Any ideas? 20 lbs away? 30? 50? 63? (grrrr)

We all know weight loss slows down "closer to goal". But what does that mean? I do not feel close to goal.

It just depends on what you want to call "close to goal" I guess lol. For me it was about 20 pounds away!

It seems like it's up to my body and it thinks it's close to goal. I respectfully disagree.

Funny you should ask that. As I only weigh once a month, my ticker update takes a big jump. In February when I posted, not only did I cross into Onederland (my focus) but the ticker says 28 lbs. to go. Really? I'm almost there? Now that's likely to be at least 4 months away, but my mind is still not grasping it.

I'm about 30 away. I think I'd say "close to goal" when I'm say 15-20. I might move my final goal down to 190 when I see how I look closer to 200.

Eliana -

I think you need to give yourself a break from your expectations. Yes, you can do everything right and still not lose anything on the scale for a while. It's not starvation mode, it's not even necessarily a plateau, it's that weight loss is subject to so many variables that it's never quite as simple as calorie out minus calories in = weight loss on the scale.

Just keep on keeping on, and the scale will catch up with you at some point!

I second Peanuts! You are doing fantastic!

For me, I think anything that is within the range that I was before I was significantly overweight - 145 or less.

I'm about 42 from goal and while it sounds close relative to where I started, it doesn't feel close because I am having trouble visualizing it.

But I think your question has more to do with rate of loss and in that case, mine slowed a bit at the beginning of January when I crossed the obese/overweight line.

I think it depends on how low the goal is, and the metabolism of the individual involved. For me, I would expect my weight loss to not slow until about 170, because I will have to maintain a smaller daily calorie deficit to not be hungry (cutting out 1000 calories a day is easy if you start at 2600, it is a lot harder when your BMR is at 2000), so my weight loss will slow because I will aim for less weekly loss.

If one's goal is in the 120's or 140's, somewhere fairly low by ANY healthy standard for a woman, then one would reasonably expect that somewhere near that goal weight loss would be reasonably a pound or less a week. But I don't think it can be zeroed in on, too much varies from person to person.

To me, close to goal means 15 lbs or less away. I think that we can expect to lose more slowly as we progress, though, and that means adapting in some way. For me, drinking all the water, and reducing the calories seems to finally be helping.

Weight loss slowing down, doesn't happen only when you're getting close to goal. Essentially, it begins immediately, because the less you weigh, the fewer calories you need to maintain (or to lose). If your activity and calorie levels remain constant, you will lose less and less each week (or whatever interval you weigh) until you reach your goal or the level at which your body will maintain its weight at that activity and calorie level.

I guess I just wasn't expecting it to slow down this much this soon.

I'm fine with plateaus, but my definition of a plateau is a long period of no loss and then the loss starts up again for a period of time. I don't like a month long plateau, a week of loss and then another month long plateau. That's not just non-linear, that's very frustrating.

I'm measuring my foods starting today to make sure it's not self-induced. I just looked and this is day 11 at 198.4 EXACTLY.

I've read a couple of places that some digital scales can be programmed to show the last weight if it's within a small amount of the current weight, just to save people from being driven crazy by seeing fluctuations all the time.

So while this may not necessarily be helpful, it's possible that your weight really has been ranging from something like 198 through 199, and not the exact same every day. Are you the only one using the scale? If so, maybe try re-setting it by getting on with something heavy, and then weigh yourself again to see.

But also always a good idea to weigh and measure if you haven't been. I personally find that my portions do creep up over time. It's not that the extra quarter ounce makes such a big difference, but my ability to eyeball gets affected and at some point, what I think is 2 ounces becomes 3, etc.

I think it's important to be able to estimate, and if I'm at a restaurant or eating at someone else's house, I want to be able to eyeball a portion and not make myself crazy. But when I'm home, I weigh and measure grains and proteins, since I know that is where I'm most likely to go astray.

Yes, I've heard that about scales too and I think it's true. But no, I've been over riding that.

I agree about calorie creep. I don't think that's the problem, but I'm willing to give it a shot. And I had taken my calories from 1200 up to 1500, and was trying to stay within a range instead of a strict 1200. I'm going back to 1200 strictly just to see what happens.