Fiancee Not Loosing Any Weight?

[B14JOSH]

She has been eating at a caloric defecit, and working out almost everyday, and her weight has not changed in 3 weeks.

Her diet is clean, we eat the same things since I am cutting as well.

Are there any special things females need to do that men wouldn't? Her BF is around 26% but she looks slimmer than me at 22%.

[vandalgirl59]

1) No such thing as a 'clean diet
2) How MUCH is she eating?! Even if she was living on broccoli and still managed to eat too many calories then she's only sabotaging herself.

We need details! About what she eats, how she trains and where her stats are already at...

[uk3mi]

working out almost everyday, and her weight has not changed in 3 weeks.


besides her weight, are there any other changes (increase in lifts, inches loss)?

[Barbell_Barbie]

She has been eating at a caloric defecit, and working out almost everyday, and her weight has not changed in 3 weeks.

Her diet is clean, we eat the same things since I am cutting as well.

Are there any special things females need to do that men wouldn't? Her BF is around 26% but she looks slimmer than me at 22%.

what is her exact diet/training/cardio

i lost an insane amount of weight and know that sometimes you have got to change something up to make progress continue. everyone plateau. I would be happy to help in detail if you would like. Just PM me with details about the above as well as her stats

[CreativeRick]

If she is not losing weight, she is not in a "caloric defecit". It's that simple. She either needs to eat less calories, do more cardio, or do both.

[kfisherx]

If she is not losing weight, she is not in a "caloric defecit". It's that simple. She either needs to eat less calories, do more cardio, or do both.

It isn't always that simple but in most cases it is. If she is eating exactly what you are eating OP it is likely she is overeating. Please let us know what her actual daily caloric intake is. If she doesn't know that is your first step to figure out.

[RandomMisc]

If she is not losing weight, she is not in a "caloric defecit". It's that simple. She either needs to eat less calories, do more cardio, or do both.

This is not always true.

OP... if you're sure she's not overeating, have medical conditions been ruled out? Throw in PCOS, hypothyroidism, or any host of endocrine disorders and that can make weight loss much more difficult.

[RandomMisc]

And are you sure she hasn't been hitting up the snack machine at work or birthday cake at office birthday parties or anything? My mom has a tendency to do this... so does her boyfriend. lol. They'll eat clean around me, then I'll catch a glimpse of a Reese's wrapper or a McDonald's bag as I'm taking out the trash. Or my mom will slip and admit that there's a candy bowl at physical therapy that she grabs a handful from every day as she's waiting for her appointment and then again on her way out.

[jcolson]

If she is not losing weight, she is not in a "caloric defecit". It's that simple. She either needs to eat less calories, do more cardio, or do both.

If it was that simple, we would all be nutritionists.

[kimm4]

What are her stats and how many calories is she eating? Anytime a person is new to a plan, especially women give a good 5-6 weeks before making any kind of adjustments...3 weeks is nothing...

I'm never quick to say medical condition, because it always goes back to the diet being off.

[Glaive]

If it was that simple, we would all be nutritionists.

The problem is that 99.99% of the time when someone says "I'm eating at a caloric deficit but still not losing weight" they actually aren't at a caloric deficit. Are there situations where you're losing mass but also gaining water weight or some other weird combination of circumstances that can make the scale seem to defy logic? Yes, but I think it's far more dangerous to add validity to people's delusions that they're special in some way and immune to the laws of biology.

Yes, there are medical conditions such as thyroid problems that can have a noticeable effect on weight gain, but this is generally a result of screwing with your metabolic rate, which in turn is affecting the amount of calories you're burning, which means that your maintenance calories are lower than you've calculated and thus you are NOT at a caloric deficit when you think you are.

I've never heard that excuse from someone where I wouldn't be willing to put money down that they are either underestimating their caloric intake or overestimating their calories burned through exercise.

If you can provide an example of a situation in which you can not give your body the energy or raw materials necessary to maintain a given amount of mass yet still not lose mass (or actually gain mass) then I am all ears, because it is my understanding that his would pretty strongly contradict the laws of physics.

Lyle McDonald actually wrote a great article about this that I can't manage to find, essentially blasting the tendency of people to claim that they are special, unique snowflakes that are somehow not subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to health and fitness.

[CreativeRick]

If it was that simple, we would all be nutritionists.


Well I wasn't mentioning anything about nutrition. It really is that simple, as far as pure calories go. Obviously doing cardio isn't the only way to burn calories, but it is one of the fastest.

As mentioned above, medical conditions can effect body weight + composition + the ability to burn calories. Although it would be great for everyone to be checked for medical problems, simply the fact that you hit a plateau in your working out + dieting in my mind is not enough reason.

It could be as simple as her body has conditioned itself for the cardio that she is doing. Therefore burning less calories for the same amount of work each time she does it.

[jcolson]

The problem is that 99.99% of the time when someone says "I'm eating at a caloric deficit but still not losing weight" they actually aren't at a caloric deficit. Are there situations where you're losing mass but also gaining water weight or some other weird combination of circumstances that can make the scale seem to defy logic? Yes, but I think it's far more dangerous to add validity to people's delusions that they're special in some way and immune to the laws of biology.

You are correct, brother!

The only distinction that I like to make is the kind of weight that is comming off or being gained. I wouldnt consider a client losing weight if it was pure muscle, with some fat gain. Yes, the scale would read a loss, but their belly wouldn't.

I guess it depends on what is more important, body composition, or weight. Lyle Mcdonald talks about this too!


Yes, there are medical conditions such as thyroid problems that can have a noticeable effect on weight gain, but this is generally a result of screwing with your metabolic rate, which in turn is affecting the amount of calories you're burning, which means that your maintenance calories are lower than you've calculated and thus you are NOT at a caloric deficit when you think you are.

I run a diet clinic where I work as the main nutritionist. I have seen a lot of individuals with metabolic problems, mainly having to do with biotoxin or neurotoxin damage, that causes problems with the metabolism, or more specifically the hypothalamus. When this happens, I can put a person on on a VLCD and still see NO weight loss for quite a long time. It happens a lot. This goes way beyond thyroid problems.

I think metabolic rate is much more sensitive than the number we try to put on it. To say EVERY person has the same calories/weight maintenance level is sort of short sighted.

One persons maintenance level could be 12/cal/lb
While another will be at 16/cal/lb

So many things affect how many calorie our bodies consume, and I guess you could try to factor most of them onto the equation for the client, but some are really impossible to calculate.


I've never heard that excuse from someone where I wouldn't be willing to put money down that they are either underestimating their caloric intake or overestimating their calories burned through exercise.

Yep!

I know that most people just underestimate calorie consumption. I am blown away when I have the client estimate for me their calorie consumption, and then compare it to an actual diet journal. They are usually about 1000 cal's low on their estimate. Hence the, "nothing I do ever works".


If you can provide an example of a situation in which you can not give your body the energy or raw materials necessary to maintain a given amount of mass yet still not lose mass (or actually gain mass) then I am all ears, because it is my understanding that his would pretty strongly contradict the laws of physics.

The "not lose mass" part: No I cant give you a situation.

The "still lose weight" part: A ketogenic diet - pee out ketones! I know, its not a really strong example. But Funny.

Why do we worry about Macromutrient %'s if this is true?
We would all just eat pizza for every meal at maintenance calories if it was ALL about the amount of calories, but it is an important factor. Why is the keto diet so popular?
Because altering macronutrients affects body composition.


Lyle McDonald actually wrote a great article about this that I can't manage to find, essentially blasting the tendency of people to claim that they are special, unique snowflakes that are somehow not subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to health and fitness.

Overall, I agree

I know what you are talking about with Lyle Mcdonald. I have read a three of his books, and actually like Mauro DiPasquale a little more.

[Glaive]

I strongly agree that what type of mass one is losing (fat vs. muscle, for example) is far more important than scale weight, and I agree as well that I would not be supportive of someone who is "losing weight" but in the process is just dropping muscle while adding fat.

That being said, I was just trying to reinforce the basic principle of calories in vs. calories out, since it's so important that people understand that and most laypeople do not.

You're right in that there are variations in individual body chemistry and metabolic rates, but while those may indeed make it hard in some circumstances to accurately predict maintenance calorie levels it doesn't change the basics of weight loss/gain.

It's just so easy to misinterpret or misunderstand things that I tend to be a bit overly cautious about how what's posted might be taken the wrong way by a newbie.

[KaraPhoto]

The problem is that 99.99% of the time when someone says "I'm eating at a caloric deficit but still not losing weight" they actually aren't at a caloric deficit.
[...]
I've never heard that excuse from someone where I wouldn't be willing to put money down that they are either underestimating their caloric intake or overestimating their calories burned through exercise.Agree!!


Lyle McDonald actually wrote a great article about this that I can't manage to find, essentially blasting the tendency of people to claim that they are special, unique snowflakes that are somehow not subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to health and fitness.
This one - one of my favorites of his: bodyrecomposition. com/ fat-loss / you-are-not-different .ht

(remove the spaces - I don't have enough cred around here to post URLS yet)

[jcolson]

I strongly agree that what type of mass one is losing (fat vs. muscle, for example) is far more important than scale weight, and I agree as well that I would not be supportive of someone who is "losing weight" but in the process is just dropping muscle while adding fat.

That being said, I was just trying to reinforce the basic principle of calories in vs. calories out, since it's so important that people understand that and most laypeople do not.

You're right in that there are variations in individual body chemistry and metabolic rates, but while those may indeed make it hard in some circumstances to accurately predict maintenance calorie levels it doesn't change the basics of weight loss/gain.

It's just so easy to misinterpret or misunderstand things that I tend to be a bit overly cautious about how what's posted might be taken the wrong way by a newbie.

I really think we are in agreement.

Basically, you cant have one without the other. Both calories AND macro%'s go hand in hand. I just find it annoying when you find a person that states that it is all Calories in Calories out. While that is PART of it, it is not ALL of it.

You are right though, Calories in Calories out is all you would need to determine weight loss, as opposed to fat loss and body composition.

[Barenfang]

The problem is that 99.99% of the time when someone says "I'm eating at a caloric deficit but still not losing weight" they actually aren't at a caloric deficit. Are there situations where you're losing mass but also gaining water weight or some other weird combination of circumstances that can make the scale seem to defy logic? Yes, but I think it's far more dangerous to add validity to people's delusions that they're special in some way and immune to the laws of biology.

Yes, there are medical conditions such as thyroid problems that can have a noticeable effect on weight gain, but this is generally a result of screwing with your metabolic rate, which in turn is affecting the amount of calories you're burning, which means that your maintenance calories are lower than you've calculated and thus you are NOT at a caloric deficit when you think you are.

I've never heard that excuse from someone where I wouldn't be willing to put money down that they are either underestimating their caloric intake or overestimating their calories burned through exercise.

If you can provide an example of a situation in which you can not give your body the energy or raw materials necessary to maintain a given amount of mass yet still not lose mass (or actually gain mass) then I am all ears, because it is my understanding that his would pretty strongly contradict the laws of physics.

Lyle McDonald actually wrote a great article about this that I can't manage to find, essentially blasting the tendency of people to claim that they are special, unique snowflakes that are somehow not subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to health and fitness.

^^^this^^^