-32 then hit wall

W

wlf100

New member
I read for a few hours on this forum... now saying hello.

Clearly the people on this forum are far less dumbed down then is typical of many forums.

I determined from reading here their are concerns about taking in too few calories in order to drop weight.

I am M, 44, 5'9, was 268 now 236. Other then walking 5-8 miles a week I am a slug.

I've hit a brick wall with weight loss.

Before learning stuff here I was at about 1350cal/day for 7 weeks. (total lost 31-32)

Week 8 at 1350 Brick Wall (same total: -31-32).

Now I am around 1750 cal/day- (week 9, 10). (total for all 10 weeks is still between 31-32).

Since I have/had behaviors that caused me to be 268 and still 236 I'm just concerned that trying to fine tune my cal. count while seeing no scale results will start to mess me up, resolve wise.

Basically I'm a novice at this so any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks very much.
 
I think you are still eating to few calories for your weight.
Find a calorie intake that is appropriate for you (BMR Calculator) and try it for a few weeks. You need to give it a bit of time to see if its working.
Be open minded (it sounds like you are), read as much as possible, and don't be discouraged if you don't see results right away.

If you are still seeing no movement on the scale you might want to re-examine how you are counting your calories.

Good luck!
 
Hi,

(People might think I'm repeating myself here, but here it goes anyway :))

Kayshiz above here might be right with regard to your calories, but whenever you hit a plateau like this, it often has to do with your body adapting to your calorie intake (together with the other impulses you give it).

Here's a post I wrote for someone earlier that you might be interested in that explains this concept.

So you basically need something to 'shock' your body into tapping into its fat stores again.

You can do that by:

- Changing your exercise routine. I'm not sure what you're doing now exactly?

- Instead of staying at one steady level of low calorie intake, cycle your calorie intake and do a bunch of low days, changed up by a high day (see the post I just linked to as well). A low calorie day would be 500 - 1000 calories below your 'maintenance' level of energy intake, and a high calorie day would be 'maintenance' or 200 - 300 calories above that.

- As an additional 'shock', you might eat low carb on the low calorie days, and high carb on the high calorie days.

This all is obviously assuming that you get your current calories from whole foods that have been processed as little as possible.

Hope that helps!
 
I'm absorbing the above two posts. Most important I appreciate how people would offer to help.

I don't have anything intelligent to add -at this point-so thanks for the help.
 
Get thee to a gym

You say "except for walking 5-8 miles a week I am a slug"

What has happened is that the calories you are ingesting are EXACTLY equal to what you are burning every day. Hence equilibrium.

Try jogging or briskly walking on a treadmill every day. Monitor your speed and distance. Keep increasing you work load as you get fitter try making it harder by adding an incline.

As you get lighter you need fewer calories to maintain your weight. You need to eat a minimum amount to keep the fires burning and enough nutrients to stay healthy. 80-90% of this is calorie counting but exercise gets you over the plateaus.
 
I was/am in the above weight range for over ten years and so I can't expect perfectly linear weight loss, I guess.

I'll hang in there and not give up right away.

Thx again everybody...
 
Keep at it

I'm only trying to lose 50lbs. My weight loss has not been linear. Lots of frustrating mini-plateaus.
 
It's about one month from my OP and I finally went from 236 to 232 pounds.

Because of what I read on this forum I somehow didn't get frustrated waiting.

One month was a long time for -4 but at least I didn't give up and go ten pounds in the wrong direction.

I was at a loss why I wasn't moving down...I gave it a shot and upped calories from 1350 to 1750 to 2500, along with slightly more exercise by walking a few extra miles a week.

I'm simply amazed that going from 1750 to 2500 resulted in no weight gain followed by overall loss of -4 in a month.

This is a tricky game I tell ya'...but I'm down a total of 36 -so far- and just wanted to update and thank everybody for the input.

Start: 268 This date: 232 (in a little over three months)
 
wlf100 said:
It's about one month from my OP and I finally went from 236 to 232 pounds.

Because of what I read on this forum I somehow didn't get frustrated waiting.

One month was a long time for -4 but at least I didn't give up and go ten pounds in the wrong direction.

I was at a loss why I wasn't moving down...I gave it a shot and upped calories from 1350 to 1750 to 2500, along with slightly more exercise by walking a few extra miles a week.

I'm simply amazed that going from 1750 to 2500 resulted in no weight gain followed by overall loss of -4 in a month.

This is a tricky game I tell ya'...but I'm down a total of 36 -so far- and just wanted to update and thank everybody for the input.

Start: 268 This date: 232 (in a little over three months)
Click to expand...

It's been a couple of months since you've written on this post. I'm wondering what your stats are now and how you are doing. :)
 
Stacy, thanks for the interest.

Well lets see, I hit the previously referenced viscous stall/plateau of actually closer to two months.

My historic behavior would be to give up, take my toys and go home anywhere close to that much time. By now I would have gained all the weight back. Then I realized I couldn't give up because I wasn't on a diet diet. I wanted to change my lifetime eating behaviors.

Between 5-6 months in, I am now -51 pounds (-23kg). 268 to 216 ish.

I know I'm still a pork chop but I'm trying. I'm a little confused and/or in denial at the BMI charts, however. I would have to be lighter then when I was in my teens and thin to be in the normal BMI range at 5'9".
 
Hmm.... well, I'd suggest that, if you can, take advantage of your God given male ability to build muscle. Ladies can too, but we have to work FAR harder.

I guess it depends on what you're trying to do. Weight (as seen on a scale) is a measure of the force of gravity on your total mass. Your mass is composed of bones, lean mass (muscles/organs) and fat. If you're goal is to *weigh* less then the traditional calorie reduction over time with a slight increase in exercise will usually suffice. You will hit brick walls.. it's normal... you'll stay there a while and move past them; sometimes it takes a while though.

On the other hand, if you're trying to reduce your mass (as in reduce your pant size), then an option for you, may be to *toss out the scale*. If you build muscle, the *weight* on the scale may increase, but don't panic because muscle weighs more than fat, and if you gear your diet towards building muscle, you will lose fat in the process. This is the journey that I am currently on. I do a combination of HIIT cardio and weight training. I have had this work for me twice before, this is round three... the only reason for round three is that I got pregnant and gained 80 lbs (not sure how.... but ya gotta love hormones). Anyway, the plan I started with is called Body for Life. I am currently doing a somewhat modified version of this plan. They have a website... should be able to google it if you're interested . I really like their recipe section and the inspirational stories. It helps motivate me when I am feeling down (did a lot of reading over the weekend LOL). Anyway, I hope this helps and answers your question at least a bit?

Cheers,
bluemomma
 
Last edited:
wlf100: Congrats on getting through that stall! Don't worry about BMI, IMO its basically BS. It doesn't account for differences in muscle mass or bone structure. Its the same kind of BS that spawned recommending the same number of calories. Its all based on someones idea of an average or normal body build, and for there to be an average, there has to be some variance on either side of normal. I don't mean bigger or smaller, I mean variances in normal body type. Some people might be a normal BMI and actually have a high fat %. Others might have 5% body fat but be so loaded up with muscle they're actually in the obese range according to BMI.

BlueMomma: Make sure your actions are aligned with your goals. For example:
if you gear your diet towards building muscle, you will lose fat in the process.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. To gear your diet towards building muscle, you have to eat more calories than your maintenance level. You need to GAIN weight to gain muscle. You won't lose fat while you're eating in surplus, and you may even gain some. But if you're gaining more muscle, your fat % may go down.

Conversly, If you're eating to lose fat, you can't really gain muscle. There are some exceptions where extremely obsese beginners can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but they don't gain a lot of muscle, and they stop gaining muscle relatively quickly. You can maintain muscle muscle mass while you lose weight though, so that as you lose fat, your muscle becomes more defined.

Also,
If you build muscle, the *weight* on the scale may increase, but don't panic because muscle weighs more than fat,
Click to expand...
...muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. If you gain 10lbs of muscle, or 10lbs of fat, its still 10lbs. But I think the point you were trying to make is that muscle weight is not bad weight. But, whether or not you're gaining muscle or losing fat depends on how much you're eating, as I described above. And if you're gaining weight, whether its muscle or fat depends on genetics as well as the types of food you're eating and the types of workouts you're doing.

Last point - might want to edit out the outside link to the program you referenced before the mods get to it. I believe its against site rules.

Regards,
Matt
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the ref re the site.... I didn't even realize.... (this is what happens when you're new lol).

About this statement:

This is not entirely true. To gear your diet towards building muscle, you have to eat more calories than your maintenance level. You need to GAIN weight to lose muscle. You won't lose fat while you're eating in surplus, and you may even gain some. But if you're gaining more muscle, your fat % may go down.

I am confused.... gain weight to lose muscle? I'm presuming you mean build muslce and that was a typo? Also, I'm not a nutrionist nor am I a pro bodybuilder but by eating the recommended food choices from BFL 6 times a day, I did lose 45 lbs in about 9 months several years ago. I don't necessarily believe in counting calories.... so we agree there :).

Also, I need to re-phrase my line about *muscle weighing more than fat*. You are correct that literally, if the scale reads 10 lbs, it reads 10 lbs whether it's fat, muscle, etc. What I SHOULD have stated was that muscle is far more dense than fat, and thus, you can lose mas (ie -inches on your waist for example) and not have the scale budge or perhaps sometimes increase. Density relative to mass will increase or decrease the weight the scale gives you as it's a measure of the force of gravity on your mass (whatever it be composed of).

Cheers,
bluemomma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top