Long Plateau what am I doing wrong.

[johndoethethird]

1650 to 1850 calories should push you straight to sub 190lbs. Miscalculation of around 25% is give or take 2100-2300 which sounds about right for ~206lbs.

[Tommy W.]

I disagree that a reverse diet would only be applicable for someone coming out of contest prep. The OP has stated he's lost just shy of 70 lbs, has been dieting for a year and has hit a 4 month weight loss plateau.

Given their success in losing the weight thus far, I'm willing to believe that they're tracking their calories with a degree of accuracy, and taking into account the above factors I think it's an opportune time to start increasing calories gradually and reverse some of the negative side effects of dieting for a prolonged period of time.

To try and cement my recommendation I'll use the example of the biggest loser contestants:

Google 'the biggest loser contestants metabolism' and click on the article from scientificamerican.com (annoyingly I cannot copy and paste links as I've only posted 4 times ha)

Admittedly the OP has probably used much more sustainable methods to lose the weight (not excessive cardio or ultra low calorie intake) but this is still a good case against dieting further in my opinion. As I keep on reiterating, there is a risk in my opinion that you're going to put yourself in a worse position.

A sustained calorie deficit will produce fatloss. Stalling for 4 months is a product of not being in a deficit. Reverse dieting will only add more fat. Reversing at at a very low bodyfat amount after dieting down with very low calories and the usual emphasis on extra cardio after a contest is warranted. Higher BF numbers and can't lose anymore fat is not a reverse diet situation so please stop suggesting this to OP.

[mstang61]

1650 to 1850 calories should push you straight to sub 190lbs. Miscalculation of around 25% is give or take 2100-2300 which sounds about right for ~206lbs.

Thanks, I'm going to get a new scale, and eat basic foods like grilled chicken, rice, eggs, oatmeal etc. Nothing to complicated for a while see how it goes.

[Grelko]

Thanks, I'm going to get a new scale, and eat basic foods like grilled chicken, rice, eggs, oatmeal etc. Nothing to complicated for a while see how it goes.

A new scale could help, the old 1 might have been off by a little bit after using it for a while.

Weigh your foods Pre-cooked, because things like chicken will lose water and be more "calorie dense" if you weigh it afterwards. Rice will soak up water and weigh much more after it's cooked.

Weigh your eggs in the shell. They're only around 71 calories (50 grams), so a few grams from the shell itself, isn't going to add up to much, unless you're eating a dozen or more each day.

Pre-packaged foods like instant oatmeal, cans of tuna, yogurt, can be off by a few grams in either direction. I never go by what they "claim" to weigh.

Double or even triple check your calories if you're THAT serious about it.

Here's a real good example why I double check my calories. This is what I ate for breakfast. I woke up at 8:30 Pm (sleep schedule is backwards for now)


Breakfast

Organic maple and brown sugar oatmeal - 86g
320 calories
4g fat
66g carbs
8g protein

Banana - 85g
76 calories
0.3g fat
20g carbs
1g protein

Blueberry yogurt - 168g
149 calories
2.5g fat
27g carbs
5g protein

Total

545 calories 569.2
6.8g fat 61.2
113g carbs 452
14g protein 56

Pre-packaged oatmeal and yogurt. The banana nutrition info, I got from here. https://nutritiondata.self.com/

After weighing and adding everything up it came out to 545 calories.

After I added up the fats, carbs, protein, it comes out to 569.2

I go with the 569.2 as the "starting" amount of calories. Now, this isn't correct either, because when they put the nutrition info on a pre-packaged item, it's rounded up or down to the nearest whole number for certain things (calories, carbs etc) and to the nearest .5 for other things like fat.

Maybe it's actually 565, or even 575, who knows. I always round up the calories that I get from the fat, carbs, protein, to the nearest whole number, so I would mark down 570 instead of 569.2

It's not perfect, but that's about as close as you're going to get, unless you had a lab setup and personally burned the food to ash, then checked the exact energy exchange.

[deano110]

A sustained calorie deficit will produce fatloss. Stalling for 4 months is a product of not being in a deficit. Reverse dieting will only add more fat. Reversing at at a very low bodyfat amount after dieting down with very low calories and the usual emphasis on extra cardio after a contest is warranted. Higher BF numbers and can't lose anymore fat is not a reverse diet situation so please stop suggesting this to OP.

Appreciate what you're saying but I stand by my recommendation under the circumstances, I don't know if you've completely read what I've said but in my first response I explained why the focus shouldn't be on weight loss at the moment.

The OP has said he's on 1,650 - 1,850 calories and has had a weight loss stall for 4 months at around 206 lbs. If these are true then a reverse diet would be applicable, the OP is on very low calories (personally I would not recommend a 200 lb male to go lower than this) and has been in a deficit/maintenance for a significant amount of time.

Anyway, I'm not one for arguing over the internet! Just want to defend my points as you've pleaded with me to stop giving advice.

[SuffolkPunch]

I disagree that a reverse diet would only be applicable for someone coming out of contest prep. The OP has stated he's lost just shy of 70 lbs, has been dieting for a year and has hit a 4 month weight loss plateau.

Given their success in losing the weight thus far, I'm willing to believe that they're tracking their calories with a degree of accuracy, and taking into account the above factors I think it's an opportune time to start increasing calories gradually and reverse some of the negative side effects of dieting for a prolonged period of time.

To try and cement my recommendation I'll use the example of the biggest loser contestants:

Google 'the biggest loser contestants metabolism' and click on the article from scientificamerican.com (annoyingly I cannot copy and paste links as I've only posted 4 times ha)

Admittedly the OP has probably used much more sustainable methods to lose the weight (not excessive cardio or ultra low calorie intake) but this is still a good case against dieting further in my opinion. As I keep on reiterating, there is a risk in my opinion that you're going to put yourself in a worse position.

I've researched so-called metabolic damage much more deeply than that and there is almost no evidence of it in anyone who is not doing extreme diets at very low levels of bodyfat (low enough to halt leptin production) - even then most of the evidence is in women. There is always something simpler to explain the discrepancy and it almost always comes down to subconsciously allowing more calories than you think to creep into your diet as you experience sustained hunger.

Most people who post calorie numbers here are not using such stringent methods to measure them as you might be.

There are other factors which are less likely - but my experience is that if you give people a sniff of a reason to suppose it's not their fault then they always take it even though it's extremely unlikely compared to the obvious.

[SugarFree1]

Now the stranger thing is, in Dec I had shoulder surgery so I have not been able to do any upper body till a few weeks ago, so I've been working legs hard, and I have actually lost inches in my waist. In Sept my waist above the navel measured 38, it now measures 36, and my 32 jeans I got for Christmas are loser now, and this was just doing heavy leg workouts from Dec till now.

There are some very informative posts made already. I just wanted to add that if your are losing inches from you waist line, you are burning fat whether or not you are seeing it on the scale. I know at least for me im losing/gaining about 4lbs of fat for every inch lost/gained

[deano110]

I've researched so-called metabolic damage much more deeply than that and there is almost no evidence of it in anyone who is not doing extreme diets at very low levels of bodyfat (low enough to halt leptin production) - even then most of the evidence is in women. There is always something simpler to explain the discrepancy and it almost always comes down to subconsciously allowing more calories than you think to creep into your diet as you experience sustained hunger.

Most people who post calorie numbers here are not using such stringent methods to measure them as you might be.

There are other factors which are less likely - but my experience is that if you give people a sniff of a reason to suppose it's not their fault then they always take it even though it's extremely unlikely compared to the obvious.

Yeah that's completely fair, perhaps I'm being too naive as I'm only just posting here. I know general population usually underestimate their calorie intake anywhere from 10 - 50%.

I guess the OP needs to take it upon themselves to ensure they're tracking their calories with utmost accuracy for a couple of weeks, monitor their scale weight so they can establish exactly what their calorie intake is and how that is corresponding with their weight, and then decide what to do from there.

[Tommy W.]

Appreciate what you're saying but I stand by my recommendation under the circumstances, I don't know if you've completely read what I've said but in my first response I explained why the focus shouldn't be on weight loss at the moment.

The OP has said he's on 1,650 - 1,850 calories and has had a weight loss stall for 4 months at around 206 lbs. If these are true then a reverse diet would be applicable, the OP is on very low calories (personally I would not recommend a 200 lb male to go lower than this) and has been in a deficit/maintenance for a significant amount of time.

Anyway, I'm not one for arguing over the internet! Just want to defend my points as you've pleaded with me to stop giving advice.

I don't think you're understanding that his counting is off and not in a weekly deficit.

As an aside, Arnold dieted down on 1,500 a day in prep. Putting things in perspective. Fear of metabolic damage is the excuse people use to not lower calories, hence the long plateau's and the failure to ever get below a certain BF%

[PuppyLife]

OP your not in a caloric deficit and your calorie count is most likely off. Are you using a food scale? We've been on the bigger side all our lives and obviously have not been successful in eye balling serving sizes. You are 3 inches taller than I am, and at your weight, I have/would be losing 1.5-2lbs a week at 1900 calories.

[deano110]

I don't think you're understanding that his counting is off and not in a weekly deficit.

As an aside, Arnold dieted down on 1,500 a day in prep. Putting things in perspective. Fear of metabolic damage is the excuse people use to not lower calories, hence the long plateau's and the failure to ever get below a certain BF%

Yeah I've backtracked a bit with my reply to SuffolkPunch, my advice advocating a reverse diet is on the premise what he said in the opening post is all true.

In the more likely event that he's under reporting his calorie intake then it's not applicable at all.

[mstang61]

I've researched so-called metabolic damage much more deeply than that and there is almost no evidence of it in anyone who is not doing extreme diets at very low levels of bodyfat (low enough to halt leptin production) - even then most of the evidence is in women. There is always something simpler to explain the discrepancy and it almost always comes down to subconsciously allowing more calories than you think to creep into your diet as you experience sustained hunger.

Most people who post calorie numbers here are not using such stringent methods to measure them as you might be.

There are other factors which are less likely - but my experience is that if you give people a sniff of a reason to suppose it's not their fault then they always take it even though it's extremely unlikely compared to the obvious.

I am going to take full responsibility that this is my fault. I'm going to be on point measuring everything for the next month and see how it goes lower cals by 100. I still plan to reverse diet once I get to my goal. I do believe it will help me be able to slowly raise my calories to a more manageable maintenance calorie count then having to live with a low calorie maintenance while trying to build muscle.

[mstang61]

There are some very informative posts made already. I just wanted to add that if your are losing inches from you waist line, you are burning fat whether or not you are seeing it on the scale. I know at least for me im losing/gaining about 4lbs of fat for every inch lost/gained

This is why I think you guys are right, I'f I'm losing fat but saying the same weight I must be gaining muscle right? Which means I'm must be at maintenance or a little above since you can't gain muscle while in a deficit??

[mstang61]

I don't think you're understanding that his counting is off and not in a weekly deficit.

As an aside, Arnold dieted down on 1,500 a day in prep. Putting things in perspective. Fear of metabolic damage is the excuse people use to not lower calories, hence the long plateau's and the failure to ever get below a certain BF%

Your right, at least in my case, I didn't want to go any lower because of people telling me about metabolic damage, honestly I wanted to go lower but was to scared after people telling me that. However I'm going down to 1500 and see what happens.

[Tommy W.]

I I still plan to reverse diet once I get to my goal. I do believe it will help me be able to slowly raise my calories to a more manageable maintenance calorie count then having to live with a low calorie maintenance while trying to build muscle.

That is what reverse dieting is for, going from a deficit to a slight surplus when the dieting down phase is complete. Understand that your maintenance will be lower now that you're lighter by about 100 calories a day for every 10 lbs you lost.

[mstang61]

A new scale could help, the old 1 might have been off by a little bit after using it for a while.

Weigh your foods Pre-cooked, because things like chicken will lose water and be more "calorie dense" if you weigh it afterwards. Rice will soak up water and weigh much more after it's cooked.

Weigh your eggs in the shell. They're only around 71 calories (50 grams), so a few grams from the shell itself, isn't going to add up to much, unless you're eating a dozen or more each day.

Pre-packaged foods like instant oatmeal, cans of tuna, yogurt, can be off by a few grams in either direction. I never go by what they "claim" to weigh.

Double or even triple check your calories if you're THAT serious about it.

Here's a real good example why I double check my calories. This is what I ate for breakfast. I woke up at 8:30 Pm (sleep schedule is backwards for now)


Breakfast

Organic maple and brown sugar oatmeal - 86g
320 calories
4g fat
66g carbs
8g protein

Banana - 85g
76 calories
0.3g fat
20g carbs
1g protein

Blueberry yogurt - 168g
149 calories
2.5g fat
27g carbs
5g protein

Total

545 calories 569.2
6.8g fat 61.2
113g carbs 452
14g protein 56

Pre-packaged oatmeal and yogurt. The banana nutrition info, I got from here.

After weighing and adding everything up it came out to 545 calories.

After I added up the fats, carbs, protein, it comes out to 569.2

I go with the 569.2 as the "starting" amount of calories. Now, this isn't correct either, because when they put the nutrition info on a pre-packaged item, it's rounded up or down to the nearest whole number for certain things (calories, carbs etc) and to the nearest .5 for other things like fat.

Maybe it's actually 565, or even 575, who knows. I always round up the calories that I get from the fat, carbs, protein, to the nearest whole number, so I would mark down 570 instead of 569.2

It's not perfect, but that's about as close as you're going to get, unless you had a lab setup and personally burned the food to ash, then checked the exact energy exchange.

Thanks for posting that, so I never measured pre packaged foods, I just went by the labels, but for now, I'm going to stop with prepackaged foods. I do have one vice, my favorite kabob place has a chicken kabob that I love. It normally measures out to 5.8 to 6.3 oz, should I add a few oz to get it back to its raw weight?

[Tommy W.]

my advice advocating a reverse diet is on the premise what he said in the opening post is all true.

.

Think about it. How does someone at his BF% plateau for 4 months on such low calories? They don't. Reverse dieting never assists fatloss it only delays it at that BF%.

[PuppyLife]

Thanks for posting that, so I never measured pre packaged foods, I just went by the labels, but for now, I'm going to stop with prepackaged foods. I do have one vice, my favorite kabob place has a chicken kabob that I love. It normally measures out to 5.8 to 6.3 oz, should I add a few oz to get it back to its raw weight?

Just dont eat it every day and not worry about it. Maybe add an extra 100-200 cals to it. I personally dont measure pre packaged foods unless its PB etc. Choose your battles. Im pretty sure your calories are off by other related factors. Do you measure your cooking oil/coffee creamer or condiments? I use a good 60-100 kcal of ketchup daily normally.

[SugarFree1]

Your right, at least in my case, I didn't want to go any lower because of people telling me about metabolic damage, honestly I wanted to go lower but was to scared after people telling me that. However I'm going down to 1500 and see what happens.

A further calorie deficit is needed. Keep in mind though that this can be accomplished by increasing exercise if you dont want to go down further in food intake. I know I reach a point in a cut where id rather add in more workout sessions than eat less.

[mstang61]

Just dont eat it every day and not worry about it. Maybe add an extra 100-200 cals to it. I personally dont measure pre packaged foods unless its PB etc. Choose your battles. Im pretty sure your calories are off by other related factors. Do you measure your cooking oil/coffee creamer or condiments? I use a good 60-100 kcal of ketchup daily normally.

I don't use alot of oil since I grill alot, but I do use avacado oil when do scrambled eggs, that I never really measured just estimated. When my wife makes stuff not sure if she measured out oils, so will start doing that now.

[Tommy W.]

Thanks for posting that, so I never measured pre packaged foods, I just went by the labels, but for now, I'm going to stop with prepackaged foods. I do have one vice, my favorite kabob place has a chicken kabob that I love. It normally measures out to 5.8 to 6.3 oz, should I add a few oz to get it back to its raw weight?

one thing I do in my tracking on fit day.com is I have a custom food I call FUDGE. I assign it 100 calories. If I have a day where I’ve eaten something that I’m guessing at the calories I add in FUDGE into my tracking. Sometimes I may add 2 or 3 FUDGE to my count depending on how unsure I am.

[mstang61]

one thing I do in my tracking on fit day.com is I have a custom food I call FUDGE. I assign it 100 calories. If I have a day where I’ve eaten something that I’m guessing at the calories I add in FUDGE into my tracking. Sometimes I may add 2 or 3 FUDGE to my count depending on how unsure I am.

Nice, I like that.

[Grelko]

I do have one vice, my favorite kabob place has a chicken kabob that I love. It normally measures out to 5.8 to 6.3 oz, should I add a few oz to get it back to its raw weight?

Not really sure about that one. A lot of restaurants have nutrition data for their food behind the counter or up on the wall. If you're lucky, they might even have the uncooked data, since they're the ones cooking it.

If it's family owned, they probably don't have the information though, so all you could do is take a guess, then raise that number by a little to be on the safe side.

Something like a Grilled chicken salad is "usually" about 4 ounces of chicken. A hamburger might be 1/8 pound of meat etc.

Certain things aren't TOO hard to figure out. A hotdog+bun is like 275 calories, more if you add any condiments. I usually just use ketchup, so I'd mark it as 300 or a little over that, since I don't know what specific brand of hotdog or bun they are using.

I had a "foot long breaded fish sandwich on a bun" a couple nights ago. No idea how many calories, but I was pretty full by the time I was done. I marked it down as 1200, which gives me a little space either way. If it was only 900 thats fine, and I'd lose and extra couple ounces of weight at the end of the week. if it was more like 1400-1500 thats fine too. I'm around a 1k deficit right now, so I'm still losing weight either way. Just do what you can for take-out.

[PuppyLife]

I don't use alot of oil since I grill alot, but I do use avacado oil when do scrambled eggs, that I never really measured just estimated. When my wife makes stuff not sure if she measured out oils, so will start doing that now.

I think this is one area where you could be eating a lot more cals then you think. One serving of oil is a good 120 cals and is barely anything in the pan. If your in a 500 kcal deficit and eat two meals with oil.... Won't see much weekly progress

one thing I do in my tracking on fit day.com is I have a custom food I call FUDGE. I assign it 100 calories. If I have a day where I’ve eaten something that I’m guessing at the calories I add in FUDGE into my tracking. Sometimes I may add 2 or 3 FUDGE to my count depending on how unsure I am.

Interesting! I am curious to know if you add in macros into that or not

[Tommy W.]

Interesting! I am curious to know if you add in macros into that or not

I use a middle of the road macro split.

[deano110]

Think about it. How does someone at his BF% plateau for 4 months on such low calories? They don't. Reverse dieting never assists fatloss it only delays it at that BF%.

Yeah fair point, I went full 'white knight' and was worried he would drop cals very low and set himself up for weight regain - again on the premise that his reported calories were correct.

[Grelko]

I use a middle of the road macro split.

do you split it 33/33/33 by switching over to 8/8/4, so that 32 cals from carbs, 32 from protein and 36 cals from fat = 100

Edit - reworded so it makes sense.

[Tommy W.]

do you split it 33/33/33 or use the reverse conversion rate for 4/4/9 "c/p/f"? Switched over to 9/9/4, so that 36 cals from carbs and 36 from protein = 36 cals from fat, then divide it as needed?

No need to over complicate things. Just look at your average weekly macro split percentage and assign that percentage to each macro

[Grelko]

No need to over complicate things. Just look at your average weekly macro split percentage and assign that percentage to each macro

Yeah, I just reworded my reply so that it made more sense. I figured you would try to make it equal calories between the 3, but taking the average split for the week is easier.

[mstang61]

Just wanted to thank everyone for the advise. On Monday I lowered my calories by 100, got a new scale, (old one was off by 2.3 ounces). Already I'm down a 1.5 lbs. So I have a question.

Why just dropping my calories by 100 and tightening up my counting cause this much of a loss, I mean its only 100 plus maybe another 100 to 200 calories I was missing. I'm not mad I went 4 months at a plateau, since I seemed to still lose inches, and put on some muscle.

Thanks again,.