PDA

View Full Version : Frustrated by constant plateaus! A little help, please.



xven
01-14-2006, 08:39 PM
This has been my dilemma for more than the past 5 months. I came down from a 245 to 165. All great, except I've been at and around 168-176 for the whole time after (probably fluctuating water weight). I've done everything, tried every diet, tried changing up my workouts, added cardio, and nothing! But I must mention, the amount/definition in my muscles has shown amazing progress. I am much more vascular, bigger more fuller shaped muscles appearing, etc. But I still do have a huge amount of bf %. I have no access to a caliper, so there's no telling how much, but I'd call it around 21-18%.

The one thing that does puzzle me, is this was all done using a caloric deficit. I'm usually 170-172. The first week of any diet/exercise regime, I lose 2 pounds or so. Then by the next week of the same diet, I'm up to 2 pounds more than I started and so goes. I'm trying to get myself to not base results on the scale, but this is way too weird. And no, I am damn sure about the caloric deficit. That was the first thing I looked into as soon as I kept seeing this happen.

I quite frankly do not know what to do. This has been a constant struggle for me. My next approach is just go on and actually bulk. Eat 500 over, have an actual pwo shake (w/ dextrose), and maybe try a ckd, as it has been shown to produce great results for plateaus. What my friend finds hard to believe is, in fact, all the muscle gain with the deficit and no proper pwo nutrition. I'm thinking if I bulk to about a 185-190, maybe I will start to actually lose weight again when cutting? Does this sound reasonable? The only reason I don't want to get bulked up as yet, is because of my unacceptably high bf levels. I'm sure some of you have or know someone who has encountered this dreaded place. What worked for them? Any help on this would be immensely appreciated. I need absolutely any advise I can get. Thank you for reading.

skelooth
01-14-2006, 08:51 PM
yeah bulk up bro.

magnumfreak
01-14-2006, 08:58 PM
How long since you lost your 80 pounds?? Great job BTW!! It may be your body going through adjustments to the new you. Also, the scale is just one indicator of what is going on with your body. You indicated that you have more muscle definition, etc. Sounds to me like what you are doing is working. Use a combination of calipers, tape measure and scales to get a better picture of what is going on with your body.

DJohnson
01-14-2006, 09:08 PM
80lbs in 5 months is very fast weight loss. You probably need a bulk to "reset" your metabolism. Just do a clean bulk for a few months. Time flies and you'll look leaner just because your muscles will be bigger.

Also I'm in the camp that says:
"Dextrose and sugars don't cause more muscle growth than ground up oats for the same amount of calories. The only difference is you get lots of protein synthesis in the first hour whereas with oats it's over a longer period of time."
So you might want to look into that.

If anyone doesn't agree and wants to discuss it let's not jack the thread, start a new one and pm me if I miss it.

xven
01-15-2006, 01:43 PM
First off, thanks for all the replies. I've lost the 80 lbs over the course of 10 months, not 5. It's been the 5 months after that, that I have seemed to plateau. Yes, I think I'll spend that extra buck and get myself calipers. I quite frankly get very frustrated with weight gain on a cut, especially when I don't know whether it's fat or lbm. Haha, I'd actually **** myself on a bulk, where I am gaining weight and don't know what I'm gaining. So far I have been lifting a moderate amount of weight. I'm lifting heavy, but I'm going to start going heavier and heavier. Try to mix my routine up by a bit. Get some pyramids, supersets and other more advanced stuff in there. Forgot I had been working out with almost the same routine for the 7 months.


Also I'm in the camp that says:
"Dextrose and sugars don't cause more muscle growth than ground up oats for the same amount of calories. The only difference is you get lots of protein synthesis in the first hour whereas with oats it's over a longer period of time."
So you might want to look into that.
Very very interesting. I did not know that. Great info man, thanks. So what do you do for pwo? Taking off on that, would doing it something like -

First 15 min. 15 grams dextrose, 30 grams whey, chromium, creatine; based shake : Takes advantage of the first hour of protein synth

Next 30-45 min. 40 grams oats (cooked) 40 grams whey, and an antioxidant; sound good? : Takes advantage of longer protein synth

Is this a good approach? Should I space these out a bit longer? What can I change? Would you do it? Also, how much dextrose is needed to bring about an insulin spike? I'd like to start with the bare minimum, as I can't afford extra fat in anyway. Thanks all. I really appreciate all the help/any further help on this. I feel totally lost.

grb137
01-15-2006, 02:39 PM
This has been my dilemma for more than the past 5 months. I came down from a 245 to 165. All great, except I've been at and around 168-176 for the whole time after (probably fluctuating water weight). I've done everything, tried every diet, tried changing up my workouts, added cardio, and nothing! But I must mention, the amount/definition in my muscles has shown amazing progress. I am much more vascular, bigger more fuller shaped muscles appearing, etc. But I still do have a huge amount of bf %. I have no access to a caliper, so there's no telling how much, but I'd call it around 21-18%.

The one thing that does puzzle me, is this was all done using a caloric deficit. I'm usually 170-172. The first week of any diet/exercise regime, I lose 2 pounds or so. Then by the next week of the same diet, I'm up to 2 pounds more than I started and so goes. I'm trying to get myself to not base results on the scale, but this is way too weird. And no, I am damn sure about the caloric deficit. That was the first thing I looked into as soon as I kept seeing this happen.

I quite frankly do not know what to do. This has been a constant struggle for me. My next approach is just go on and actually bulk. Eat 500 over, have an actual pwo shake (w/ dextrose), and maybe try a ckd, as it has been shown to produce great results for plateaus. What my friend finds hard to believe is, in fact, all the muscle gain with the deficit and no proper pwo nutrition. I'm thinking if I bulk to about a 185-190, maybe I will start to actually lose weight again when cutting? Does this sound reasonable? The only reason I don't want to get bulked up as yet, is because of my unacceptably high bf levels. I'm sure some of you have or know someone who has encountered this dreaded place. What worked for them? Any help on this would be immensely appreciated. I need absolutely any advise I can get. Thank you for reading.

Congrats on the loss. I'm curious as to how/why you did all that work without knowing what specifically your losses were along the way - weren't you concerned that you were losing lean muscle mass along with the fat?

I've been doing research on the topic of caloric need and caloric deficit, and from what I've discovered, your calorie need is most accurately determined when you have an idea of what your lean body mass is, particularly when fat is a significant portion of your total body weight.

To use myself as an example, I recently started working out 6x/wk and determined my calorie based on calculations using the Harris-Benedict Equation. After about a wk and a 1/2 of this, I lost about 1 pound. Recently, I discovered the Katch-McArdle equation, which takes into account BF%/LBM, and using that formula I should be eating about ~600 cals less than I have been!. That difference is significant!

I'm speculating here based on your comment that you have "unacceptable high BF levels" : Maybe - in addition to all that fat you've lost, you may have lost a significant amount of muscle in the process, depressing your metabolic needs more than you originally thought. This, combined with the "adaptation" process others have already mentioned, might be causing your body to need fewer calories than you have been thinking.

I was just at Sam's Club yesterday, and they've got a bioelectric impedance scale for about $32 - I think that'd be a fantastic investment for you. I've read that caliper accuracy is highly dependant on user proficiency, which is why I've gone with the impedance method for myself.

Best of luck!

xven
01-15-2006, 04:00 PM
Congrats on the loss. I'm curious as to how/why you did all that work without knowing what specifically your losses were along the way - weren't you concerned that you were losing lean muscle mass along with the fat?

I've been doing research on the topic of caloric need and caloric deficit, and from what I've discovered, your calorie need is most accurately determined when you have an idea of what your lean body mass is, particularly when fat is a significant portion of your total body weight.

To use myself as an example, I recently started working out 6x/wk and determined my calorie based on calculations using the Harris-Benedict Equation. After about a wk and a 1/2 of this, I lost about 1 pound. Recently, I discovered the Katch-McArdle equation, which takes into account BF%/LBM, and using that formula I should be eating about ~600 cals less than I have been!. That difference is significant!

I'm speculating here based on your comment that you have "unacceptable high BF levels" : Maybe - in addition to all that fat you've lost, you may have lost a significant amount of muscle in the process, depressing your metabolic needs more than you originally thought. This, combined with the "adaptation" process others have already mentioned, might be causing your body to need fewer calories than you have been thinking.

I was just at Sam's Club yesterday, and they've got a bioelectric impedance scale for about $32 - I think that'd be a fantastic investment for you. I've read that caliper accuracy is highly dependant on user proficiency, which is why I've gone with the impedance method for myself.

Best of luck!


Thanks for the compliments. The reason I lost, and didn't bother if I was losing muscle or fat is truthfully because I was uneducated on the subject back then. I had absolutely zero support from my family, friends, and it was just me against the grain. The second reason was that I was sick of being a fat ass, lol. So I just started eating smaller portions and only 2-3 times a day. Yup, I lost fat (a whole lot) coupled with muscle. It's stupid, but I didn't know what I was doing.

Yes, the lbm. It seemed I had an lbm of 142-145 when I was 168-170. Again, this was pure calculation. Feeding your lbm is a great thing, but you still need enough calories for bodily fuctions. Personally I aim to create no more than a 500 cal. deficit with diet. Usually end up with a 100-200 cal less and the calories I burn doing cardio. When I don't do cardio/weights, I just eat less. I have tried countless things, forumlas, etc. and to no effect. It's just been riding the 167-176 margins. My dumbass plan is to actually go ahead and put on the muscle I can gain. So far everyone has favored this. I think if I can slowly go ahead gain a bit of lbm, then try and cut it down, it might actually work. Something like taking a step backwards, to move two steps forward. That isn't a bad price for the scale thing. I'll look around for one this week. Seems I'll get nowhere not knowing what I am trying to lose here. Most of the fat I have on me in subcutaneous.

Well, my concern still remains about approriate post work out nutrition. People, please refer to my earlier post and let me know your thoughts. I'd kill myself if I gain fat. It's been hard enough fighting it all my life, and to go back to that part isn't something I'm ready to do. Thank you guys for all your support.