In the past 11 months I've dropped about 44lbs. I would like to get to my target weight by this time next year, so about 60lbs to go. Unfortunately my weight loss seems incredibly slow and I’ve been losing less than 1lb most weeks. I know this is good in a way - slow and steady wins the race. However, I then realise that if only I’d been able to lose 2lb a week consistently I would almost be there now!
I have always stuck to 1500-1600 calories a day roughly speaking and I exercise almost every day, but this is partly dependent on my energy levels. Currently I’m doing about 20 - 60 minutes of intense exercise (80-90% of my maximum heart rate) about five times a week. I also incorporate two days of weight training and a couple of hours of moderate exercise such as walking. Aside from this though, I don't spend much time on my feet. I recently looked up my BMR and found that it is roughly 1,790 - supposedly what I’m burning with little or no movement. 1500 calories a day seems fair to me given my statistics; however, today I was reading another internet forum and someone said if you eat below your BMR then you are on a starvation diet! Surely this isn’t true? I have also read that eating two hundred calories below your BMR is what is needed for steady weight loss in a few health magazines. So which is true? Is the amount that I am currently eating healthy?
One thing that has been bugging me lately is how slow my weight loss actually is - I could happily live with a 2lb a week loss (which is still moderate and healthy,) but so often I stay the same, gain a little, only lose 0.5lb and it’s very frustrating. Part of me was wondering whether I should increase my calories to 1800-2000 and see if this actually speeds things up. But somehow I’m doubtful. Whenever I have tried this in the past (1700 calories +) I have either gained weight or had a very tiny loss.
Supposedly my maintenance calories (given the exercise I do) are about 2,800-3,000, so given the substantial deficit, I should be losing at least 2lb a week. Yet I’m not.
Autumn -Here's why I think this is happening *now*.
In the beginning, you start to exercise. You capacity for calorie burn is restricted by your size and "out of shapeness". You stick to your 1500-1600 calories a day, your body is in shock being restricted and you loose and loose fast!
Fast forward to now. Your are now an athlete! You are able to work out at 80% of your max for an hour! You push your body to the limit and it knows what you are trying to do. It is used to the amount of calories that you eat and holds on to them for dear life.
If you are uncomfortable with upping your intake, I believe it might be worthy to focus on getting more protein for a couple of weeks. Make a conscious effort to avoid refined carbohydratess (white starches and obvious sweets) and see what happens.
I don't think that 1500-1600 is terribly low, but it is certainly lower than I go. I have a very active job, and work out hard (similar to your program). I am zig-zagging at 1700 now and am seeing much better results than when I was at 1400. I experienced a similar slow down and answered it by LOWERING my calories...not cool. Didn't work. Weird science.
Something to think about. You are building muscle now, and your body needs that 100g of protein per day to do it! You may also consider taking your waist and hips measurements to get a different idea of your progress. I had a plateau for a couple of months (danced around the same 2lbs!) and took my measurements to find that they were shrinking even if the number on the scale was not.
HTH,
Andrea
Last edited by mortonpixie; 04-27-2010 at 08:26 AM.
Thank you for the speedy reply! To be honest with you, I've never had particularly speedy losses even in the beginning. My weight loss started in a somewhat odd fashion (this isn't going to turn into a novel, don't worry,) last year when I had a severe extended illness. I literally could not eat more than a slice of toast and a bit of mash for two weeks. Obviously the numbers dropped on the scales VERY fast. I think I lost about 12lb in two weeks. Can’t really remember; it was a haze. However, I did put some of that back on once I could eat again - as I imagine most of it was water weight or muscle. I was weak as anything. So I think I can claim that most of the 44lb is my own doing - oddly enough seeing the fast drop with my illness inspired me to continue to lose weight once I recovered.
Anyway, once I had begun to recover I did build my exercise up gradually. Two months after my illness I was running around 70% of my MHR - not quite as intense as now - but pretty good.
One thing that might be worth mentioning; whilst I do work out VERY hard during my exercise sessions, my day-to-day life isn't terribly active. Most of my workday is spent on the computer (up to ten hours a day.) So my job isn't active at all. I do try and get some moderate exercise in as I mentioned, but I usually count this as activity that I do when out - walking round the shops etc. So I imagine this may lower my overall activity level from 'very active,' to perhaps moderate.
Excluding the super loss following the illness, I think most of my losses initially were 2lb or so. I was never one to lose 4lb + in a week. And since last December, the loses have been mainly 1lb if that.
I am actually trying to increase my protein intake (I have four out of seven days where I try and eat far more protein than carbs.) If push comes to shove and I am still not losing consistently, I may try and increase my calorie intake and see what happens. Some people seem to find it helps. I just have a real fear of gaining 4lb + by doing so.
Hopefully that won’t be the case. Thank you for your advice - very, very logical. It makes sense.
Last edited by Autumn Gold; 04-27-2010 at 09:15 AM.
Something that has been working well for me is to calculate BMR at a sedentary level since my job is sedentary, then eat to lose 1 lb per week. I exercise 4-6 times per week, mostly running and weight lifting. I "eat back" about 75% of the calories I burned as exercise and do my best to accurately measure my food so that I am not underestimating it.
This puts by baseline calories at about 1300, and I eat 200-350 more calories on days I work out. I go for longer runs on the weekends, so that makes going out to eat with friends easier. This has worked well for me. In the last 6 weeks I have lost 7 pounds.
If you calculate your base level of calories at sedentary, where does that put you? I think you should be happy with 1 lb/week, as it is a consistent and sustainable weight loss.
I think zigzagging a bit here and there might help. So 2 days a week aim for 1700 calories and see what happens (but remember it to stick to it at least for 2 weeks). Those days increase the calories with more protein
i think this is a really helpful thread. autumn, i've been plateaued at 150 for almost 5 months now, and eat 1200 calories a day, SBD style. I now wonder if I am doing myself a disservice by eating so low, and have started zigzagging (it is scary to eat 1600 cals but i am out of ideas)! i found that freedieting gives a helpful calculator that tells you how to zigzag - i go between the extreme fat loss to fat loss categories. Here's hoping it works!
One thing that might be worth mentioning; whilst I do work out VERY hard during my exercise sessions, my day-to-day life isn't terribly active. Most of my workday is spent on the computer (up to ten hours a day.) So my job isn't active at all. I do try and get some moderate exercise in as I mentioned, but I usually count this as activity that I do when out - walking round the shops etc. So I imagine this may lower my overall activity level from 'very active,' to perhaps moderate.
Did you know that standing at your computer, rather than sitting, burns twice as many calories per minute? It's very easy to burn an extra 50 calories per hour or so by standing while you work. Multiply that by 2 to 6 hours per day, and you have found the calorie deficit you need--without making your body think it needs more food, either.
Go Google the Mayo Clinic's research on NEAT for more information.
On average, I stand 6 hours per day at my computer while working, and I find that not only does it help with my weight loss, but I feel much more alert and am naturally more active while doing it.
RunnerChemist - Thanks. My "sedentary" BMR (little or no exercise,) is about 2,100 calories. So that would take me to about 1600 to lose a pound, which is roughly what I eat anyway. I would be happy with a 1lb, but it's very inconsistent, in other words, my weightloss is like this:
Wk 1: - 2lb
Wk2: Stay the same
Wk 3- 0.5 lb
Wk 4 + 0.7lb
And so on. I find it frustrating to think I might not even be able to make target (50lb away,) for another year. Maybe longer. I am all for steady weightloss, but most people do tend to lose 1-2lb a week in my experience. My Mum is currently losing weight and can easily lose a pound, sometimes two and she doesn't do 1/10 of the exercise I do.
beerab - I did actually try zig-zagging a few weeks ago and lost 2.4lb, which I was thrilled with. I did 1300 one day and 1700 the next, if I recall. This week it isn't working out so well though. I'm actually up on my previous weight by over 2lb. So annoying.
lisa130 - Gosh. That's awful. Hope you get out of the plateau soon. Thanks for the recommendation. My main problem has been that there are so many zig-zag methods out there that I'm not sure which to use. I might give this a try.
WarMaiden - thanks for the information regarding calories. Don't you get back-ache leaning down to type on your computer all the time, though? I know I would. That said, I will definitely try and stand up more during the day. Interesting stuff.
Last edited by Autumn Gold; 04-28-2010 at 07:50 PM.
The problem with those calculators is that they don't know YOUR body. Perhaps your body is super efficient and doesn't need so many calories It's all about what you plug into the calculator. For example, if you counted 20 minutes of intense exercise as 1 day of working out, well the formula the calculator used might disagree with you on how much "1 day" of exercise actually is; 20 minutes or 90 minutes.. it could make a huge difference! I don't think that 1500-1600 is too low for you. I also think the calculator that said your maintenance would be 3,000 seems quite high.
The thing is, you were losing weight on this calorie deficit before (perhaps not too consistently, but still, over 40 pounds). Therefore, I don't think that raising your calories would help you, as it would create even less of a deficit.
If I were you, I would actually lower my calories. Throughout my entire journey I've stayed at 1200 calories and worked out everyday for one hour. This is not for everyone. Perhaps you could just go a little lower, say 1400 if you are comfortable with that. Also, the 20 minutes of exercise in one day could probably be pushed up a bit, if you have the time for it.
Good luck! It does make sense that it would come off slower now that you're so much smaller! I know that's what happened to me
Worried I'm eating too little. Comments welcome.
