Quote:
Originally Posted by MindiV
I've kept meticulous food records since 2007
I can literally go back and see what I ate on this week in 2009 if I needed to. So logging isn't my issue. I think it's hormones and my calorie total, which was probably too high...
Your metabolism may simply be slower now than it used to be, so to lose, you may have to eat significantly fewer calories than it once took to lose weight, and you may find that low-carb helps more than it may have in the past.
It's crazy to me that the calorie intake I routinely (for months and months, not just the first week) would lose 5 to 8 lbs per week, is now a calorie level at which I maintain my weight.
It's still often hard for me to wrap my head around how my metabolism now could be so different from the metabolism I had in my 20's and even 30's, but it just is.
If you're gaining consistently (if you're gaining more than you're losing over the course of a couple months) there's really only one explanation, you're burning less than you're taking in. So that means only two options - finding ways to take in less and/or finding ways to burn more.
It doesn't matter if you used to be able to lose weight on what you're doing now, that just may no longer be true, and there may be no way to get back your old metabolism. There are ways to boost a metabolism, and you can try them - they may help, they may not.
Trial and error really is your ownly option. For myself, I found that I burn more calories on low-carb than on high-carb (there's about a 300 calorie difference. What I lose on 1800 calories of low-carb is equivalent to what I lose on 1500 calories of high-carb.
Now not everyone experiences this differential and even those who do, don't all experience the SAME differential. If you're going to try to compare your low-carb loss to high-carb loss though, don't count the first two weeks of weight loss or weight gain.
You can't "count" this weight because your carb intake will also influence the amount of water weight you carry. The body needs the extra water to process the carbs, and on a low-carb diet much of this water isn't needed, so the the body gets rid of the excess. It can be easy to mistake this for fat gain. Low-carb will always appear to have the advantage if you count this water weight difference as "true" weight loss.
Instead I just don't count the weight gain or loss when transitioning from low-carb to high-carb or vice versa.
If you do experiment with different carb levels, it's also important to remember that you will see more weight fluctuations when you transition back and forth between plans. That's not a bad thing, but you have to be prepared for the gain when you go to higher carb eating and the loss when you switch to lower carb eating.
I find that reducing carbs also reduces my hunger, so that's a bonus.
But even with the low-carb advantage, my metabolism now is still far more sluggish than even ten or fifteen years ago. Sucks, but it is what it is. If I dwell on what I used to be able to eat while losing, it'll only tempt me to quit. I can't compare my losses to anyone else's - not even former versions of myself.
I'm losing so slowly that I really have to look at success as "not gaining," and just keep plugging at ways to cut my calories further without cutting my energy levels to the point I can't exercise. Finding the balance is a challenge.
It might be a good idea to see your doctor and request a full metabolic panel and perhaps a glucose tolerance test to rule out diabetes, insulin resistance, thyroid or other endocrine disorders.
Mine came back with insulin resistance on the cusp of diabetes and low-thryoid (but not low enough that my doctor wants to medicate at this point). Sometimes the knowledge doesn't help you lose faster, it just helps you understand why you can't lose faster.
In the end, it always boils down to trial and error.