So confused over a plateau, exercising, and calories

[raykb]

A year and a half ago, I was at an all-time high of 218 pounds. From that point, I started a very consistent diet with light exercise (mostly walking) and dropped to my goal of 165. Since I was already on a roll, I lost some more weight, though at a much slower pace, until I reached 157. It seemed to come to a halt at that point, so I settled, since I had already surpassed my goal. After that, I gained a few pounds here and there, but kept it stable at around 165 for the past year. Recently, I went on a diet again and reached 160 doing the same things I had done before. I seemed to reach a plateau at 160, so I joined the gym to help shed more weight. It worked initially, and I went down to 157 again. However, I seem to have reached another plateau that has lasted for the past week. I've been keeping my caloric intake very low (possibly too low) without starving myself. I have also been exercising 1.5 hours every day for the past week, with a 30 minute walk after dinner. My workout is pretty much exclusively intensive cardio, since I am not really trying to gain muscle mass. A reduction of calories and increase of exercise would surely be unhealthy, as I am already quite drained of energy with my current routine. I'm having trouble deciding what to do at this point. Should I increase my caloric intake? Reduce my exercise? Continue with my regular routine? Any suggestions would help a lot.

[kbfunTH]

Do you know how your calorie intake compares to your RMR? Is it below, barely above, or several hundred calories above? Assuming your food intake is a few hundred calories above your RMR and your exercise times are at their maximum, then you'll need to figure out a way to burn more calories while active.

The two best ways I know of, are interval/circuit training and wearing a weighted vest. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe for every 10 lbs you add to your body, you burn an additional 3 calories per minute.

If your calories are too low, then it's very likely your metabolism has slowed in an effort to preserve energy. Increase your intake a little, but be patient, as it may take a few weeks to bring your RMR back up to normal.

Any idea what bodyfat percentage you're currently at?

[raykb]

My calories were definitely too low (compared to my RMR and other calculators) for at least the past 5 days, as I was trying to get over the plateau. I have since increased my calories a bit, but I'm still not sure whether I should increase, decrease, or keep my level of exercise. It's also important to add that in 2 weeks, I will be returning to school and my membership to the gym will be expiring. I will most likely be returning to light exercise at that point. Any suggestions on the ideal calorie intake/level of exercise for the next 2 weeks?

[kaypeeoh]

I've never understood the plateau phenomenon. If you are keeping up the heart rate by exercising, you should continue to lose weight. It may be you're slowing down so the heart isn't working as hard. Worrying about weight never helps. I don't use a scale. I use a skin-fold caliper. This tells me my body fat percentage. My weight might fluctuate several pounds up or down in a week but the caliper never lies. Costs around $20 in any runner's store.

If you are working hard, the muscles can retain water causing the scale to read more than your true weight. Another reason why I prefer the caliper.

[kbfunTH]

There's really not enough information here to accurately tell what is going on.

What I would likely do in this situation is determine my RMR and my TDEE first (http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/ch4calcs.html). I would then bring my calories up to the high end between these two numbers, which will still leave you with a calorie deficit and start doing some weight training if not already doing it. If at this point, you feel your calories are still to low, increase them to somewhere around your TDEE and then add some activities to help you burn whatever extra you need.

If your calorie intake is already at an optimum level and you're still not seeing the weight loss, you will have to figure out a way to increase your calorie burn during your current activities to compensate for the metabolic adaptations that have taken place.

The leaner you get, the more LBM that is lost compared to fat mass. At your height, you shouldn't be far from your ideal weight anyway. Are you getting plenty of protein and resistance exercise?

[raykb]

My caloric intake is about half of what is listed by most metabolic calculators, though all of my meals are full. Most of those calories are burned in my daily workout at the gym alone. I only began intensive workouts a little over a week ago, so it's surprising that my body could have adapted so quickly. My meals/caloric intake prior to joining the gym are basically the same as they are now. I feel like I would have to pig out to increase my calories, as there is no starvation with my diet as it is. Since I will be unable to continue this level of exercise in two weeks, I want to avoid adapting my body to increased exercise/caloric levels, only to have it adapt to what is was before in such little time. Basically, I am looking for the best short-term solution to lose these last few pounds while I still have access to the gym.

[watcher16]

The BAD:

Well ray, you give all the info you need in your post. What is the part of the calculation that gives difficulty?

If you eat less than 300-500 below the amount your body needs with your activity level you are starving yourself.

Your body will resist against it with all possible means, and burn muscle and store fat as soon as possible. Just to assure survival incase you do this once more.

If you repeat this kind of dieting you will destroy your body. :devil:

The GOOD:

It looks to me your weight is not any problem, so start eating more clean, healthy food. Be happy and grow a better body.
Much more simple than the problems many people have! :D

[raykb]

Ouch. Never thought eating more salad and exercising more would actually be bad for my diet! I will be able to increase my calories to a safe level according to my RMR without any dramatic change, but what's the best way to compensate for the exercising? Should my exercise be decreased day-by-day, or should I completely stop going to the gym ASAP?

[kaypeeoh]

I saved this from somewhere on this web but I can't find the original source. It talks about weight loss from interval training. It's been fairly well established that interval training causes faster weight loss. This happens in part because very intense exercise stimulates growth hormone secretion. You don't need a gym. Just good running shoes and perhaps a nearby hill. If there's a downside to intervals, it's that the risk of injury goes up.

Here's the part I saved:

Stephen "Yes, You Can Shorten Your Workouts AND Burn More Fat" I've been telling my clients forever that long, slow distance (LSD) aerobic training is greatly overrated for burning fat. Here's even more scientific proof that you should be running (or whatever) harder, not longer. You can get more well-researched, up-to-date and accurate fitness information by subscribing to Christian Finn's Weekly Research Update at http://TheFactsAboutFitness.com. I do! - Stephen
-------------------------------------
Over the past few years, there's been a rise in the popularity of interval exercise as a way of promoting greater fat loss. In his best-selling book, Body-for-LIFE, Bill Phillips recommends a series of intervals lasting 60 seconds.
But is this really the best way to train for rapid weight loss? Where's the evidence for interval training?
Several studies have compared interval training to more traditional forms of continuous aerobic exercise, with the majority pointing the way to interval exercise as a superior way to lose weight.
One of the more recent trials was published in Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise [4].
A group of overweight women were assigned to one of two groups. The first group trained using high intensity intervals, which involved 2 minutes of intense effort (95% of VO2max) alternated with 3 minutes at a lower intensity (25% of VO2max).
Group two exercised at a steady state (50% of VO2max). The lengths of the workouts were varied so that both groups burned 300 calories per session.
Results showed that fitness levels in the interval group increased by 13%. No such improvements were found in the steady state group.
Changes in body fat were also greater in subjects using interval training.
According to the research team, "... even if caloric expenditure during exercise is equal, higher intensity exercise may further aid weight loss due to an acute increase in energy expenditure up to 24 hours following exercise."
These findings have been confirmed by researchers from the University of Alabama, who showed that 24-hour energy expenditure was 160 calories greater in subjects performing high-intensity interval training rather than continuous exercise [5].
Although this research does show that interval training has an important role to play in reducing body fat, there's a growing body of evidence to show that intervals lasting one minute or longer might not be the best way to cut body fat.
Short or long intervals?
Research published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology compared the fat-burning effects of two different interval training workouts, both lasting 40 minutes [2].
The first consisted of short intervals lasting 6 seconds, with 9-second rest periods. The second workout involved long intervals lasting 24 seconds, with 36-second rest periods.
It's important to note that the treadmill speed was identical during both the short and long interval workouts. Moreover, the ratio between work and recovery bouts was also the same, meaning that the total amount of time spent running on the treadmill (16 minutes) was also identical.
Despite the fact that exercise intensity and duration were kept constant during both trials, there were large differences in fat oxidation.
In fact, the number of fat calories burned was approximately 3 times LOWER during the long (24 seconds) interval workout.
To understand why the short intervals were so much more effective at increasing fat oxidation, it's important to understand a little more about a substance called myoglobin.
What is myoglobin?
Myoglobin is a large protein that binds to oxygen inside your muscle cells [3]. Think of it a little like a "reserve" oxygen supply.
Per Olof Astrand, whose Textbook of Work Physiology is required reading for many exercise science students, first proposed a role for myoglobin as an oxygen store during interval exercise way back in the 1960's [1].
According to Astrand, myoglobin is repeatedly used and reloaded during the work and recovery phases of interval exercise. However, as the duration of the work period's increase, myoglobin stores are reduced.
Your body needs more oxygen to use fat as a fuel (compared to carbohydrate or protein). When oxygen supplies become limited, carbohydrate supplies a greater proportion of energy.
Because lactic acid, a by-product of carbohydrate metabolism, "blocks" fat burning, intervals that continue beyond the point at which myoglobin loses its supply of oxygen rely to a greater extent on carbohydrate as a source of energy.
How long do myoglobin stores last?
Myoglobin holds enough oxygen to last for 5-15 seconds [1]. This explains why short, rather than long intervals appear to promote a greater rise in fat oxidation.
As such, if your goal is to lose fat, then limit your work intervals to a maximum of 15 seconds.
Studies also show that shorter intervals don't feel as physically demanding as long intervals -- so you can get better results without feeling like you're working harder.
How long should my rest intervals last?
This depends on the duration of the work intervals. The longer the work interval, the more myoglobin gets used up, and the longer it takes to "reload".
The study we looked at earlier used rest intervals that were 1.5 times greater than the work intervals (6 seconds work: 9 seconds rest).
Based on these findings, a 15-second work interval would require a minimum of 22 seconds rest.
If you've never tried interval training, a rest period lasting 45 seconds might be a good place to start. As your fitness level gradually improves, you'll be able to gradually reduce your rest time.
References

[foxgluvs]

Sometimes too you have to bear in mind that although your previous goal was say 157 - being on LC is a different story. My mother was always a size 6 with a weight of 140lbs, but when she lost weight this time she went to a size 4 with 147lbs. That 7lbs really bothered her, but I pointed out that she is actually smaller now than she was pre-LC and might be at a higher weight, but really what does it matter if you are actually smaller than before?
I think that on LC for some reason only known to the powers that be, your goal weight will be a little higher, perhaps maybe it's because you gain more muscle on LC than on any other plan.
I wouldn't worry too much, if your body says you should be at that point, then maybe it's time to listen to it and accept that your weight will remain at that level...
Just a thought.

[kbfunTH]

My caloric intake is about half of what is listed by most metabolic calculators, though all of my meals are full. Most of those calories are burned in my daily workout at the gym alone. I only began intensive workouts a little over a week ago, so it's surprising that my body could have adapted so quickly. My meals/caloric intake prior to joining the gym are basically the same as they are now. I feel like I would have to pig out to increase my calories, as there is no starvation with my diet as it is. Since I will be unable to continue this level of exercise in two weeks, I want to avoid adapting my body to increased exercise/caloric levels, only to have it adapt to what is was before in such little time. Basically, I am looking for the best short-term solution to lose these last few pounds while I still have access to the gym.

You can always find a location near you that does BodyGem RMR testing. This will give you a very accurate number of how many calories you burn while at rest. If you really want to continue like you are, then you will have to drop your calories even more and up your calorie burn as well. Being that your calories are already below (judging from your description) your minimum, I think it would be unhealthy to go this route.

The metabolic formulas used to determine RMR have been studied extensively and are accurate. If I was in your shoes, I would keep my level of activity, or adapt it now to what you will be doing in the weeks to come and then up the calories to atleast RMR, if not several hundred calories higher. I would do this with a majority of protein and fats, keeping carbs down to around 25%.