Big weight loss project: How am I doing? Why have I plateaued?

[wyowindrunner]

First phase of exercise is training the muscles you have already to fire efficiently. Basically recruiting the muscle fibers you already have to help in the workout task. During this time, you may burn some fat without building much new muscle.

Initially, your exercise is inefficient, so you burn more calories. Later, your body learns to become more efficient and will do the exercise as lazy as it can. So even though you are doing the same reps, the calorie per rep goes down. It goes down because you are more skilled at the motion (i.e. lazy) and because you have lost weight (moving less mass = less energy required).

So, you need to amp up or change your workouts in some way to challenge your better body. Watch your calories and beware of thinking you can eat more because you worked out. This is the trap that keeps you from losing even more weight. As you build more muscle and lose fat, the net effect may be that you gain lbs. Don't worry about lbs, worry about how your clothes fit (i.e. inches).

You have hit it here-my comment on homeostasis above- his body has adapted to the stress imposed to where it is the new norm.

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

Also, as you slim down, it does become harder to lose weight. It's the reason that shows like "The Biggest Loser" use percentage lost as opposed to straight pounds. The more you have to lose, the more you drop/month. As you thin down, you lose more slowly ... and, yes, pay more attention to inches than pounds.

@neonorchid There is no shame in a cheeseburger, a beer, and a game of pool at my favorite burger joint in the mountains. It's like my "ski season is almost here" ritual!

 

[Blue Streak]

Also, as you slim down, it does become harder to lose weight. It's the reason that shows like "The Biggest Loser" use percentage lost as opposed to straight pounds. The more you have to lose, the more you drop/month. As you thin down, you lose more slowly ... and, yes, pay more attention to inches than pounds.

Jason Fung's The Obesity Code has a compelling take on this, and why this does not have to be so.

 

[mdf]

Also, as you slim down, it does become harder to lose weight. It's the reason that shows like "The Biggest Loser" use percentage lost as opposed to straight pounds. The more you have to lose, the more you drop/month. As you thin down, you lose more slowly....

If you look at the "good" part of the history I posted, it follows the green curve very closely. That curve is an exponential decay, which means the rate of loss is exactly proportional to the amount of weight over 188 pounds. I take that to mean (among other things) that 188 is the least I can weigh (discounting extreme circumstances like a famine).

 

[Fishbowl]

T

I was going to make some suggestions but maybe consulting an expert would provide the proper recommendations that are suitable for your particular situation. Perhaps slowly increase the intensity and duration of your workout.

There are no “experts”, everyone is guessing.

 

[Lorenzzo]

@Seldomski, agree as to exercise adaptation. Despite what a Garmin might tell you, calorie burns from exercise are not accurately revealed from formulas/algorithms. If one were to maintain the exact same exercise routine, calories burned would decline as their body became stronger and more efficient at that particular exercise. This is probably even more true for an elliptical than some other things where adaptation potential is less but it's true for everything. Rotating routines//periodically switching things up improves results for both aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

The other thing is there is an unbelievable amount of erroneous information and dogma floating around about diet. Misinformation in this area can be highly profitable. Sometimes someone wants to write a book. Sometimes a food or fitness company wants to sell something. The only possibly valid info is from peer reviewed research by trustworthy sources (not someone paid by a food company or who wants to sell a book, DVD or has other vested interest). Most reliable research in this area comes from universities. Even then things sometimes get debugged down the road.

The only valid metric in controlling weight is calories in and calories out. Period. Not time of day, not certain food types, etc. Some things can have a temporary effect but if a weight loss program isn't working the focus should be on calories in/calories out, plain and simple.

 

[RuleMiHa]

@Seldomski, agree as to exercise adaptation. Despite what a Garmin might tell you, calorie burns from exercise are not accurately revealed from formulas/algorithms. If one were to maintain the exact same exercise routine, calories burned would decline as their body became stronger and more efficient at that particular exercise. This is probably even more true for an elliptical than some other things where adaptation potential is less but it's true for everything. Rotating routines//periodically switching things up improves results for both aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

The other thing is there is an unbelievable amount of erroneous information and dogma floating around about diet. Misinformation in this area can be highly profitable. Sometimes someone wants to write a book. Sometimes a food or fitness company wants to sell something. The only possibly valid info is from peer reviewed research by trustworthy sources (not someone paid by a food company or who wants to sell a book, DVD or has other vested interest). Most reliable research in this area comes from universities. Even then things sometimes get debugged down the road.

The only valid metric in controlling weight is calories in and calories out. Period. Not time of day, not certain food types, etc. Some things can have a temporary effect but if a weight loss program isn't working the focus should be on calories in/calories out, plain and simple.

My issue is that the old peer reviewed research is being shown to to flawed, and even the calories in vs. calories out has some decent peer reviewed research that shows flaws. The medical field is in flux on this right now as people are trying to reconcile the old data. At minimum I think we can comfortably say only that it is probably more complex than we want it to be.

 

[palikona]

Look at BMI (body mass index) more than your weight. Someone who's 225 but muscular has a low BMI; someone who's 225 but doughy has a high BMI.

 

[Lorenzzo]

My issue is that the old peer reviewed research is being shown to to flawed, and even the calories in vs. calories out has some decent peer reviewed research that shows flaws. The medical field is in flux on this right now as people are trying to reconcile the old data. At minimum I think we can comfortably say only that it is probably more complex than we want it to be.

Do you have cites to non-incentivized peer reviewed research showing something other than calories? Disinfo runs supreme in this area... Yes, any research short of complete proof is subject to attack but it's a question of comparative credibility. Between bro science and disinformation it's hard to navigate but....thermodynamics has actually been proven.

 

[RuleMiHa]

Do you have cites to non-incentivized peer reviewed research showing something other than calories? Disinfo runs supreme in this area... Yes, any research short of complete proof is subject to attack but it's a question of comparative credibility. Between bro science and disinformation it's hard to navigate but....thermodynamics has actually been proven.

I used the term "flaws" for a reason and didn't say it was wrong, also I think about it not from a perspective of how to lose weight (which is fairly easy) but from a perspective of how to keep it off (because really, that seems to be the impossible task that no one is showing positive results for).

Much of the consolidation around calories in vs calories out comes down to the studies of long term effects of different weight loss plans and that they all seem to end up at the same, less than satisfactory endpoint. No one has shown significant lasting weight loss with sustained health benefits using a calories in v. calories out model. Most studies have shown short term (6 months-2 years) 5-20# losses, which is really not ultimately what we want.

Thermodynamics is absolutely proven, not arguing that, but for long term weight loss we've also seen that a significant shift in basal metabolic rate occurs (way down) so if the system is so adaptive how do you construct permanent solutions when the body fights everything you do. That adaptation and return to baseline is a powerful force that seems to be present no matter how weight loss is accomplished (medical, surgical, diet, activity).

The problem with research (disclosure, sometimes I am a researcher) is that your results are constrained by your primary research question, your null hypothesis, and your research design. So if your research question is "does A work better than B", positive results only tell you whether A works better than B, and tells you nothing about how it compares to C.

Another example is the research on whole grains. A lot of that came from some of these large scale longitudinal epidemiological studies that looked at groups that ate whole grains as compared to groups that ate refined grains, but no one looked at no grains. So from these, all we really know is that whole grains are better than refined grains, not whether whole grains are actually good (I don't know the answer to this).

I am just super aware of this because in my current job we are doing things that were researched in the 70's-80's, not found to be helpful, but then when the research question was better defined and confounders were accounted for, research in the 2000's revealed benefits. Even well designed ethically sound, peer reviewed research has limitations (if only with the expectation of a p-value of 0.05 resulting in one in every twenty papers being wrong, coupled with a positive results publication bias, it's very possible for well conducted erroneous research to get attention it doesn't deserve).

I know the research, I've read the papers (good and bad) and get the newest research and re-analysis (good and bad)in my inbox on a semi-regular basis. It really is all over the place, and until we first account for the bad data from the 60's, look at some of the unintended consequences of that on brain function (which drives behavior), take into account the effect of trans-fats, and re-equilibrate, I just don't think it's possible to say anything with certainty about significant long term weight loss.

 

[Lorenzzo]

I used the term "flaws" for a reason and didn't say it was wrong, also I think about it not from a perspective of how to lose weight (which is fairly easy) but from a perspective of how to keep it off (because really, that seems to be the impossible task that no one is showing positive results for).

Much of the consolidation around calories in vs calories out comes down to the studies of long term effects of different weight loss plans and that they all seem to end up at the same, less than satisfactory endpoint. No one has shown significant lasting weight loss with sustained health benefits using a calories in v. calories out model. Most studies have shown short term (6 months-2 years) 5-20# losses, which is really not ultimately what we want.

Thermodynamics is absolutely proven, not arguing that, but for long term weight loss we've also seen that a significant shift in basal metabolic rate occurs (way down) so if the system is so adaptive how do you construct permanent solutions when the body fights everything you do. That adaptation and return to baseline is a powerful force that seems to be present no matter how weight loss is accomplished (medical, surgical, diet, activity).

The problem with research (disclosure, sometimes I am a researcher) is that your results are constrained by your primary research question, your null hypothesis, and your research design. So if your research question is "does A work better than B", positive results only tell you whether A works better than B, and tells you nothing about how it compares to C.

Another example is the research on whole grains. A lot of that came from some of these large scale longitudinal epidemiological studies that looked at groups that ate whole grains as compared to groups that ate refined grains, but no one looked at no grains. So from these, all we really know is that whole grains are better than refined grains, not whether whole grains are actually good (I don't know the answer to this).

I am just super aware of this because in my current job we are doing things that were researched in the 70's-80's, not found to be helpful, but then when the research question was better defined and confounders were accounted for, research in the 2000's revealed benefits. Even well designed ethically sound, peer reviewed research has limitations (if only with the expectation of a p-value of 0.05 resulting in one in every twenty papers being wrong, coupled with a positive results publication bias, it's very possible for well conducted erroneous research to get attention it doesn't deserve).

I know the research, I've read the papers (good and bad) and get the newest research and re-analysis (good and bad)in my inbox on a semi-regular basis. It really is all over the place, and until we first account for the bad data from the 60's, look at some of the unintended consequences of that on brain function (which drives behavior), take into account the effect of trans-fats, and re-equilibrate, I just don't think it's possible to say anything with certainty about significant long term weight loss.

I have friends in research, I get what you're saying. Interestingly the medical researchers seem to stumble less than the product researchers where there's often a more direct link between someone making money and the motivation for the research. Researchers usually at some point need money. But they all stumble.

With nutrition, despite massive focus, thermodynamics still rule, even though it seems as though there oughta be ways to manipulate what get purged vs. what's digested.

Another area where we can expect massive flawed research is on the effects of alcohol, now that the American Society of Clinical Oncology has completed research saying all alcohol is carcinogenic.

 

[RuleMiHa]

I have friends in research, I get what you're saying. Interestingly the medical researchers seem to stumble less than the product researchers where there's often a more direct link between someone making money and the motivation for the research. Researchers usually at some point need money. But they all stumble.

With nutrition, despite massive focus, thermodynamics still rule, even though it seems as though there oughta be ways to manipulate what get purged vs. what's digested.

Another area where we can expect massive flawed research is on the effects of alcohol, now that the American Society of Clinical Oncology has completed research saying all alcohol is carcinogenic.

The thing about research is it's all in the interpretation (originally you commented on alcohol being shown to be bad and changed it ). For instance cigarettes are absolutely associated with lower BMI and associated with a reduction in at least one obesity related cancer, problem is that that cancer is so much less malignant than lung that it overpowers any positive effects.

So for alcohol it may be (haven't read the research, so making this up) that it doubles the risk of 10 cancers (which sounds scary), but if you look at the incidence of those cancers the real numbers mean that your risk goes from 0.25% up to 0.5% lifetime risk of those individual cancers for a total risk of 5% (up from 2.5%). Then when you take into account that you can reduce the risk of many cancers up to 30% with regular exercise and that dietary modifications can reduce risk another 15-30% depending, and that maybe moderate, responsible imbibing keeps you sane (nobody has quantified quality of life) it's awfully hard to buy that everyone everywhere should stop drinking when you can end up with a minimal lifetime risk increase comparatively speaking.

The above was made up but breast cancer and estrogen are exactly like that, 25% lifetime increase (from 8%-10%), and exercise decreases risk by thirty percent. Some women need it to stay sane, complicated topic.

I am becoming more and more aware of the effect of funding on produced research. There are definitely direct effects (drug companies produce the research that gets their products approved). But I'm starting to buy in to the subtle effects i.e. believe that researchers whose interests cannot ultimately be monetized get marginalized (not on purpose, just from a practical standpoint).

One of the big issues/questions I have about the calories in vs. calories out model is it's really based on looking at outcomes of different well designed fad diets (low fat, low carb, no carb, paleo, gluten free, etc), but no one really has looked at the kool-aid and pixie stick diet, which is, I fear how some people would interpret the concept of calories in v calories out.

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

I am definitely not a scientist, but I am a lifetime watcher if my weight who has been relatively successful. I define that as ... since I was 13 yrs old to now (58 yrs) I have stayed within a 3 size range. This includes puberty, post pregnancy, and menopause. Along the way, I have experimented with weight watchers, Atkins, and low fat. All 3 work but none are really comfortable for daily living. In the end, counting calories whike keeping fats, sugars, and alcohols moderate is the best lifestyle choice. I allow for binging on occasion - and-YES- dammit, alcohol is too a food group!

 

[Varmintmist]

Look at BMI (body mass index) more than your weight. Someone who's 225 but muscular has a low BMI; someone who's 225 but doughy has a high BMI.

But the BMI charts that are the "standard" are horse hockey. EG to be "healthy" IAW the chart, I would have to weigh 180lbs. FYI, I have not weighed 180 since about HS freshman year. I was 198 the first day off of Parris Island at 18. Any doc worth the shingle with their name on it will tell you it is hooey. You can tell if you are carrying to much for your frame. Remember Pinch an inch?

 

[CalG]

@Seldomski,


The only valid metric in controlling weight is calories in and calories out. Period. Not time of day, not certain food types, etc. Some things can have a temporary effect but if a weight loss program isn't working the focus should be on calories in/calories out, plain and simple.

This is just wrong, in fact, it's not just wrong, it's ignorant of thousands of years of observation.

 

[VickieH]

@SnowCountry - You are doing fine. You have identified a goal and a method for getting there. You get health rewards for every bit of progress you make along the way, not just for finally hitting a certain number on a scale.

Achieving weight loss is like achieving orgasm. If you focus too much on the goal, things may not go exactly as planned and you can get frustrated. Instead, focus on doing the things that will generally lead to that goal.

And in both situations, if you reach a stuck point, you may need to modify your method a little to get things moving again.

 

[Lorenzzo]

This is just wrong, in fact, it's not just wrong, it's ignorant of thousands of years of observation.

Seems as though observation devoid of science is ignorance. 1,000 years ago observation told people the earth was flat. Are they your source?

 

[CalG]

Basal Metabolic Rate is the only justification for "your muscles are stronger so the work outs are more efficient and easier, hence less weight loss with the same caloric input".

Think about it, Work is work. Work takes energy. You can't make the "machine" do more work with less energy just because it has done the work a thousand times. That is absurd! (at least it goes against physics. ;-)

It takes 100 calories to walk a mile, no mater how many time you walk that mile.

There are other factors that determine fitness and weight balance.

 

[CalG]

Seems as though observation devoid of science is ignorance. 1,000 years ago people thought the earth was flat. Are they your source?

What when where and how. The ignorance of metabolism is not a useful excuse.

 

[Lorenzzo]

What when where and how. The ignorance of metabolism is not a useful excuse.

Are you calling metabolism ignorant?