I stopped rowing and other forms of exercise about 10 years ago and slowly ate myself to 140 kilos (308 pounds).
End of March I started a serious diet and have so far lost 30 kilos (66 pounds).
I set myself two goals; to quit smoking at 120 kilos (which i did) and to restart rowing at 110 kilos (which i did too). I used to row a lot in the past and have accumulated around 3.7 million meters.
However, since I started rowing about 10 days ago (I row about 6k a day) I have stagnated at 110 kilos. My diet plan has not changed; I am eating around 1500 calories a day for a BMI of 2199.
Having steadily lost weight for the past 4 months, losing nothing in this long is unusual. My question is: is it possible that I am putting on muscle at a similar rate as I am losing fat, explaining why my weight is not going down? And would this mean that I will not be able to continue losing weight?
Stuck
Re: Stuck
First guess is that 6k/day is enough to put on muscle (depending on your stroke characteristic), but not enough to lose fat. Suggest you stick there for some time, then maybe go to 10k a day or more.
You are conducting an experiment, and though the results may not be what you expect, they can't be wrong, so it's best to stick with it for some time before switching, and then change just one thing only.
What does BMI 2199 mean? If basic energy demand, then 1500 kCal/day looks low enough to cause more hunger than is strictly needed.
More could be inferred from your sex, height and age.
You are conducting an experiment, and though the results may not be what you expect, they can't be wrong, so it's best to stick with it for some time before switching, and then change just one thing only.
What does BMI 2199 mean? If basic energy demand, then 1500 kCal/day looks low enough to cause more hunger than is strictly needed.
More could be inferred from your sex, height and age.
08-1940, 179cm, 83kg.
Re: Stuck
I was about to post a topic on metabolism slow down or adaption. Your question is the perfect opportunity to share that information.
Calorie restricted diets for an extended period of time (substantially below Basal Metabolic Rate "BMR") such as the one you're on result in the body going into starvation mode and slowing the bodies metabolism materially. Translated this means your body will burn far less calories than your suggested BMR. Research on "The Biggest Loser" participants showed that a combination of extreme exercise and a restricted diet resulted in a 504 calorie metabolic slowdown below the suggested BMR by week 30. The shows main focus is on losing weight and not fat. Losing weight as fast as they do means a fair proportion will probably be muscle, the key driver for metabolism. So what happens to the contestants? They lose weight, drive their metabolisms into the ground by starving and exercising. Then they leave the competition, not surprisingly they can't keep training 4-6 hours a day in the gym and start eating more calories. Except on the way up (weight) they now have metabolisms that are lower (body in starvation mode and they have less muscle mass) and they gain the weight back even faster. With no strength training the muscle they lost is not coming back and their metabolisms are therefore effectively lowered forever. They end up heavier than ever, go on another crash diet and so the cycle repeats itself. According to the research 80%-90% of "The Biggest Loser" contestants regain / gain weight after the show. Not surprisingly you only see the success stories on your TV.
So......well done on taking action. Here are some suggestions - I posted a topic on losing 50lbs on the C2 so practically the suggestions have worked on me. We are all different so results will vary. There are some changes as it looks like your body has already begun to "shut down" and rebel against the low calorie diet you're on.
- Never eat below your BMR (2,200) calories a day. Adjusting your BMR by a conservative factor of 1.25x still means you should be able to lead a sedentary lifestyle, eat 2,750 calories and still maintain your current weight. That you are not losing weight and eating 1,250 calories below that (before exercise) says something about where your metabolism is at. Looking at your calorie intake at 1,500 it is highly likely you've lost muscle mass.
- To maintain your current muscle mass you need to eat in the order of 1.5g / kg of protein. So 165g of protein of day. I would suggest this as a minimum. There is protein in almost everything but as an example - chicken is around 30% protein so 165g = 550g of chicken.
- Do strength training to maintain or increase your muscle mass. Muscles burn 3x the calories of fat in a sedentary state and 15x-20x during exercise. If you chose to gain muscle mass then you need to increase protein to 2g / kg.
- Measure your body fat percentage not just your weight. The size of your waist and chest should be your lead markers.
- A sensible approach would be to eat 2,250 calories a day (500 below a sedentary lifestyle) and expend 600 calories doing exercise. That's a net total of 7,700 a week equal to 1kg of weight (hopefully all fat) loss. If you eat "clean" on 2,250 calories you should never feel hungry and have plenty of energy to exercise.
- Training fasted, low on glycogen, helped me burn fat more efficiently as fuel
- Interval training (sprints / hills for running) or speed work on the rower does result in post exercise burn ("EPOC") and meant calories burned was greater than suggested
Good luck
Calorie restricted diets for an extended period of time (substantially below Basal Metabolic Rate "BMR") such as the one you're on result in the body going into starvation mode and slowing the bodies metabolism materially. Translated this means your body will burn far less calories than your suggested BMR. Research on "The Biggest Loser" participants showed that a combination of extreme exercise and a restricted diet resulted in a 504 calorie metabolic slowdown below the suggested BMR by week 30. The shows main focus is on losing weight and not fat. Losing weight as fast as they do means a fair proportion will probably be muscle, the key driver for metabolism. So what happens to the contestants? They lose weight, drive their metabolisms into the ground by starving and exercising. Then they leave the competition, not surprisingly they can't keep training 4-6 hours a day in the gym and start eating more calories. Except on the way up (weight) they now have metabolisms that are lower (body in starvation mode and they have less muscle mass) and they gain the weight back even faster. With no strength training the muscle they lost is not coming back and their metabolisms are therefore effectively lowered forever. They end up heavier than ever, go on another crash diet and so the cycle repeats itself. According to the research 80%-90% of "The Biggest Loser" contestants regain / gain weight after the show. Not surprisingly you only see the success stories on your TV.
So......well done on taking action. Here are some suggestions - I posted a topic on losing 50lbs on the C2 so practically the suggestions have worked on me. We are all different so results will vary. There are some changes as it looks like your body has already begun to "shut down" and rebel against the low calorie diet you're on.
- Never eat below your BMR (2,200) calories a day. Adjusting your BMR by a conservative factor of 1.25x still means you should be able to lead a sedentary lifestyle, eat 2,750 calories and still maintain your current weight. That you are not losing weight and eating 1,250 calories below that (before exercise) says something about where your metabolism is at. Looking at your calorie intake at 1,500 it is highly likely you've lost muscle mass.
- To maintain your current muscle mass you need to eat in the order of 1.5g / kg of protein. So 165g of protein of day. I would suggest this as a minimum. There is protein in almost everything but as an example - chicken is around 30% protein so 165g = 550g of chicken.
- Do strength training to maintain or increase your muscle mass. Muscles burn 3x the calories of fat in a sedentary state and 15x-20x during exercise. If you chose to gain muscle mass then you need to increase protein to 2g / kg.
- Measure your body fat percentage not just your weight. The size of your waist and chest should be your lead markers.
- A sensible approach would be to eat 2,250 calories a day (500 below a sedentary lifestyle) and expend 600 calories doing exercise. That's a net total of 7,700 a week equal to 1kg of weight (hopefully all fat) loss. If you eat "clean" on 2,250 calories you should never feel hungry and have plenty of energy to exercise.
- Training fasted, low on glycogen, helped me burn fat more efficiently as fuel
- Interval training (sprints / hills for running) or speed work on the rower does result in post exercise burn ("EPOC") and meant calories burned was greater than suggested
Good luck
Re: Stuck
Thanks for your input. I am male, 44 and 185 cm (6'1).jamesg wrote:First guess is that 6k/day is enough to put on muscle (depending on your stroke characteristic), but not enough to lose fat. Suggest you stick there for some time, then maybe go to 10k a day or more.
You are conducting an experiment, and though the results may not be what you expect, they can't be wrong, so it's best to stick with it for some time before switching, and then change just one thing only.
What does BMI 2199 mean? If basic energy demand, then 1500 kCal/day looks low enough to cause more hunger than is strictly needed.
More could be inferred from your sex, height and age.
I have read about this idea of the body going into starvation mode as rhr also suggests, but its a difficult concept to wrap my head around. The idea of increasing calorie intake is both great (i love eating) and frightening as I really don't want to start putting weight on again.
Still, I think you have a point about only changing one thing at a time. In following rhr's advice, I think i will increase my food intake and keep the exercise at the same level and see how this goes for the next few weeks.
Big thanks to both of you for your comments.
Re: Stuck
You can try an experiment on yourself. Eat at BMR for a few days, than drop back down maybe 10% below BMR again. Where you may put on a lb or two initially, you will probably start losing yet again.
I don't fully agree with rhr on eating at BMR from my own personal experience, but then again, we are all different. I eat about 12% below and burn at least 600 cals a day I do not eat back to lose 1.7-1.8 lbs/wk. I believe if I were at BMR I might only lose 3/4 lb/wk, well below my goal.
I don't fully agree with rhr on eating at BMR from my own personal experience, but then again, we are all different. I eat about 12% below and burn at least 600 cals a day I do not eat back to lose 1.7-1.8 lbs/wk. I believe if I were at BMR I might only lose 3/4 lb/wk, well below my goal.
-
hjs
- Marathon Poster
- Posts: 10076
- Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:18 pm
- Location: Amstelveen the netherlands
Re: Stuck
re building muscle, one can only build muscle if you are in a positive energy balance and of that enough is protein. Since that is not the case, this is no happening.Yangyang wrote:I stopped rowing and other forms of exercise about 10 years ago and slowly ate myself to 140 kilos (308 pounds).
End of March I started a serious diet and have so far lost 30 kilos (66 pounds).
I set myself two goals; to quit smoking at 120 kilos (which i did) and to restart rowing at 110 kilos (which i did too). I used to row a lot in the past and have accumulated around 3.7 million meters.
However, since I started rowing about 10 days ago (I row about 6k a day) I have stagnated at 110 kilos. My diet plan has not changed; I am eating around 1500 calories a day for a BMI of 2199.
Having steadily lost weight for the past 4 months, losing nothing in this long is unusual. My question is: is it possible that I am putting on muscle at a similar rate as I am losing fat, explaining why my weight is not going down? And would this mean that I will not be able to continue losing weight?
Second doing endurance work is very limited in building muscle. The muscle fibers who have the most potential to grow are the fast twitch ones and those work not aerobicly, but anearobicly. Simply put, short hard work, sprints below 1 minutes or short weight work.
You can plateau sometimes or hold water for a while. You energy intake is to low at this point. For 110 kg and training 1500 kcal is to low. Your body is shutting down to protect itself. Eat a bit more, focus on healthy fat and enough protein. Often a weak point. A calorie is not a calorie.
Re: Stuck
Dano you're only eating 12% below BMR, Yangvang is a whopping 32% below his current BMR and 42.5% below his starting weight BMR. You at 12% versus YV at 32%-42.5% are not the same thing nor are your training programs. Walking will not strain the body like rowing at higher intensities will. YV has managed a 66lb weight loss before hitting a plateau, that's pretty good going. To get lower, matched with a lower body fat % he will need to change his protein intake, calories and training routine. Eating even less is not a wise option but often the chosen course when plateaus occur.
At 12% below BMR and a low / moderate training regime will likely mean you will keep losing at your target rate for longer. Given we often make calculations errors and as Henry (hjs) will tell you a calorie is not a calorie 12% is neither here nor there. As such you may well get to your target without a plateau depending on how aggressive that target is. Bearing in mind our BMR's constantly fall as we lose weight, so 12% below today will be 0% tomorrow unless you keep cutting back. If the first words you think of are denial and sacrifice when you contemplate your diet maintaining your weight when you reach your goal will be a struggle. Without getting into the whole leptin / ghrelin hormone discussion there's a good reason why less than 10% of people who lose weight keep it off for extended periods. Your body fights back hard when you severely reduce calories. When faced with this reality and the 90% + probability of failure I chose to eat more calories but increase protein intake and build muscle mass. You'd be surprised how you can eat when you have extra muscle mass without possessing a "blessed" metabolism and maintain your weight.
Yes our bodies are all different but I looked on the various forums / blogs and discussed with "in shape" friends / athletes to see if there were training similarities. Guys over 40 who maintain lean physiques almost to a man do weight training / interval training to retain strength and total lean body mass. Not food deprivation or some "miracle" metabolism booster sold on TV or excessive cardio. Eat less, move more is a good place to start but not a good place to end, IMO.
Is the "our bodes are all different" a valid enough reason to explain why YV has plateaued at 44, 6'1, 242lbs and eats 1,500 calories and I am 44, 6'3, 182lbs and eat 2,700-3,000 calories (40% carbs)? Once I have reviewed research trial results it will be interesting to see how extended low calorie diets below BMR compare with 5-10% success / 90%-95% failure regarding prolonged weight loss for all diets.
At 12% below BMR and a low / moderate training regime will likely mean you will keep losing at your target rate for longer. Given we often make calculations errors and as Henry (hjs) will tell you a calorie is not a calorie 12% is neither here nor there. As such you may well get to your target without a plateau depending on how aggressive that target is. Bearing in mind our BMR's constantly fall as we lose weight, so 12% below today will be 0% tomorrow unless you keep cutting back. If the first words you think of are denial and sacrifice when you contemplate your diet maintaining your weight when you reach your goal will be a struggle. Without getting into the whole leptin / ghrelin hormone discussion there's a good reason why less than 10% of people who lose weight keep it off for extended periods. Your body fights back hard when you severely reduce calories. When faced with this reality and the 90% + probability of failure I chose to eat more calories but increase protein intake and build muscle mass. You'd be surprised how you can eat when you have extra muscle mass without possessing a "blessed" metabolism and maintain your weight.
Yes our bodies are all different but I looked on the various forums / blogs and discussed with "in shape" friends / athletes to see if there were training similarities. Guys over 40 who maintain lean physiques almost to a man do weight training / interval training to retain strength and total lean body mass. Not food deprivation or some "miracle" metabolism booster sold on TV or excessive cardio. Eat less, move more is a good place to start but not a good place to end, IMO.
Is the "our bodes are all different" a valid enough reason to explain why YV has plateaued at 44, 6'1, 242lbs and eats 1,500 calories and I am 44, 6'3, 182lbs and eat 2,700-3,000 calories (40% carbs)? Once I have reviewed research trial results it will be interesting to see how extended low calorie diets below BMR compare with 5-10% success / 90%-95% failure regarding prolonged weight loss for all diets.
Re: Stuck
You wont find me argue with pretty much anything you put up.
I plan to hit the weights again in October myself. I have always seen an increase in size and strength whenever I hit them, and expect this to be no different.
As to changing cals as I lose weight, yup, I am aware of it. I also work on cutting out the 'bad foods', but realistically, there are a few foods that are just hard to give up. Jalepeno potato chips are one for sure. I stay away for 'sweets', but still eat dark chocolate (60%) though I count out the little chips and savor them, whereas I used to eat them by the handful.
My personal biggest obstacle to a lot of training will not be diet as much as that my knees get sore, especially the kneecaps. Beat them up way too much when I was younger, and now have arthritis in them as well as poor cartilage on the backside. Oddly, squats always seemed to make them feel better, not worse, but I have to watch that with two hip replacements (growth issue from when I was 15 that hit me in my late 40's). What i wouldn't give for a set of knees and hips like a teenager again! That is why I do a lot of walking v. other cardio related exercise -- does not beat up the kneecaps so much.
And BTW, as you already probably know, the best long-term dieters keep food logs forever. I plan to use www.loseit.com for decades to come. I also plan to keep losing fairly slowly. I expect I too will hit plateaus even at my rate, and that as some muscle replaces fat, there are times I will lose nothing, just change shape.
I plan to hit the weights again in October myself. I have always seen an increase in size and strength whenever I hit them, and expect this to be no different.
As to changing cals as I lose weight, yup, I am aware of it. I also work on cutting out the 'bad foods', but realistically, there are a few foods that are just hard to give up. Jalepeno potato chips are one for sure. I stay away for 'sweets', but still eat dark chocolate (60%) though I count out the little chips and savor them, whereas I used to eat them by the handful.
My personal biggest obstacle to a lot of training will not be diet as much as that my knees get sore, especially the kneecaps. Beat them up way too much when I was younger, and now have arthritis in them as well as poor cartilage on the backside. Oddly, squats always seemed to make them feel better, not worse, but I have to watch that with two hip replacements (growth issue from when I was 15 that hit me in my late 40's). What i wouldn't give for a set of knees and hips like a teenager again! That is why I do a lot of walking v. other cardio related exercise -- does not beat up the kneecaps so much.
And BTW, as you already probably know, the best long-term dieters keep food logs forever. I plan to use www.loseit.com for decades to come. I also plan to keep losing fairly slowly. I expect I too will hit plateaus even at my rate, and that as some muscle replaces fat, there are times I will lose nothing, just change shape.
Re: Stuck
Dano the permanent food log is a great idea. If you can stick to that it would be very helpful. You seem to be doing all the right things. According to the weight loss registry long term success is linked to 1 hours exercise per day (often walking), keeping a food log and losing slowly, you're doing all of those.
Given our bodies have 15-30 lbs of excess water, undigested food etc when we start a diet and we shed 10-20 lbs of that almost immediately it's easy to see how people get excited and then disappointed when they follow the latest "miracle" diet. Off comes the 10-20 lbs, more in some cases, with no effort in the first 2 weeks only to be followed by the really difficult task at hand - genuine fat loss. To lose 30 lbs of fat requires a 105,000 calorie deficit. If you're not that fit then perhaps you burn 350 cals an hour so that equates to 300 hours of exercise. Even cutting 700 calories of food intake a day and doing an 1 hrs exercise still means a 100 days are required for 30 lbs of fat. Over a year that's nearly 110 lbs which I think is excellent, life changing and quite quick. 20+ years of excess wiped clean in 1 yet people still seem to want to see results even faster than that.
We all have our equivalent of Jalepeno potato chips torturing us but I reckon if you can control portions and make it a rare treat then OK, if you can't then it has to go, sadly. The way I manage it is to give the family the bulk of the chocolate slab upfront so there are only 4 pieces left for me. Then the choice is no longer in my hands.....
Given our bodies have 15-30 lbs of excess water, undigested food etc when we start a diet and we shed 10-20 lbs of that almost immediately it's easy to see how people get excited and then disappointed when they follow the latest "miracle" diet. Off comes the 10-20 lbs, more in some cases, with no effort in the first 2 weeks only to be followed by the really difficult task at hand - genuine fat loss. To lose 30 lbs of fat requires a 105,000 calorie deficit. If you're not that fit then perhaps you burn 350 cals an hour so that equates to 300 hours of exercise. Even cutting 700 calories of food intake a day and doing an 1 hrs exercise still means a 100 days are required for 30 lbs of fat. Over a year that's nearly 110 lbs which I think is excellent, life changing and quite quick. 20+ years of excess wiped clean in 1 yet people still seem to want to see results even faster than that.
We all have our equivalent of Jalepeno potato chips torturing us but I reckon if you can control portions and make it a rare treat then OK, if you can't then it has to go, sadly. The way I manage it is to give the family the bulk of the chocolate slab upfront so there are only 4 pieces left for me. Then the choice is no longer in my hands.....
Re: Stuck
I only wish I could say that 20 lbs comes off easily. I am down 17.5lbs and started on June 28th. But like you noted, I am keep it pretty safe and sane the whole way.
The www.loseit.com app has people put up various challenges. One that is coming up is to "lose a pound of flesh" a week by exercising at least 3500 cals/wk. I think that should be a fn one, and I will only have to step it up a little to hit that weekly number. As I slowly get smaller, I can tell you I slowly feel better too.
In the end, my payoff will be to set a used single again. But thats at least 35 lbs from now.
The www.loseit.com app has people put up various challenges. One that is coming up is to "lose a pound of flesh" a week by exercising at least 3500 cals/wk. I think that should be a fn one, and I will only have to step it up a little to hit that weekly number. As I slowly get smaller, I can tell you I slowly feel better too.
In the end, my payoff will be to set a used single again. But thats at least 35 lbs from now.