Help from community re: stagnant weight loss

[Alysan]

Hi - I haven’t lost any weight the last few months and am looking for pointers and/or anecdotes 🙂 

I’m 38, F, 140 lbs. I’ve been at a 500 calorie deficit for several weeks. I log every single thing and have been religiously sticking with it. My food choices are healthy, I’m not new to good nutrition, and while I allow myself the odd glasse wine, coffee or that handful of chips, most of what I eat are lean meats, fish, veggies, whole grains, light dairy and other healthy fats. I almost never have processed foods, I don’t often eat out. I drink only water, tea and those occasional wine/coffee. I’ve not gone over my goal consumption once. 

I feel I can safely say that what/how much I am eating is not the issue?

I always achieve 10k steps, if not over. I work out 5-6 times per week for 30 minutes doing high-intensity cardio. I keep my heart rate above 150 the entire time. I run errands, mind the house, walk the dog, go for walks with my child. Other than that, I’m not the most active person. 

My goal weight is 130. Started my weightloss journey at 154. Currently at 140 after about 8 months. I only recently got a Fitbit, started logging calories at deficit, and got more serious about shedding these last 10 lbs. 

I’m fortunate in that I never had weight problems and I’ve always had a healthy diet and weight. My weight jump from 130 to 154 came over the course of a year of super sedentary lifestyle, which was new for me, and a mild case of alcoholism. I made a change about a year ago. With far less wine and regular working out, I was able to shed the first 14 lbs. 

So here I am. Stuck around 140 for the last 3 months. I’d love to hear from you guys. I’m familiar with adaptive thermogenesis, what do you guys think about cycling my diet? Upping my deficit? Changing my workouts? 

Thanks much!

[Alysan]

I should add that my BMR is around 1320, and according to Fitbit I burn between 2300-2600 calories per day, and it has me eating around 1800 per day. Most days I'm slightly under that. I'm five feet five inches. 

I'm not interested in the vegetable based, no-animal diets.  

Typically my day of eating looks about like this: 

Daily Calorie Composition: 39% from carbs, 42% from fat and 19% from protein.

[Dominique · Accepted solution]

---

@Alysanwrote:

I’ve been at a 500 calorie deficit for several weeks.

---

This is your calculated deficit. Since your weight hasn’t changed over a long enough period to eliminate normal daily fluctuations (though not necessarily the impact of your hormonal cycle), your actual deficit has been zero, in other words, you’ve been eating at maintenance (which is not a bad thing at all).

The calculated deficit is based on what Fitbit thinks is your BMR and an estimate of your overall energy expenditure derived from the moves of your arms, your HR, impacts etc. There’s a margin of error in both, and it is not uncommon for an activity tracker to overestimate your energy expenditure. For instance, the mere fact you’ve lost 15 pounds in a relatively short period of time means your BMR is lower (metabolic adaptation) than that of a female your age and your height who has been at 140 pounds for several years.

Unless you’re extremely short, 140 pounds probably isn’t a bad place to be at. View staying at that weight for some more time as successful maintenance rather than weight loss failure. See my recent comment to @Jotex: you are in a similar situation as someone who has lost 10% of her bodyweight. It’s probably not optimal to try to lose it all in one stretch.

You said you get your 10k steps everyday, but aren’t the most active person otherwise. I think there lies potential to increase your overall energy expenditure: do less HIIT, but be more active during the rest of the day. Walking is a great activity, especially for someone with a desk job who’s sitting all day. There’s nothing magical about 10k steps: it’s more than what most people get, but then you’re comparing yourself with the general, sedentary population. There’s definitely no guarantee 10k steps will lead to weight loss. 

[Dominique]

---

@Alysanwrote:

I should add that my BMR is around 1320, and according to Fitbit I burn between 2300-2600 calories per day, and it has me eating around 1800 per day. Most days I'm slightly under that. I'm five feet five inches. 

---

This online calculator would put your BMR at 1316. Again, the number is an estimate that doesn’t take into account metabolic adaptation. Based on your average stepcount, I’d put your activity level between "light" and "moderate". This would result in a TDEE between 1809 and 2040 (again, without the impact of metabolic adaptation). I would say Fitbit overestimates your expenditure, as confirmed by the fact you’re maintaining at 1800. Doesn’t mean your Fitbit is useless: you just have to factor in the delta.

[Alysan]

Thanks for your detailed reply. I was not in any way complaining about Fitbit inaccuracies or over/under estimations. I don't blame my Fitbit for anything 🙂  Also, I don't at all think 10k steps is a magic vehicle to weight loss. I'm not too fussed about the step counts, just mentioned them for the sake of information. 

I lost 14 lbs over the course of 2017, without counting calories or implementing a deficit; all I did was work out 30 mins a day and cut down on wine. I'm not sure a year to lose 14 lbs is a relatively short amount of time? In any event, since starting with Fitbit about 5 weeks ago, and logging calories/activities, I am eating less (of the same healthy) food and working out the exact same. I applied the basic principle that 3500 cal deficit/week would result in loss of about 1 lb per week. After 5 weeks, I was expecting a result of some sort. 

I believe I'm at a plateau and was looking for tips to bust out of it, work out change-ups, increasing my deficit, and/or cycling the deficit. Would like to hear from others about their experience with adaptive thermogenesis, or opinions about it. I don't want to stay at 140 lbs. I'm happy I'm here, but my normal weight is 130. And that's where I want to get. 

Thanks for your advice. I plan to manually adjust my daily calorie allowance down to 1500 and see if that effects any change, since you mentioned my BMR/TDEE may be over estimated. I would've expected that with 5 weeks of data the Fitbit would've been able to calculate a more personalized BMR, but I definitely don't mind tweaking it 🙂 

[Alysan]

I typed a reply, went to edit spelling, and it seems to be gone now. Apologies if it returns and I've double posted. 

Thanks for your detailed reply. 

I will manually adjust my daily calories down to 1500, in the event that my BMR and TDEE have been over estimated. I'll report back in a month or two and see if those adjustments effect any change. I'm not fussed about the steps, I wasn't expecting them to be a magic vehicle to weight loss, just mentioned them for the sake of information. 

I lost 14 lbs over the course of 2017 simply by working out 30 mins every day and drinking much less wine. Since getting the Fitbit 5 weeks ago, and starting with logging calories/eating at a deficit, I was expecting a result. I am indeed eating less (of the same healthy) food, drinking even less wine, and working out exactly the same (and as frequently) as before I got the Fitbit. 

I believe I may be at a plateau, and am looking for tips on how to bust out of it. Has anyone had any success shedding the last 5 or 10 'vanity pounds'? Cycling the deficit? Introducing resistance training along with cardio? Dropping down even greater with the deficit? 

[GershonSurge]

@Alysan,

I've never experienced the calorie equation being wrong. Based on this assumption, you are eating more calories than you are burning. Assuming you are logging your calories correctly, then your Fitbit must have an error in the calculations for calories burned. This normal with any instrument.

A good response is to lower your calories consumed 250 a day and see what happens during the next month. Don't go below your BMR.

[Alysan]

I am logging everything down to the smallest nibble. If the food package doesn't have a nutritional index, I research it online and use those databases, although it's rare that I need to. Speaking of food, my diet it simple. Eggs, cheese, raw veggies, chicken, fish, soy products like edamame/tofu, and that's basically it, apart from olive oil/balsamic vinegar. If it comes from a box or can in the middle section of the grocery, I don't eat it often, if ever. 

I don't disagree that perhaps the Fitbit has my BMR and TDEE wrong. My BMR is 1316, so I'm going to go for 1500 a day and see how it plays out. 

Also, I haven't ruled out that my body is trying to conserve fat as it's unhappy with the recent diet restrictions. I'm always hungry and perhaps I'm not expending as many calories as typical. 

[Daves_Not_Here]

@Alysan -- welcome, and thanks for broaching Adaptive Thermogenesis. 

Thanks, I guess -- a read of  Adaptive thermogenesis in humans is sobering and intimidating.  It speaks to how a formerly obese person's body attempts to pack it back on by reducing BOTH 24-hour energy expenditure and satiety through various mechanisms to restore the lost weight.

As to energy expenditure, it states, "Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass.  Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition."

What this means for someone like me who has lost 55 pounds, is that I will need to eat about 800 less calories per day than before, just to sustain my lower weight.  But wait, there's more!  The essay then goes on to explain how my sense of satiety will be decreased and appetite increased by the modulation of the hormone leptin.  Great -- I need to eat less food, but will be hungrier for more.

Not content to deliver the bad news in generalities, the essay details out the numerous mechanisms that conspire to restore us to obesity.  It concludes with "Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight. This phenotype is distinct from that opposing dynamic weight loss per se. The multiplicity of systems regulating energy stores and opposing the maintenance of a reduced body weight illustrate that body energy stores in general and fat stores in particular are actively “defended” by interlocking bioenergetic and neurobiological physiologies. Important inferences can be drawn for therapeutic strategies by recognizing obesity as a state in which the human body actively opposes the “cure” over long periods of time beyond the initial resolution of symptomatology."

Other than that, keeping the weight off is a piece of cake!  What I found very interesting was how the responses that oppose the initial losing of weight are different that those the oppose sustained weight loss long term.

My take away is that to sustain my weight loss will require on-going vigilance -- I must remain active and cannot return to eating mindlessly.   I'm thinking that periodic fasting is probably in my future.

[Alysan]

@Daves_Not_Here

Yes! Thanks for sharing that 🙂

I've read that, or something very like it. I've been reading the last few days about AT. It is disheartening to an extent. I told my husband the best way to get out of being overweight is to never get overweight, apparently. 

This ancient physiological response is unfortunately an unwelcome thing in the Western world, with plenty of (many cases bad) food available. I wonder if we will ever evolve out of it. 

I'm considering trying to fool my body by eating normally or slightly above normal every 7th week. Just to get these last 8-10 lbs off. Have you tried that? Or is fasting your preferred route? 

[GershonSurge]

@Alysan

The answer is in your original post.

I'm not interested in the vegetable based, no-animal diets.  

Typically my day of eating looks about like this: 

Daily Calorie Composition: 39% from carbs, 42% from fat and 19% from protein.

Those macro recommendations were bought by meat and dairy interests. If you'd like to learn how this was done, read

The China Study, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term HealthDec 27, 2016 | Unabridged

by T. Colin Campbell PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II MD.

The only macro we can store as fat is fat. Every time you have an excess of fat, it is stored as fat. Until a person gets diabetes, they will continue to get fatter. The reason for this is insulin is what drives fat to the cells. It also opens the cells to sugar. Eventually, when the body reaches it considers a maximum acceptable weight, the pancreas stops producing insulin. There is also another mechanism for getting diabetes. When milk protein gets into the blood through the colon when the one cell thick villa get a hole in them it's called a "leaky gut." When a protein is where it isn't supposed to be, an antibody is formed. Unfortunately, this protein is the same one that the cells that produce insulin contain. The anti-bodies attack the pancreas and the person gets type one diabetes that can't be cured -- only managed.

It's important to understand that carbs and proteins cannot be converted to fat in humans. If a person eats a diet with about 8% fat, it's impossible to get fat. When they are hungry, they can eat. Their weight will drift down to somewhere in their optimum range and stay there. 

You said you don't want a whole food plant based way of eating. It's like saying you want extra pounds and the degenerative diseases that go along with animal products. 

Now some words about the study @Daves_Not_Here recommended. Keep in mind why studies get funding these days. It's not to find the truth. They use a reductionist approach to target one aspect of the body. In this case, it's adaptive thermogenesis. If you looked deeply, you would probably find the existence of it isn't proven. I've known people who spent five years in the concentration camps. They had no problem putting on weight. I've spent a lot of time with people with anorexia. They have difficulty gaining weight even when their calories are monitored. If AT exists, anorexia should be self-correcting. It's not. 

The goal of researchers these days is to identify a target, discover some vitamin or hormone that is the mechanism to fix the problem. In this case, it's leptin. Then they make a supplement and millions of dollars for the entity that funds the study. Unfortunately, they never seem to produce the research that shows the supplement actually works (This is the case for vitamin D). Often, they find the supplement causes harm.

The reason supplements fail is they aren't ingested with the food that contains them. These foods contain the exact hormone or vitamin along with the nutrients needed to process them. Supplements contain derivatives. The reason supplements do this is you can't patent a hormone or vitamin. Predictably, the study mentions leptin supplements. Google the side effects, and you won't consider them.

What I don't understand is not a single person in Fitbit has even read any of the books I've recommended or watched any of the video playlists. They are attached to their high fat/high protein and low carb ways of eating and are largely unsuccessful. There are exceptions, but that's how probabilities work. If you are unwilling to read the book, carefully consider why. I think you will find it's the cumulative effect of advertisers who are more willing to sell their product than to make you healthy and fit. As Dr. McDougall says, "People love to hear good news about their bad habits."

[Alysan]

@GershonSurge

Thanks for your reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to post.

Your posts about diet, (which I've come upon several times while pursuing the forums), are the specific reason that I mentioned disinterest in no-animal, vegetable-based diets initially. I didn't wish to debate you about this. 

I believe human bodies need some fat in their diets. As an energy source, proper brain function, healthy skin, hair, tissues, hormone genesis, etc. 

You cite studies and research that confirm your food ideology. There are numerous other studies and data that confirm that humans need some fats in their diet.  

Personally, I gained weight from sitting on my arse day in and day out and drinking wine all day. Full stop.

My diet has always leaned towards vegetarian and has always been predominantly healthy, whole foods, and I've never been an over-eater. What I said was that I am not interested in all-veg/no-animal (vegan) diets, not that I'm not interested in whole foods. Also, I'm not attempting to cut out any of the macronutrients. I aim to get Fat, Carbohydrates and Protein each day. I subscribe to 'Eat Healthy Food, not too much, mostly plants'. 

I understand that you want to share your ideology and positive experiences with the community, and perhaps the world at large. It's clear that you are passionate about your beliefs. Passively insulting folks who 'refuse' to read your recommended literature or align with your ideals about food isn't going to win you any favor. Understand that it is your ideology. You can't force others to assimilate. 

[GershonSurge]

@Alysan,

Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry I insulted you and others. I won't mention the subject anymore.

Gershon

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

I'm considering trying to fool my body by eating normally or slightly above normal every 7th week. Just to get these last 8-10 lbs off. Have you tried that? Or is fasting your preferred route? 

---

Hi @Alysan -- I have not yet seriously tried either yet.  I'll let you know what works when (or if?) I succeed.

Couple of data points from my personal experience:  over the recent holidays, I stopped logging my food religiously and my weight leveled off -- I would call this eating "slightly above normal" as you mentioned.  It didn't really help me now, but I haven't pushed that hard to start losing again.  Also, I have done one fast lasting 36 hours which knocked off 3 pounds, but it was obviously water weight that came back in two days.

A couple of things that have sapped my motivation to lose more weight:  I feel absolutely fantastic.  My clothes fit great.  My ski and bike performance is the highest it's ever been.  I no longer snore.  My mental and physical energy level is very high.   I'm no longer pre-diabetic or even close.  I've really been focusing on repeating and ingraining the daily habits that will allow me to sustain my loss (but I need to add food logging back in).

But, that Adaptive Thermogenesis article was a wake up call for sure. 

[Alysan]

@GershonSurge

No need for apologies. I'm glad you shared what you're invested in. I don't fully agree, but I am certainly not wishing to censor. 

[Alysan]

@Daves_Not_Here

It sounds like you're just enjoying the fruits of your work so far. That's great. It's nice to hear your health has improved so much! 

As of today I'm still at 140. I've got down to a set 1600 calories per day and will try this for a while. I'm going to up my work outs/activity level/calories burned to a min of 2500, as 'recorded by fitbit'. 

I'm thinking I just wasn't active enough and my daily BMR and burn amounts were over estimated initially. 

I too am hoping being more attuned to my caloric intake and the foods I eat will help ingrain the habits so that when I'm ready to start maintenance mode, I won't need to count any longer 🙂 

[Baltoscott]

---

@Alysanwrote: 

I'm considering trying to fool my body by eating normally or slightly above normal every 7th week. Just to get these last 8-10 lbs off. Have you tried that? Or is fasting your preferred route? 

---

In other posts you’ve said you are currently eating around 1800 may try going to about 1600 for a bit to see how that works.  I would give that a try for a month or so to see what happens.  

Regarding your quote above, I’ll provide my anecdotal “evidence” in support of the idea that you may be able to eat a few hundred calories more at your current exercise level without gaining weight, which would give you more room to cut calories and lose weight in a couple of months.  After I lost about 45 lbs over six or seven months last year (down to 157 lbs from 202 lbs 2017-01 to 2017-07), I tried to maintain for a couple of months and then began what I thought was a “bulk” phase starting last September.  For the bulk I went from around 2400-2500 calories/day to about 2800-3000 calories/day.  It made no difference.  I continued to maintain at around 159-160 lbs, and only when I upped my calories to between 3100-3500 in mid-December did I start to gain weight.  I’ve had a 1 lb gain over each of the last two week by eating 3400-3500 calories/day.  (I will only talk about the eating side of the equation because my exercise stays fairly constant).  

I guess what I am starting to believe is that once your body hits a homeostatic state (a plateau) it takes more than a few hundred calories a day to move off of it.  The body probably just makes imperceptible adjustments to maintain your weekly weight average when you drop or add a few hundred calories.  If that is so, (and if dropping to 1600 has not worked after trying that for a month or so), you might be able to test the theory by increasing your calories to about 2000 for a month.  If that doesn’t result in any weight increase, you will then be at a point where you can generate a fairly large real deficit by going back to 1600. 

As you evaluate different approaches stick with a single change for a month or so and give it a chance to do something before changing another variable.  

[Daves_Not_Here]

@Alysan - this Adaptive Thermogenesis business is really interesting.  I'll devote a new thread to it.  If anybody complains about it, we're blaming you.

[Alysan]

@Baltoscott

Thanks for your reply. Yes! I went down to 1600 max daily cals a few days ago, maybe 4 or 5? I've also slightly upped my activity and changed my workouts to focus on the machines that burn the most calories. Also started some light weight training at the house. I enjoy a simple cardio flush every day, and don't really want to spend more than 45-60 minutes in the gym each day. Like you, I want my exercise regime to remain consistent as opposed to having to workout like a made fool just to lose 10 lbs. 

I'm going to try the 1600/day for another 4 or 5 weeks and see how things progress. 

If no real change, then I believe I will take some variant of your advice. Bring my calories back up to 18-1900 and maintain for a while before dropping them again. 

[Alysan]

@Daves_Not_Here

Blame away 🙂 

I find it interesting too. It appears there are schools of thought that don't believe it's a thing, and others that do. I've enjoyed learning about it either way, and I think at least for my situation, it might be a valid explanation.