Why do plateaus happen?

[Guest guest]

I'm rather impatiently waiting my way through a plateau, which is

probably at my set point weight. I realize from reading the archives

that this is normal and to be expected. That's all fine.

I am curious however if anyone knows what's happening

physiologically during a plateau? A pause in weight loss seems

counter intuitive to the " calories, calories, calories " mantra. If

there are changes to metabolism as the body adapts to lower calorie

input one would expect the rate of weight loss to change in a smooth

way, given the same calorie input.

Any thoughts or studies?

BTW. My thanks and appreciation to all of the well informed posters

here. It helps me stay motivated and get smarter, particularily

about the ON part.

Thanks

Jerry

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Jerry:

>

> Well since you ask, lol. You may find there are more opinions on

> this than there are posters here ; ^ ))) Here is mine.

>

> If you are eating the same number of calories as you are burning off

> then obviously you would expect to be in a plateau. So I assume you

> believe that you are in a continuing negative energy balance, and

> think you are in a plateau.

>

> In my opinion for anyone in a negative energy balance 'plateaus' are

> in their imagination. But it is easy to THINK you are in a plateau

> when you aren't. The problem resides in the fact that it takes a

> considerable time to lose a material amount of weight, while DAY TO

> DAY AND WEEK TO WEEK FLUCTUATIONS IN WEIGHT ARE NOT INFREQUENTLY

> HUGE. Those in a negative energy balance who think they are in a

> plateau are failing, imo, to distinguish the large short term

> fluctuations from the slow longer term down trend.

Thanks for the long answer Rodney.I'll fill in a few more details.

I also use FitDay, and like it's weight goal graph. I'm actually

transitioning to Kathleen's diet planner since I can do a better job

of tracking micro-nutrients with it.

I really started out with working on the ON part by weighing

everything and keeping track of nutrition. When I saw where I was

getting way too many extra calories with " healthy " snacks I began to

cut them out. Over time I've been losing around 1-1.5 lbs/week. I

realize this is high by CRON standards and recommendation. My weight

lose has been pretty consistant with variations for all of the reasons

you mention.

My first plateau came about a month ago and lasted a week with

absolutly no change in weight. My current one started about 10 days ago.

I suspect I'm close to my setpoint since this is about the weight I

spent a lot of my 20's and 30's at, I'm 49 now. My intention was to

reach an intermediate goal, which happened to be about 5 lbs below my

current weight, then to increase my calories such that I lost 1-1.5

lbs per month.

Many people in the archives have mentioned this sort of plateau

especially relative to their set point so I'm certain this is a normal

part of the process. There is such a high level of education about

this topic here I thought someone might have some sort of

physiological reasoning why these breaks seem to happen periodically.

By the way, thanks to the weight loss and good nutrition my BP has

gone from 140/90 to 110/80 and my TC from 212 to 182. My hdl is low so

I'm reading about Pufa's and mufa's and trying to figure out how to

improve that situation.

Thanks again everyone for the information and your unknowing support.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

>>In my opinion, one should select target a BMI in the lower half of the healthy

range(18.5 to 21.5) and eat enough to maintain the

corresponding weight. It seems to me that the reduced number of calories

required to maintain a lower weight would be an effective CR

strategy. This opinion has been dismissed as " wrong " by people who have studied

and interpreted a lot of relevant literature.

To me, with all the mystique surrounding concepts like " setpoint " , " usual

calories " , " normal weight " , which are often used in trying to determine " CR " ,

your mentioned approach, which I agree with completely, seems like the most

logical, simple, sane, rational and intelligent approach to defining true " CR "

in our worlds.

I would be interested in what literature defines this as " wrong " , especially in

humans. As most all the data i see in humans, agrees with this.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

And given the much discussed shortcomings of BMI for those of high or

low bone and/or muscle mass, a 'happy' combination of BMI, BF% and

WC/H might be better than BMI alone, IMO. If one had to select only

one, I would choose BF% (DEXA or immersion) fwiw.

And are there any other units of measurement that can usefully be

added to those three?

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Not to disagree.

> The " wrong " is only from the standpoint of expectations, IMO. I can

reduce to whatever weight I think I need to be at, but I have really

no idea what the best and lowest risk is, especially having gone up

to 234#. The biggest question is not what the ideal weight is but HOW

should a body be reduced to an ideal of say BMI 20? How long should

one take? With respect to the highest weight of 234#, what should the

new ideal BMI be?

> These factors have never been determined scientifically.

> I think it's safe to say that a guy who gets to 600#, eg, is never

going to get to some insurance table weight of 155# and live. Perhaps

a 50% reduction is all that can be achieved without surgery.

> I struggle at 175 - 180# having dropped from 234#. That's an easy

(?) 25 %. I'm not sure I want to be the skinny kid on the block.

> I think Tony indicated that first fat is lost then more muscle. At

some point there should be some bone weight reduction if this could

be done to get back to one's ideal configuration.

> I think one in a higher BMI has to concentrate on what he needs to

do for better health, rather than a specific target for BMI, body fat

as a " CRed " requirement. That's the aspect we struggle with.

> I think one who can exist at 180# on 1800 kcals rather than 3000

kcals is CRed even though he doesn't lose weight.

>

> Regards.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Jeff Novick

>

> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:50 AM

> Subject: RE: [ ] Why do plateaus happen?

>

>

> >>In my opinion, one should select target a BMI in the lower half

of the healthy range(18.5 to 21.5) and eat enough to maintain the

> corresponding weight. It seems to me that the reduced number of

calories required to maintain a lower weight would be an effective CR

> strategy. This opinion has been dismissed as " wrong " by people

who have studied and interpreted a lot of relevant literature.

>

> To me, with all the mystique surrounding concepts

like " setpoint " , " usual calories " , " normal weight " , which are often

used in trying to determine " CR " , your mentioned approach, which I

agree with completely, seems like the most logical, simple, sane,

rational and intelligent approach to defining true " CR " in our

worlds.

>

> I would be interested in what literature defines this as " wrong " ,

especially in humans. As most all the data i see in humans, agrees

with this.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Having spent pretty much my entire adult life trying to lose weight or at least

uncomfortable about my weight, I can imagine the

difficulty in thinking in terms not associated with weight loss... I was

pleasantly surprised as I broke through weight barriers

that in the past I never would have tried for. My old diet targets were a few

tens of pounds heavier than I am now.

IMO the way to approach a CR or just plain healthy lifestyle is to focus on

nutrition first. Unless you are in immediate health risk

from your present weight, make small incremental changes to your regular eating

patterns, not severe short term alterations that you

will ultimately abandon. You will have lots of time to get this right.

Focus on food quality. Maximize nutrition while minimizing energy content or

calories. Over time improving the quality of your diet

will lead to remodeling (reduced adipose mass). While the CR mantra is calories,

calories, calories, I have yet to find a simple

accurate way to establish a caloric budget or calculate %CR (for keeping score

or predicting some hypothetical benefit). So

monitoring actual weight seems to be at least effective for determining positive

or negative energy balance.

More good news, if you make this new style of quality eating a habit, at some

point you may find yourself too thin. My new year's

resolution this year was to gain a few pounds. At 147# I was still heavy in

comparison to some CR followers who seem to approach

this as a contest, but my personal assessment was I'd be happier at 150#, and

now after a few months of eating slightly more I am.

This is my long way of saying... relax, don't worry. I would even advise against

firm short term weight targets as your goals will

probably change after a few years of the good (or at least IMO better) life.

Slow and steady, moderation, long term, etc... Life is a journey, not a

destination grasshoppa...

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: cologr8tguy [mailto:cologr8tguy@...]

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:32 PM

Subject: [ ] Why do plateaus happen?

I'm rather impatiently waiting my way through a plateau, which is

probably at my set point weight. I realize from reading the archives

that this is normal and to be expected. That's all fine.

I am curious however if anyone knows what's happening

physiologically during a plateau? A pause in weight loss seems

counter intuitive to the " calories, calories, calories " mantra. If

there are changes to metabolism as the body adapts to lower calorie

input one would expect the rate of weight loss to change in a smooth

way, given the same calorie input.

Any thoughts or studies?

BTW. My thanks and appreciation to all of the well informed posters

here. It helps me stay motivated and get smarter, particularily

about the ON part.

Thanks

Jerry

[Guest guest]

IMO, the best guide for health is waist versus hip measurement, bar none. I can wear a suit I bought about 1976 perfectly. Back then I was 185# and very good condition. My neck was >17.5" and I was not fat at all. So I rather doubt the method using neck versus waist.

The basic criticism that I have is that if you have skinfold too thick, or other measurements that are too high or low, it doesn't translate into a specific food intake or a specific exercise to correct it.

Like, so what do I do?

You CR down and lose fat. Then you CR some more and lose fat and muscle. Then you CR some more and become anorexic perhaps.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:44 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Why do plateaus happen?

Hi JW:And given the much discussed shortcomings of BMI for those of high or low bone and/or muscle mass, a 'happy' combination of BMI, BF% and WC/H might be better than BMI alone, IMO. If one had to select only one, I would choose BF% (DEXA or immersion) fwiw.And are there any other units of measurement that can usefully be added to those three?Rodney.> Not to disagree. > The "wrong" is only from the standpoint of expectations, IMO. I can reduce to whatever weight I think I need to be at, but I have really no idea what the best and lowest risk is, especially having gone up to 234#. The biggest question is not what the ideal weight is but HOW should a body be reduced to an ideal of say BMI 20? How long should one take? With respect to the highest weight of 234#, what should the new ideal BMI be? > These factors have never been determined scientifically.> I think it's safe to say that a guy who gets to 600#, eg, is never going to get to some insurance table weight of 155# and live. Perhaps a 50% reduction is all that can be achieved without surgery. > I struggle at 175 - 180# having dropped from 234#. That's an easy(?) 25 %. I'm not sure I want to be the skinny kid on the block. > I think Tony indicated that first fat is lost then more muscle. At some point there should be some bone weight reduction if this could be done to get back to one's ideal configuration. > I think one in a higher BMI has to concentrate on what he needs to do for better health, rather than a specific target for BMI, body fat as a "CRed" requirement. That's the aspect we struggle with. > I think one who can exist at 180# on 1800 kcals rather than 3000 kcals is CRed even though he doesn't lose weight. > > Regards.