Weight loss plateau
Discussion
Currently in the process of losing some weight. I came across an article online from a nutritionist saying about plateaus with your diet and how it can take your body 8-12 weeks of adjusting before starting to lose weight again.
To me it sounds like a load of nonsense. I was firmly under the impression that if i burn more calories than my body needs to maintain my current weight then I will continually lose weight?
Am I wrong thinking this?
To me it sounds like a load of nonsense. I was firmly under the impression that if i burn more calories than my body needs to maintain my current weight then I will continually lose weight?
Am I wrong thinking this?
Z4MCoupe said:
I was firmly under the impression that if i burn more calories than my body needs to maintain my current weight then I will continually lose weight?
Am I wrong thinking this?
No but your body doesn't always need the same amount of calories, the body gets very efficient at preserving energy very quickly. Calories are typically burnt at 70% BMR, NEAT anywhere from 15% and then exercise makes up the rest.Am I wrong thinking this?
As you can see when your weight changes the amount of calories you need changes, what most people do it keep at the same target calorie intake which can become maintenance calories quite quickly.
Could probably also talk about people that eat far too few calories but might be a little OT.
Sheets Tabuer said:
No but your body doesn't always need the same amount of calories, the body gets very efficient at preserving energy very quickly. Calories are typically burnt at 70% BMR, NEAT anywhere from 15% and then exercise makes up the rest.
As you can see when your weight changes the amount of calories you need changes, what most people do it keep at the same target calorie intake which can become maintenance calories quite quickly.
Could probably also talk about people that eat far too few calories but might be a little OT.
I set my calorie intake to 1500 -1900 depending on the day. I tried not to do nothing stupid with my diet that I couldn't maintain. I just tracked what I ate in a normal week. Cut out all the high calorie sweets and sugary drinks that made up the bulk of my intake. Tend to just eat at meal times and drink plenty of water. As you can see when your weight changes the amount of calories you need changes, what most people do it keep at the same target calorie intake which can become maintenance calories quite quickly.
Could probably also talk about people that eat far too few calories but might be a little OT.
I burn about 6000 calories a week playing sports. I would burn another 1200 a week walking on non sports days.
My current weight is 87kg at 5'8. I was 99 when I started. Haven't got a goal weight in mind as I carry a bit of muscle mass. Just want to lose the tits and belly.
I thought if I continued what I'm doing now it should only be a matter of time. Am I wrong in thinking this?
I'm sure there's some adaptation of the body, and the more body fat you lose the harder it gets for sure, but I agree that the "eat less calories, do more exercise", adage always applies. It simply has to, but that takes no account for discomfort.
As above comment though, I think personally people don't continue to make sufficient reduction to the calorie intake which simply must have a bigger impact on the plateau.
Although personally I think people worry far too much about "undereating", and it becomes an excuse very quickly. These guys with less than 8% bodyfat work very hard, and eat surprisingly little.
As above comment though, I think personally people don't continue to make sufficient reduction to the calorie intake which simply must have a bigger impact on the plateau.
Although personally I think people worry far too much about "undereating", and it becomes an excuse very quickly. These guys with less than 8% bodyfat work very hard, and eat surprisingly little.
Z4MCoupe said:
I set my calorie intake to 1500 -1900 depending on the day. I tried not to do nothing stupid with my diet that I couldn't maintain. I just tracked what I ate in a normal week. Cut out all the high calorie sweets and sugary drinks that made up the bulk of my intake. Tend to just eat at meal times and drink plenty of water.
I burn about 6000 calories a week playing sports. I would burn another 1200 a week walking on non sports days.
My current weight is 87kg at 5'8. I was 99 when I started. Haven't got a goal weight in mind as I carry a bit of muscle mass. Just want to lose the tits and belly.
I thought if I continued what I'm doing now it should only be a matter of time. Am I wrong in thinking this?
With respect, if you're going to do calorie counting you may want to check your maths are spot on, 6000 calories a week translates to about 60 miles of running. From a calorie expenditure perspective, that's like being a club runner. I burn about 6000 calories a week playing sports. I would burn another 1200 a week walking on non sports days.
My current weight is 87kg at 5'8. I was 99 when I started. Haven't got a goal weight in mind as I carry a bit of muscle mass. Just want to lose the tits and belly.
I thought if I continued what I'm doing now it should only be a matter of time. Am I wrong in thinking this?
I wouldn't worry about muscle mass at this point and prioritise getting the weight down. You conserve muscle by doing strength exercises, but ultimately the fat always goes in much bigger percentages. Your body doesn't cannibalize itself as a priority (but you may lose the fat you thought was muscle
).Same as the worrying about "undereating", I think concerns about "losing muscle mass", whilst very valid concerns at their extremes, are generally just excuses for a lot of people.
Sheets Tabuer said:
CICO will always lead to weight loss, the trouble is estimating calories out, as your BMR changes your calorie needs change.
Another thing unless you are weighing your food a lot of people make the mistake of underestimating calories in and overestimating calories out.
Makes sense, thank you. I track my burnt calories through my smart watch and the Samsung health app. I put all my food into myfitnesspal for a couple weeks. I tend to do the same things each week in terms of actively and definitely with the diet.Another thing unless you are weighing your food a lot of people make the mistake of underestimating calories in and overestimating calories out.
Do you think this is an accurate way to track the calories? Weighing the food you mean when the box says 200 calories per 100grams then I eat 300 grams thinking I'm only eating 100?
Prof Prolapse said:
With respect, if you're going to do calorie counting you may want to check your maths are spot on, 6000 calories a week translates to about 60 miles of running. From a calorie expenditure perspective, that's like being a club runner.
I wouldn't worry about muscle mass at this point and prioritise getting the weight down. You conserve muscle by doing strength exercises, but ultimately the fat always goes in much bigger percentages. Your body doesn't cannibalize itself as a priority (but you may lose the fat you thought was muscle).
Same as the worrying about "undereating", I think concerns about "losing muscle mass", whilst very valid concerns at their extremes, are generally just excuses for a lot of people.
I play golf 4 times a week. I carry my clubs and my course is quite hilly. We average around 2 miles of ascent and 2 miles descent. My app counted me at 1300 calories for the round but didn't factor in that I carried my clubs so added 200 more for that. I wouldn't worry about muscle mass at this point and prioritise getting the weight down. You conserve muscle by doing strength exercises, but ultimately the fat always goes in much bigger percentages. Your body doesn't cannibalize itself as a priority (but you may lose the fat you thought was muscle
).Same as the worrying about "undereating", I think concerns about "losing muscle mass", whilst very valid concerns at their extremes, are generally just excuses for a lot of people.
I've no real concerns about losing muscle mass or what I thought as muscle mass but just didnt want to pick a goal wieght to achieve due to the possibility of muscle mass. I like to base my weight loss on waist size and body fat.
Z4MCoupe said:
Do you think this is an accurate way to track the calories? Weighing the food you mean when the box says 200 calories per 100grams then I eat 300 grams thinking I'm only eating 100?
Something like that, not forgetting people often don't log the milk with cereal, a bit of fruit on top, milk in tea to go with it. I'd also halve what the apps say you are doing calories wise, there is a world of difference between a mile stroll and a mile vigorously walking.Other factors can come in to play, how much water you are carrying that day, how much salt you've had, the important thing is you stay consistent and you will lose weight
Consistency is key.
Z4MCoupe said:
I play golf 4 times a week. I carry my clubs and my course is quite hilly. We average around 2 miles of ascent and 2 miles descent. My app counted me at 1300 calories for the round but didn't factor in that I carried my clubs so added 200 more for that.
That's roughly the calories you'd use doing a half marathon...And 2 miles of ascent is 10,000 feet, two times Ben Nevis...
Your calculations are way off.
Z4MCoupe said:
I play golf 4 times a week. I carry my clubs and my course is quite hilly. We average around 2 miles of ascent and 2 miles descent. My app counted me at 1300 calories for the round but didn't factor in that I carried my clubs so added 200 more for that.
I've no real concerns about losing muscle mass or what I thought as muscle mass but just didnt want to pick a goal wieght to achieve due to the possibility of muscle mass. I like to base my weight loss on waist size and body fat.
The app looks miles out to me mate. I don't see how you could possibly be burning 6000 calories playing golf. I've no real concerns about losing muscle mass or what I thought as muscle mass but just didnt want to pick a goal wieght to achieve due to the possibility of muscle mass. I like to base my weight loss on waist size and body fat.
6,000 calories is a huge number, whilst there's a lot of variables, that is about 60 miles of running every week, or another way to think of it, is that it's enough to feed a person for just under three days. A marathon burns about 2,600 calories. Just think about it, you cannot be running two and a third of those, every week.
I think this is the problem with a calorie focus, it can be quite misleading, best bet is to stick with an eat less and do more approach.. On the plus side, combined with decent dieting your golf and carrying those clubs will probably mean you do keet the muscle activation so you can keep your strength.
ETA: beaten to it! He even used the same comparison!
Bill said:
That's roughly the calories you'd use doing a half marathon...
And 2 miles of ascent is 10,000 feet, two times Ben Nevis...
Your calculations are way off.
And 2 miles of ascent is 10,000 feet, two times Ben Nevis...
Your calculations are way off.
I just follow what the app says. One of the times I forgot to turn it off till I was halfway home so the max speed shows 63mph
The app doesn't account for carrying clubs. So strap 10kg to your back and do what them numbers say and you burn more calories than what's there.
Edited by Z4MCoupe on Friday 14th August 11:22
Prof Prolapse said:
I think to be fair mate, regardless of exact calories, that round of golf is hard going. If you stick with it and keep eating properly you'll lose the weight.
I think sticking to doing that four times a week will be the hard bit as that is very intense.
Best of luck to you!
I got 5 rounds in the last 7 days and I got 7 rounds in 2 weeks ago. I'd play everyday if my mrs would let me. 4 is just my guaranteed days. Im going to replace 2 of my golf rounds with kickboxing in the winter and hopefully keep up with the calorie burn as 2 of my rounds now are evening golf. I think sticking to doing that four times a week will be the hard bit as that is very intense.
Best of luck to you!
Thanks mate.
Sheets Tabuer said:
At 87kg you'd be burning 100 calories a mile and that's for a brisk walk.
googling this is so contradictory though.above someone says 26 mile marathon and 2600 calories burnt, so 100 calories a mile
yet most online articles (and fitness trackers) states 100 calories per mile WALKING
so which is it?
runtastic states:
In theory, there is a speed at which walking and running would burn approximately the same calories (per minute). It is (〜 5mph) .
However, that’s a very fast walking pace only trained race walkers could manage. For the general population, a fast walking speed is (〜3-3.7 mph). But when you run, (〜 5 mph) is a very slow jog.
Now you must be wondering… what about running or walking at different speeds?
Walkers will burn significantly less at slower speeds and runners will, of course, burn more if they run faster.
But here’s the trick:
Once you reach a certain running speed, further increases in calorie burn per minute are minimal. The biggest difference in calories burned can be seen when comparing a 1 km (0.6 mi) slow walk to a 1 km (0.6 mi) fast run.
So, according to the above, kcal burn per mile / per hour is:
walking (3 mph)= 117 / 351
running (jog 5mph) = 140 / 700
running (slow 6mph) = 135 / 810
running (moderate 6.8mph) = 131 / 890
running (tempo 8mph) = 124 / 992
running (fast 10mph) = 122 / 1220
source: https://www.runtastic.com/blog/en/calories-burned-...
Thought this might be useful to someone, i certaintly didnt know all this.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff