The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
I know this word gets tossed around a lot and how the mechanics of it work I've yet to figure out from all the conflicting opinions, studies and
"facts" I've read. I do believe though that not eating enough calories can stall weight loss. This is where I come in, I have been eating about 1250 calories (and this does not include calories burned from workout so sometimes it can be more like 900-1100) for quite some time. At first this worked great and I lost 20 pounds over a Summer, then I was left with those "extra 10 pounds". I incorporated pretty heavy weightlifting 3x a week and cardio for about 2-4x a week. Always scared to go about my calorie intake, I decided to take the plunge and revamped my diet to start eating about every 2 hours, I eat a ton of veggies, quite a few fruits, my weight in Grams of protein, whole grams, etc (my only real treat is a small handful of M&Ms) My caloric intake now is about 1700 (again not including calories burned).
I've done this for about 5 days and I've gained 2.5 pounds and about an inch around my waist and hips. I want so bad to go back down to my 1200 but I know that doing that hasn't given me the desired results, I'm wanting to be very lean. Is this weight gain just temporary until my body gets used to the food I'm eating? Did I really gained 2 1/2 pounds or is this just due to water weight (I have been drinking 3 liters of water). I'm not so concerned with losing weight but I am desperate to rid of once and for all the fat around my hips and waist and get my body fat % down. ANyone else gone through a similar situation? Will my weight continue to increase or will I start to see results soon?
Well, first of all 5'4 and 115 is already really lean.
Secondly, it takes 3500 extra calories to gain a pound, so unless you ate in excess of 8,750 calories over the last 5 days, you didn't gain 2.5 pounds of mass (fat or lean).
If you've been eating at such a low caloric level for so long, perhaps your metabolism has slowed down. Maybe you should take a look at Leigh's MRM program.
if you just jumped your calories by 500 a day, you're looking at some serious extra food, extra water, extra bloat. usually stepping up cals is easier to take than the giant leap. you'll stabilize and continue to progress, assuming you're still in some kind of a deficit, but it might take a bit. roll with it and see where you are in a couple weeks. a couple days means pretty much nothing. if it's a serious problem, step down and then step back up (drop to 1500 or so for a week and then go back to 1700).
But how sure are you of your actual intake? Ive learned that unless you are weighing and measuring EVERYTHING by the gram, and this includes salsa and pam, then you can be underestimating intake by as much as 500 cals a day. So take 1700+500=2200 cals a day, which could be a surplus for you. Also how are you estimating calories burned? Most of those online calculators can be way off, depending on your condition.
I think "starvation" is overrated. WHen I think of starvation, I think of anorexics. But I will let Leigh chime in.....
Getmovin is right - if you're not weighing everything in grams, you could be off by quite a bit. If you ARE measuring in grams, then I'd say you're just having a bump from the increase - glycogen, water, etc...
Leigh always advises that your goal weight should be 3-4# above where you get to on your diet, because once you start eating closer to maintenance, you won't be glycogen depleted and you'll bounce up a few...
I'd say that I'm fairly consistant in measuring my food (at least this week I have been, and this is the week I've noticed the change). I pack my lunch before I go to work, I have measuring cups and a scale for my meat, etc. I have a tablespoon in my drawer at work for salsa, PB and Hummus..those are the only condiments I use except the occasional ketchup and light mayo. As far as workout trackers, those are very hard to gauge, how do I know if my workout was moderate or vigerous? I try my best to think realistically about it and usually count my weightlifting around the mid 100-200 calories burned depending on how hard I felt I worked--and as for cardio I go by the calorie counter on the machines.
I'd definately say that I feel much better in terms of energy. I feel like I'm getting more out of my workouts because I have more fuel. Thiis is definately the best I've ever eatin' as well. I wish that my outside looked as great as I feel on the inside, and it's mainly my middle section that's holding the most fat. I'm hoping it's just bloating and that it will go down once my body is used to the food. I am thinking about scaling back a bit to maybe about 1450-1500--would that be something I should do? I've just been at a plateau for so long!
scaling back is fine for a bit and then bump back up after a week or 2. but, you've already stuck out a week nearly, so it doesn't really matter, it's more about your sanity than anything.
I'm not particularly worried about your measuring methods as related to your gain, because that's almost entirely just your bump in general.
but in the long run, using cups and spoons rather than a scale to weigh your stuff can get you in trouble, so you do prolly want to change that. However, if you're finding after this bump that all goes well without bothering with such, than great. Just keep it in mind for the future.
And I wouldn't count the calories you burn in a workout in any way as accounting for your daily intake. Your workout is a small portion of your day, and it's already accounted for in any formula with activity multipliers. consider it separate and not a way to get in an extra bit of food, cuz that'll end up biting you in the bum eventually.
And I wouldn't count the calories you burn in a workout in any way as accounting for your daily intake. Your workout is a small portion of your day, and it's already accounted for in any formula with activity multipliers. consider it separate and not a way to get in an extra bit of food, cuz that'll end up biting you in the bum eventually.
I think that right up there with failure to measure properly (accurately) is the thought that "I worked out, I earned x calories more". Read the GoWear Fit thread if you want, but the bottom line is that it isn't half as important how hard you work in the gym as it is that you are active the rest of the day. Leigh's books also explain this very well (in FLTS there are pics/graphs and such).
What I personally took away from this is that I don't have to do cardio as hard/intense as I used to, unless I'm conditioning for something specific where I might need it. The difference in calories burned, for example, at 4mph versus 3mph are not anywhere near as big as one might think. But if you get up and move and do chores or walk (just stroll) all day versus couch-sitting or desk-sitting, that's a HUGE difference that can make or break your fat-loss and maintenance goals.
I will add that back when I was measuring a tablespoon of peanut butter with a tablespoon, I quickly learned that what *I* considered a tablespoon was WAAAAAAY over the 16 grams that it should have been once I weighed my "tablespoon", which was an UNDERestimation of calories on my part by A LOT!!
ok, I know we have a lot of knowledge to share about measuring and counting and NEAT and how to lose weight. All of that is great for the right person to hear, but the OP is pretty small already (actually underweight by BMI, I think, if that matters to anyone). My strong guess would be that calorie surplus + strength training would be more in order for her than a strict counting regime.
What are your goals, OP? Are you looking for a number on the scale or is this more about looking a certain way (fit, toned, whatever)?
__________________
i do like the library, but i also like the gym my new log!
Yes, I agree and I mentioned in my first reply that she's already pretty lean. And she's at a healthy BMI (if you put any credence into BMI numbers -- I don't). My initial concern was that she was WAY undereating for so long. Now, I'm not so sure she was if she really wan't measuring. Maybe she wasn't truly eating at such a low caloric intake. I guess at this point, I would say to track food diligently for a couple weeks and see what happens on the scale and then reassess. Interested to see what Leigh has to say.
It may be entirely possible I wasn't undereating. I used a program that created a calorie deficit for you and on top of that I would count my workouts (I set my activity level to lightly active so that I may track my exercise). I am pretty deligent when it comes to counting what I've eatin'. I admit I don't always put in my condiemtns, but I read the nutrition labels and I look at serving sizes and I think I am fairly accurate when it comes to tracking every little bit I eat (even if I had say, 3 pieces of M&Ms for a chocolate treat, that'd go into my daily calorie plate). The fact of the matter is, I work with what I consider to be heavy weights for me and I do cardio and I eat decently most of the time, but I'm not getting the results I want. I know that nutrition is about 80%, so I thought that by eating more and the ways I'm eat would change my body. I'd like very much to get down to 14-16% body fat (my scale at home says 17% but after watching Leigh's Body Fat video, according to her estimates I look more like the girl at 21% and I've held onto this fat for at least 8 months, so obivously something needs to be changed)
Yes, I agree and I mentioned in my first reply that she's already pretty lean. And she's at a healthy BMI (if you put any credence into BMI numbers -- I don't). My initial concern was that she was WAY undereating for so long. Now, I'm not so sure she was if she really wan't measuring. Maybe she wasn't truly eating at such a low caloric intake. I guess at this point, I would say to track food diligently for a couple weeks and see what happens on the scale and then reassess. Interested to see what Leigh has to say.
1200 calories isn't necessarily undereating for everyone. For me, thatis only a 30% deficit which is not all that extreme.
Harri what are the results you are looking for that you say you are not getting?
Do you have pictures because honestly I think the advice you have gotten is about the best you can get, the rest of this is going at it blindly.
If you want solid advice post up a picture of yourself and of what you want and we will go from there.
You can also answer what your job is, what you do in a day, and give us more of an idea what your lifestyle is.
Off the bat though you are likely taking in more calories in general than you think, you give very "eyeball" kind of answers which is fine but if stuck then you know, gotta buckle down.
Now, I'm not so sure she was if she really wan't measuring. Maybe she wasn't truly eating at such a low caloric intake.
good point, Jane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh P.
Off the bat though you are likely taking in more calories in general than you think, you give very "eyeball" kind of answers which is fine but if stuck then you know, gotta buckle down.
I hadn't thought of this, but I think you guys are right. First Harri should figure out what she has been doing (whether eating at a deficit, or a surplus--we can't really know at this point) and then figure out what to change to reach her goals.
Harri, do you know what kind of intake you need to maintain? Would it be worth a week or two of eating that way, tracking religiously (and weighing every little thing)? Then you would have a decent baseline for making changes.
edited to add: as far as BMI, she's around 19 which is borderline underweight depending on the chart you use--of course I agree BMI means almost nothing (especially with people around here, assuming above average muscle mass, etc)--but in the absence of any other information I thought it would give the conversation a little frame of reference.
__________________
i do like the library, but i also like the gym my new log!
Yeah I can try to post a pitcure soon. To give you a frame of reference Leigh, I am very close to the girl in your body fat percentage video that is 21%. My measurements are 34-27-35.5....I'm not unhealthy where I am, this is simply for my vanity sakes. I'd love to push my body and see where I can go with it.
I know this word gets tossed around a lot and how the mechanics of it work I've yet to figure out from all the conflicting opinions, studies and "facts" I've read.
Starvation mode doesn't exist.
What does exist is a downregulation of metabolic rate during starvation conditions - measured to be as much as 30% or so with chronic starvation.
However this doesn't mean you can't lose weight - it just means that the calorie value to make weight loss happen is somewhat lower.
If you burn up say 10cals/lb of BMR (before any activity is added in), then with the downregulation you'd only burn 7 cals/lb
If you're 115 (just to slot your weight in as an example), you're looking at a difference from 1150 cals vs. 805 cals.
Since you're looking at nutrient deficiencies by that point, that's why it's advisable to avoid crashing the metabolism to that degree.
But you can most assuredly still lose weight.
Quote:
I do believe though that not eating enough calories can stall weight loss.
Really? There's some kids in Africa that would love to know this.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
What does exist is a downregulation of metabolic rate during starvation conditions - measured to be as much as 30% or so with chronic starvation.
However this doesn't mean you can't lose weight - it just means that the calorie value to make weight loss happen is somewhat lower.
If you burn up say 10cals/lb of BMR (before any activity is added in), then with the downregulation you'd only burn 7 cals/lb
If you're 115 (just to slot your weight in as an example), you're looking at a difference from 1150 cals vs. 805 cals.
Since you're looking at nutrient deficiencies by that point, that's why it's advisable to avoid crashing the metabolism to that degree.
But you can most assuredly still lose weight.
Really? There's some kids in Africa that would love to know this.
Ok, but how much time does it take to return to a normal caloric expenditure eating at maintenance?
And maintenance should be considered with the 30% drop or not? Meaning, considering a moderate active lifestyle with a multiplier of 1,4 Kcal x BMR, one should consider 7 or 10 Kcal X bodyweight as BMR?
Ok, but how much time does it take to return to a normal caloric expenditure eating at maintenance?
Depends on how long you've done it and how far under setpoint you are.
If you're just talking a recreational dieter (to include bodybuilders), then probably no more than a few weeks. Somebody that's chronically underfed and has the loss of body mass to show for it (ED victims, people that have been literally starved) will take proportionally longer.
Quote:
And maintenance should be considered with the 30% drop or not? Meaning, considering a moderate active lifestyle with a multiplier of 1,4 Kcal x BMR, one should consider 7 or 10 Kcal X bodyweight as BMR?
BMR is BMR. Not accounting for the change in energy expenditure that happens w/ change in body mass is a big part of where people screw up.
If you're calculating that you need 1500 cals/day and you only need 1100, guess what's happening to your bodyweight?
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Depends on how long you've done it and how far under setpoint you are.
If you're just talking a recreational dieter (to include bodybuilders), then probably no more than a few weeks. Somebody that's chronically underfed and has the loss of body mass to show for it (ED victims, people that have been literally starved) will take proportionally longer.
BMR is BMR. Not accounting for the change in energy expenditure that happens w/ change in body mass is a big part of where people screw up.
If you're calculating that you need 1500 cals/day and you only need 1100, guess what's happening to your bodyweight?
What is the difference b/c "starvation mode" and "downregulation"? Isnt' it just semantics?
One is a mythical beast created by eating little for short periods.
The other is due to loss of metabolically active tissues, adipose and lean body mass, due to chronic excesses in energy expenditure and reduced energy intake. Primarily related to the loss of tissue.
The other is due to loss of metabolically active tissues, adipose and lean body mass, due to chronic excesses in energy expenditure and reduced energy intake. Primarily related to the loss of tissue.
I think its a lot more than this, and hormonal responses play a huge role.
This goes back to "if I locked you in a closet for a month and only gave you water, would you lose weight or stall?" I'd bet dollars to dimes that you'd lose weight.
__________________
Life's a Journey ... Enjoy the Ride!
"Starvation Mode"
Linear Mode
