what's working. Try alternating a low-fat week with a higher-fat week. Or miss out cardio for a week and do only resistance training. Or change your exercise pattern... (walk instead of swim or vice versa, perhaps throw in an extra 30 minutes walking).
There are many things you could try, but the last resort should be cutting calories further. I'm not a believer in 'sitting out' a plateau, since I think your body has become accustomed to your routine and needs a jolt to get losing again.
(Forgot to ask what the calliper says...)
Last edited on 5 May 2006 03:02 pm by NevD
|
trimB
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 5 May 2006 11:53 pm |
|
Thanks for the input, guys. Funny you should mention introducing little changes to get a kickstart, nevd. I just had that very same thought today. I am of the opinion that my body adapts to a "routine" quickly, so this may be a good approach for me.
I'm definitely not planning on cutting calories any further. I still want to work on eating healthier foods, but I'm already hovering around the "15% below maintenance" mark.
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 6 May 2006 02:03 am |
|
A few years ago I read an interesting article by a physician/bodybuilder where he used a varied food intake/alternating exercise routine to add muscle mass. It was two weeks on increased caloric intake while doing weight training and two weeks on "normal" caloric intake with regular aerobic exercise. There was fat and muscle gain on the weight gain cycle and mostly fat loss during the second two week cycle.
Dave Brown
|
Krinkala
Member
|
Posted: 6 May 2006 04:26 am |
|
I think the answer to your question is in the math.
If you were a 5'4" 50-year-old female who was sedentary and weighed 200# your RMR would be 1966. As I understand, this means that just to maintain your weight of 200# you would need to consume 1966 calories. But if you wanted to lose a pound a week, you'd need to reduce your calorie intake by 500 calories a day (because 1# equals 3500 calories, divide that by 7 to get 500 calorie a day). So you could at that point either reduce your calories to 1466 a day or burn calories by exercise in the amount of 500 calories a day or do a combination of the two.
Now let's suppose you've lost a lot of weight and now weigh 130# and still want to lose a few more pounds. Your RMR has gone down to 1554 but you still have to reduce your intake by 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week. That is 1054 calories a day, and frankly, that's not enough to be healthy. So you can exercise like crazy to have net calories of 1054, or you could decide to lose 1/2# a week by reducing your calories by 250 a day to 1304 for a 1/2# a week loss.
When you are close to goal, the number of calories you need to eat to lose weight is so much smaller a number than when you had a lot to lose. And also when you have a "not so good day" it effects the scale, more. That's why when you are close to goal, even when you are totally on track it just takes longer to lose the weight. And if you get off track it effects the scale more. It's all in the math.
Try not to get discouraged. Make sure you know what your goal for net calories is and then do your best to stay at those calories. Do not get discouraged or give up. It just takes time, and if you keep on keeping on, you will get there.
There are some good calculators on this site, but if you want some help figuring it out, let us know.
|
pipermac
Member
|
Posted: 9 May 2006 06:28 pm |
|
Yup! the Closer you get to your target the lower your metabolism will be. thus what used to be a calories deficit beore is no longer one now...you need to create a new deficit.
|
Aisling
Member
|
Posted: 9 May 2006 09:31 pm |
|
I have been tracking my caloric intake and comparing it to my caloric output for about 4 months now, and I have found that by readjusting my RMR quantity for every 5 pounds I lose I am better able to understand what is happening with my weight.
I am wondering if (hoping!) it will be easier to accept the fact that the loss of those last extra pounds is going to be very slow going.
Personally I think it would be more empowering to decide whether or not losing 10 pounds for an "ideal" weight is worth the potential loss of pleasure in eating. I'll know in another 20 pounds
|
drumforengland
New Member
| Joined: | 16 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
|
Posted: 10 May 2006 09:52 pm |
|
| is there anyway to raise your calorie requirements/metabolism? i heard somewhere (can't remember where) that doing aerobic exercise and building muscles raises your metabolism and therefore you can eat more. is this true? or after getting the weight down are you going to need to maintain a low calorie intake forever????
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 10 May 2006 10:01 pm |
|
...are you going to need to maintain a low calorie intake forever????
Probably not - but that doesn't mean you can have a season ticket for the fast food outlet.
I currently average 800 to 1000 calories per day more than I allowed myself when losing. Years later, I haven't gained a pound. But I kept eating good food, not rubbish - and I do stay reasonably active (cycle everywhere I can and play tennis twice a week).
|
drumforengland
New Member
| Joined: | 16 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
|
Posted: 10 May 2006 10:10 pm |
|
| cool, yeah no way would i go to maccy d's or anything. i never really ate unhealthy, just ate a lot of healthy stuff!! don't want to think my stomach's gonna have to rumble forever, i'm just hoping for a bigger serving of cereal and some more bananas!
|
Irish lass
Member
|
Posted: 10 May 2006 10:56 pm |
|
trimblebe wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts about why it might be harder to lose weight and/or fat when you get close to your ideal or goal weight? I've heard several people say this and experienced it myself as well, but I'm not sure why this effect occurs.
I've also heard a number of posters who are close to their goal weight remark about how quickly a hard-earned pound or two loss comes back on. Several weeks of diligence seemingly sabotaged extremely quickly. And I don't mean water retention.
Any advice, thoughts, experiences welcome. :)
Hi,
I have noticed that it was much easier to have big losses at the start of my weight loss journey and as I have come down in weight I have found it more difficult to shift the pounds.
This is because when I was fatter at the start I had a higer metabolic rate and as my weight comes down so does my metabolic rate to match.
So now I am near the thin end of the wedge so to speak.
Irish lass
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 10 May 2006 11:14 pm |
|
When I got down to a weight that meant my BMI was 20.0 (55 kilos or 121 lbs), I wasn't quite sure what my weight was (it does vary, let's say a 2 kilo window). To begin with, I was seeing that weight at the low end of my range but still seeing higher weights other days. Eventually I was seeing it at the middle or high end of my range, by which point I was seeing lower numbers at the low end of my range. In fact, I once saw 52.5 kilos at the low end. "Progress" was slow, it took weeks - I didn't plan to keep going down, I just kept eating my calories and not dared to increase them for fear I'll start gaining.
A combination of circumstances then had me binging for 5 days out of a consecutive 6, and boy did I gain quickly. Today is 2 weeks, from the start of those binges and I've been lucky to see 55 kilos once at the low end (that's 2.5 kilos or 5.5 pounds more than before). Yes, gaining is much faster than losing when you're close to your ideal weight, certainly when you are below it.
I expect it will take me even longer than before to make any headway though, as I'm now wanting to (A) figure out if I'm happier and have more energy with a bit more calories, so I've increased from 1650 to 1800 even though that doesn't give me much of a calorie deficit [it would be a 15% deficit if my RMR multiplier was 1.486 but I don't think I exercise enough to expend this much energy, certainly not if my heart rate or time at the gym are indications. It is more like an 8% deficit by my reckoning.] (B) figure out at what calorie level I start to increase rather than decrease - it will be useful to know!
|
Coopr
Member
|
Posted: 17 May 2006 04:20 pm |
|
| I think a lot of it has been stated already, but I think your body is getting used to the calories you are intaking and is trying to stabilize itself and maintain what it is. Have you tried increasing some weight in lean muscle to help burn additional calories like protein shakes with lots o protein?
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 7 September 2006 10:22 pm |
|
| I read another post that said protein shakes helps with weight loss. I been basicly eating the same foods over and over and I'm wondering if I should add some protein supplement to my normal smoothie for lunch if that would help with the weight loss for the last 10 pounds.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 11 September 2006 06:36 am |
|
1) protein helps with weight loss 2) protein shakes contain protein.
Perhaps a better place to start is to say how much protein is currently in your food and whether a shake is the most effective way to increase your protein intake. If you are not pressed for time it is usually better to take your protein and other calories from solid foods (to increase the thermic effect, for example)
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 11 September 2006 09:35 pm |
|
| I get a little protein in my breakfast because what other people eat at supper I eat at breakfast and usually give 1/2 my protein to my dog. then I get skim milk in my coffee and yogurt and skim milk in my smoothie and that's it for the day. The rest of the day I eat veggies or junk. After lunch. I'm on the weight watchers flex plan and it would be easier to add whey protein to my smoothie than to eat other protein, I think. thanks for the relpy.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 12 September 2006 01:04 am |
|
Skimmed milk isn't necessarily that effective a way of getting protein into your diet. Because only 40% of the calories come from protein, you need a 300ml serving to include 10g of protein.
For example, you might be aiming for 1.5g-1.8g of protein for every kilo o bodyweight.
As to how the Weight Watcher's flex system works, and how to best include protein in that: I admit I'm not particularly familiar with that. You might want to look into exactly how much (say) tinned tuna makes one point and then consume that amount. In general, I understand that the best way to 'beat' the point system is to figure out how much food is equal one point and eat that, instead of picking what you want to eat and seeing how many points that is (because of the way rounding works). The reason I picked tinned tuna is because typically 95% of calories should be from protein (and low fat, so no heavy points burden).
Are garden peas a 0-point food on your plan? They're easy to eat and around 37% of calories come from protein 
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 12 September 2006 03:16 am |
|
Thanks for the reply. Peas are 2 pts. a cup so maybe a can of peas would be six pts. Gee, I'm not hardly getting any protein in. I give myself 4 pts to 6 pts for a midnight snack. I could eat a can of peas then. And peas are filling. Tuna is 3 pts for 1/2 cup. I think sardines are 3 pts for tin. Are sardines good protein?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 12 September 2006 09:53 am |
|
sardines have protein in them, but they also have fat. Yes, it is the good kind of fat, but nevertheless it is like only 40% of the calories come from protein and so much more come from the fat (and in tinned tuna it is 95%). As a general fule, when trying to increase protein content in a low-protein diet it is best to focus on lean proteins where the % of calories coming from protein is high. Other examples: chicken breast without skin, low-fat cottage-cheese, egg whites or egg beaters, most white fish (e.g. cod) without breading.
You say that 1/2 a cup of tuna is 3 points. Do they tell you how much is 1 point?
More about point-optimisation: You should be able to obtain the formula for calculating the points in any given food, given the following information 1) calories 2) saturated fat. (the brand of tinned tuna I'm using, for 100g serving of tuna, is 101 calories and 23.8g protein). If you cannot obtain the formula directly I believe Weight Watchers sell special calculators that work out points for you, then you can use trial-and-error to figure out the ideal amount of a food to have.
The reason I suggested peas was because I thought they were 0-point foods. There are other vegetables which are hopefully 0-food (spinach, mashrooms, broccoli, cauliflower...) and are high in protein. I was just hesitant to suggest them because I know that so many people don't like to eat large quantities of vegetables (which you tend to do here: for example 300g of cooked broccoli for 10g of protein).
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 12 September 2006 03:47 pm |
|
Okay, I can eat tuna,but I love veggies. Every night for supper I pig out on veggies make big big pot. Like last night I had one eggplant, 3 stalks of celery, onion, 1 green bell pepper, 1 red bell pepper, garlic, can of diced tomatoes, flavored with 3 tablespoons with red wine vinegar and two packets nutra sweet. 4 big bowls veggies. My main meal really is supper. every week I eat about 10 cans of green beans. their my afternoon snack. I only have to count points for starchy veggies. Broccoli I had that yesterday too for a snack. I love veggies. 
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 12 September 2006 06:30 pm |
|
glad to hear you love veggies.
one thought is: you're used to counting points as part of WW. Perhaps you should consider counting your protein too for a little while, just to see if you are hitting your target or are way off.
2nd thought: supper may well be your main meal, but your body doesn't really care. It needs protein throughout the day (because protein cannot be stored) so you should be eating a little protein every 3-4 hours.
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 13 September 2006 12:19 am |
|
| Thanks for the replys I will investagate the protein and how to eat small amount of it all day. But protein is usually high in points. So I don't know if I can with only 20 pts. a day. I check into it. Thankyou for your help.
|
Skipperdox
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 September 2006 08:27 pm |
|
crcolt, do you have access to e-tools? You can use them to find high protein foods. You can also use them to find appetizing recipes for the high protein foods. Not all high protein food are high in points. Most lean meats are 1 point per one ounce of meat. This includes skinless chicken breast, 95% fat free ground beef, 95% or higher fat free ham, turkey, roast beef. I make sandwiches with these. Just watch your sodium content with the deli meats, but there's a good variety there. Scallops are high protein, low fat...2 ounces equal 1 point if grilled or steamed. Egg white is high in protein. I think 3 egg whites equal 1 point.
If you switch to the core plan, you can have nearly unlimited core foods that are high in protein. Since you already eat a lot of veggies, core might not be such an adjustment for you. I tried the core plan a few months ago and really struggled with it. That was when I had 24 points to use. Now that I get 20 points a day, I find that I was essentially eating core foods with very little off the core list. This is my second crack at core and I really like it.
|
crcolt
New Member
| Joined: | 6 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2006 08:51 pm |
|
I weighed 170 went on the core plan got down to 143 (couldn't explain it) quit exercising I was walking and the gas got to high for me to go off every day. Went up to 150, switched to the flex plan lost to 131.5 back to exercising, now back on the core plan because I can't keep to the points. Weigh 133. I can follow the core plan and only eat those foods but my portions were way out there. This time I'm going to measure out portions and not track my points, eat only core foods.
This took me 2 years. I did online for about a year when I found out the community boards were free and stopped paying. But then when I went on flex I kinda stopped going to the community boards also.
But from all the information I got off of the boards I got 7 jammed folders of recipes for the core plan. the cookbook from Weight Watchers core foods with the point values. (Really 8 I gave one of those recipes folders to my mom.)
I also have an entertainment center full of exercise dvd's. Just guessing maybe 30 to 50. Love Weight Watchers, they really changed my life. At 47 years old I got bicepts. (From the firm.) Fitness getting started.
|
Current time is 08:44 am | |
|
