Very slow loss?

[buholoco]

Hi guys, I was wondering if I could get some tips. I've been working on losing weight (7lbs lost so far, but would like to lose at least another stone). Things seem to be going incredibly slowly at the moment though, and I'm struggling to lose even an average of half a pound a week.

I'm 5ft 1, 10st 10, female, 27 years old. My average daily calories burned was (for example) 2,039 last week and an average intake of 1,455 calories. My BMR is 1,392 calories according to my FitBit. I always aim for a minimum of 500 calories deficit every day. I try to make these calories healthier foods, but I could probably work more on this - I've been getting very mixed views on how important the types of calories are as opposed to just getting a deficit but I'd like to get the health benefits anyway.

I do three strength training days with 20 minutes light cardio, and three days with 50 minutes moderate/heavy cardio (burning around 400-500 calories over the 50 minutes). I aim for more than 10,000 steps a day. According to my scales my fat/muscle percentages have shifted maybe a couple of percent but not more than I'd probably see just weighing myself a couple of times in succession.

I have an underactive thyroid but this is under control and shouldn't be an issue.

Sorry if that's a bit long, but does anyone have any suggestions for me? I'd like to increase my loss to 1-2 pounds a week if possible.

[Heybales]

For reasonable weight loss, plan on the following (or for many the body gets stressed out, adapts, and this is all you get anyway with a stressed out body):

Over 50lbs to healthy weight - 2 lb weekly

30 - 50 - 1.5

15 - 30 - 1

under 15 - 1/2 lb weekly.

You may be where you need to be already.

I can't tell how much you rely on the scale - but a BF scale is not that accurate for BF% anyway. The hope would be consistent so over months of time it gives a reliable direction.

And if it's really giving a breakdown of muscle mass - even worse accuracy, because it's only estimating BF% with a measurement, everything not BodyFat is Lean Body Mass (LBM) which includes muscle, bone, organs, water.

If it's trying to give a value for muscle from that other group, even worse accuracy.

So if you appear to have a 500 cal deficit, and over a month haven't had 4 lb loss (as a woman you need a month to discern anything as your metabolism literally does change higher and lower) - then a couple things to confirm.

It's true that as far as fat loss it's all about the calories (look up twinkie diet experiement) - your body will get more stressed missing nutrition though.

You can probably get all required nutrition into 1200 calories easily though, and have room for enjoying life and food.

Do you log your food by weighing it?

Because calories is per grams, not cups, spoonfuls, or slices. (except liquids is by volume)

That can help with the calories in side of the equation.

Then there is the burn side of the equation.

Strength training is incorrect usage of HR-based calorie burn calculations.

HR can only give decent estimate for steady-state aerobic exercise - strength training if done right is anaerobic and HR is all over the place - totally opposite. And therefore inflated calorie burn.

Now - if that's just easy workout 15 min 3 x weekly in otherwise active lifestyle no big whoop even if 100% inflated.

If this is heavy workout 45-60 min x 3 weekly then a difference - should manually log as Weights, take the suggested calorie burn - it's low but that's true.

With that many steps, have you ever confirmed the distance is correct. Since daily activity is distance-based calorie burn, it matters if your stride-length setting is correct.

You'd want to walk a confirmed 1/2 - 1 mile at avg daily pace 1.8 mph about (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise pace) and confirm the workout gave the correct distance.

If not steps shown for it and known distance can math out to correct stride length.

Those tweaks can help in case the calories out side of the equation is inflated.

[buholoco]

@Heybales Thanks, that's all useful stuff!

I just mentioned the BF% because I know people bring it up sometimes when people don't seem to be losing weight - I don't think there's been much of a change in that respect.

I'm weighing all my food where possible, which is at least 90% of the time so that should be fine.

I think the distance for my walking is correct, but I'll double-check it.

I'll log weights in manually - it's never a very high calorie count anyway though since my HR doesn't get particularly high, so I don't think it should make a massive difference.

In the long term I'd like to go past my initial goal, but as you say I may be where I need to be already. It just feels very slow for all the effort it takes I suppose haha! My weight wasn't drastically different when I was barely moving and eating everything I wanted! But that's how it is I suppose.

[niketales]

I calculated your BMI and whilst its not a great indicator, it is saying you are only 7lbs from a "healthy" weight. Bear in mind there are plenty of athletes who would be considered overweight based on BMI. It maybe that your weight loss is slow because you don't have that much to lose.

I've read, that carbs might be the enemy of weight loss, so if you are struggling and want to lose the weight, rather than count calories, maybe try cutting carbs and go for a high fat, low carb diet.

[buholoco]

@niketales Hi, when I looked up my BMI, it said the upper limit for a healthy weight for me was 9st 6lbs, so that would make me 1st 4lbs away from a healthy weight?

[Glenda]

@buholoco  @niketales @Heybales  I'm so impressed with the helpfulness and kindness of Nike and Haybales.   They are gracious and explain things so fully and nicely.  My husband always criticized me as talking in shorthand.  I apologize in advance.  However the key here is the young lady if 5'1" tall and is eating far too many calories to lose weight.  I read study after scientific study that says exercise is critical for good health but will not help at all with losing weight.  It is a mistake to get all wrapped up in calories burned.  You can lose weight just as well with no exercise.  Forget calories burned.  Don't eat any more than 1,200 calories as Heybales sort of suggested just for a start.   

[buholoco]

@Glenda Thanks Glenda! You're definitely right - it's way more about food than exercise. But of course I'd exercise anyway since there are way more benefits than just weight loss as you said - I think it certainly helps a little with the weight loss too though. I've tried before where I've done 1,200 calories and no exercise and wasn't even losing the 1/2 pound a week, so I think I definitely need to combine the two.

So is the 500 calorie deficit not a thing? The only reason I mentioned calories burned was that I was using that to work out an upper limit of the calories I could have that day, although that would be the far upper limit. I've heard elsewhere than 1,200 should be the absolute minimum I should ever be having, so would that be good for both exercise and non-exercise days? Thanks for the help!

[Glenda]

@buholoco  Funny thing, 1200 calories is the absolute limit for midgets too.  Yet, intermittent fasting is highly recommended and has many health benefits  and allows 500 or 600 calories on those  fasting days.  Studies show that people who diet only a few days a week lose just as much as people who diet all the time.  If you eat a restricted number of calories every day your metabolism slows but doesn't if you do the on and off thing.  Isn't that great?  😊

[buholoco]

@Glenda So would that mean doing 500/600 some days and 1,200 on others, or would I eat more on the non-500/600 days? Thanks again for the help. I think the 1,200 numbers is supposed to be more organ function so I suppose it makes sense it would be the same number for everyone? Would that mean balancing out the very low calories days with more than 1,200 then?

[Heybales · Accepted solution]

The 5:2 protocol is eating at maintenance on 5 days a week, and then having 2 non-consecutive days eating 25% of TDEE.

So not going off the numbers you've eaten so far - because that's already a diet.

It also means using your Fitbit stats for typical average weeks and figuring out average TDEE.

Being short your TDEE is going to be generally lower, though your exercise appears to be helping it stay at level that eating choices isn't too limited.

So just look at stats for average daily burn over last 3 weeks (if each of the 3 weeks was average - like not sick for 3-4 days, not super busy helping someone move 2 days, ect).

It appears you said about 2000, might just confirm.

That's your avg TDEE, daily burn. 25% of that you eat on the 2 days, so 500. (try to pick non-workout days or smallest workout day). Eat at 2000 TDEE the other 5.

It's a good end game method for the last few lbs since it can indeed be hard to hit a 250 cal deficit that would be reasonable normally.

[Glenda]

@buholoco   Yes It is suggested men eat 600 calories when fasting and women 500.  It isn't anything so complicated as Haybales is making it.    The 1200 calories applied to everyone isn't reasonable  It is plenty of calories for you to eat all the nutritious food you need, but I would gain weight on that amount.    It is accepted as  if scientific, by just about everyone. They even use it on the 600 pound life TV show for the diet.  But midgets would get very fat eating that much .  Most people,  including me, undercount the calories eaten.  But if I ate 1200 calories of the ones I count I would weigh 120 pounds and at 5'1", I  don't want to weigh 120.  For decades I weighed 108 and was an athlete with muscle.  Now I'm trying to get back to 114 by this Friday.  On the 5 - 2 diet they just say eat normally on the other 5 days.  Maybe you would be reassured if you google "what is a maintenance number of calories for someone 5'1" with light or no exercise.   Don't get involved with anything about calories burned by exercise.  Eat the maintenance amount the other 5 days.  I'll bet they say too much but I could be surprised.

[Heybales]

Just to be clear.

You are suggesting that someone 5' 1" (despite references to midget several times I don't see how that applies), whose estimated daily burn is up around 2000 calories daily (whether from increased daily activity or exercise doesn't really matter if you burn them), eat on normal non-diet days less than 1200, and then on 2 fasting days a week 500 calories?

@buholoco   I would also suggest looking up extreme diets - where you are eating about 50% of what your body is burning.

Then look up the stats for what % fail to reach goal weight, and if they do what % fail to maintain it.

Then look up the long-term weight loss maintainer stats on what leads to long term success.

Hint - you won't find extreme diet as part of it.

I'll reiterate I guess what is the complicated part of what I said:

"The 5:2 protocol is eating at maintenance on 5 days a week, and then having 2 non-consecutive days eating 25% of TDEE.

That's your avg TDEE, daily burn. 25% of that you eat on the 2 days, so 500. (try to pick non-workout days or smallest workout day). Eat at 2000 TDEE the other 5."

[Glenda]

@Heybales  Did you ever say what TDEE stands for.  That is complicated to me.  You are suggesting here that very few people lose weight and keep it off and that isn't really true.   Lots of people succeed at losing weight and keep it off.  The 5-2 diet isn't considered extreme.  It is considered  beneficial to health.  It isn't even important that you carefully eat only 500 or 600 calories.  Just try to eat about that or as little as possible.  The major benefit of that diet though for me was that it got me out of the habit or mind set of "what am I going to eat next"  and munching along all day.   We are better off eating something satisfying with a real meal 2 or 3 times a day with nothing in between.   Eating adequate but not extra  protein helps enormously.   Extra protein is extra calories.  A protein powder  works better  for short people than the meal drinks sold with 30 grams of protein.   ..................Intermittent fasting isn't for every one or even for very long but can change a persons beliefs quickly about how much they really need to eat.  Many people would be so much better off if they could just give up flour and sugar.

[Glenda]

@Heybales I failed to say,  people who exercise eat more, and they DON'T lose weight.  If a person is only exercising to lose weight it is counter productive.  I exercise every day and have perfect health at age 78.  I started exercising everyday decades ago thinking it helped to control weight, so I am healthy by mistake.  I have been on a diet my whole life to stay slim.   I read news and books on my treadmill every day and eat less than 1200 calories  (except I probably undercount along with everyone else).  Exercise doesn't help people lose weight.  If you think people should eat lots more when they exercise they shouldn't exercise if they want to lose weight.  It doesn't work.

[Heybales]

I said what TDEE was in my original post, and even put the quote in my next post responding to you.

If unaware of what it means, a highlight in your browser/app and search Google option is pretty easy to find out for those that don't know.

You can look up the stats on successful weight loss and maintenance from many sources - but I'll tell you.

Around 20%

NOT a majority. Never said very few lose weight.

I didn't say the 5:2 diet was extreme.

I said you recommending eating levels that end up causing a 50% deficit are extreme.

You must have missed my many comments that I said to do the 5:2 protocol. Several times.

You are correct that exercise does not cause weight loss by itself. I said the same thing.

As the saying goes - you can't out-exercise a bad diet.

Diet is for weight loss.

One has to eat less than you burn in total (TDEE again).

If you do not track and adjust your eating you will probably just eat more and maintain if you think exercise is for weight loss.

But if you do not keep a reasonable deficit - for the amount you have to lose - then you can cause your body to fight your efforts and adapt and make the whole thing much harder than it needs to be, besides causing negative effects too.

That would be a diet from again what you burn in total. And what you burn in total includes exercise.

If you do not include it - you are just creating a bigger deficit, making recovery from exercise worse, eventually making your exercise not as useful for it's purpose - transforming your body.

But I gotta tell you - you can find study after study of people that DO lose weight while eating more because they are exercising.

As long as calories is correctly adjusted for the increased amount burned, but still eating less - you lose fat weight - no way around that fact.

Life lesson regarding weight management there that Fitbit is trying to teach.

You do more you eat more.

You do less you eat less. (that's the kicker side for most)

In a diet, a tad less in either case.

[buholoco]

What you're saying makes sense to me - I think the 5:2 diet as you describe it is certainly worth a try. I'll let you know how things go!