[sirtastic]

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I worked out it went nowhere. I was borderline starving myself and everything I read said "it's simple calorie in vs out". It became obvious to me that wasn't always true. It's frustrating to hear people spew that when I'm weighing chicken breasts with 110% certainty of what my caloric intake is vs my out and here I was, not losing a damn pound.

I wish I could say I know what was going on. I have theories as I spent months of my life trying to turn the tables. I eventually gave up and just continued to lift weights and eat normal. Now 4 years later I still have that fat I couldn't lose but I'm a lot bigger (muscle). That fat hasn't gone anywhere and in the 4 years I've yo-yo'd with different attempts to get rid of it. The fat I have is not normal.

[Goronmon]

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet.

I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months.

You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet can be wildly successful. The former quote seems provably false using the latter.

Honestly, this is what I just read from your post.

I can't lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. Here is an example of how I lost a huge amount of weight on a restricted calorie diet.

[sirtastic]

Not saying it isn't effective, just only that it doesn't work in some cases. It's a fallacy to say it's simply calories in vs out. As I said in my post, I lost weight but then I stopped losing weight and still haven't lost a large amount of weight using that method.

[mordocai]

I would think that if you've hit a plateau on weight loss within a health weight range (which from the sounds of it, you are within a healthy weight range) then you won. Maintain that, and don't worry about having a little extra fat.

[pil4rin]

Maintaining a reduced calorie diet seems to be the issue, most people cannot do this.

[sirtastic]

Wrong. I maintained ~1200 calorie life style for several extended periods after losing my initial weight in an effort to get rid of the last 10sh lbs of fat with no success. If its simply calories in vs out then I would have succeeded several times over. It's not simply in vs out in some cases which is what I'm trying to point out and what Goronmon has failed to understand.

[Goronmon]

It's not simply in vs out in some cases which is what I'm trying to point out and what Goronmon has failed to understand.

You'll never find a diet/exercise/plan that allows one to achieve indefinite weight lose.

[sirtastic]

Funny as that happens to be exactly what I'm arguing. "it's not as simple as cal in vs out."

[chillingeffect]

How tall are you? What's your build? Yours sounds like a pretty damn successful story, congrats!

Calorie in vs. calorie out is a simplistic way of looking at it. It is certainly true for a first-order approach, though. There is much more to it, such as timing, consumption of fiber with sugar, metabolism, etc. etc. However, the most important factor which should be taken on first for the largest immediate changes is calorie in/out.

I'm curious how much fat you have now? In my experience: With effort I was able to get to about 90% of my goals, but the last 10% is extremely stubborn and I haven't been able to get past it. From what I understand, it would require extreme tactics, such as 10 hours of sleep nightly, eliminating all stress and amino acid accounting to eliminate.

I might suggest reducing the cardio greatly and replacing it with briefer, higher-intensity cardio, btw. The body seems to adjust intake demands very well in response to cardio. Also, what supplements do you use? Finally, I'm a little concerned when you say the fat you have is not normal - you may be straying into the unrealistic psychological zone, but obviously I can't tell much from here. I just don't want you to be obsessing over a physique that is already quite acceptable. Congrats again, your discipline should be inspiring to lots of people... hope you comment doesn't stay gray long.

[sirtastic]

5'9, I would say mesomorphic build with maybe a lean towards endo (I can put on muscle mass easily). Definitely a good success story, 70+ lbs in 7 months aint easy! I've tried a great deal of things. Uping fiber, zero carbohydrates (most effective at weight loss), fasting, intermittent fasting (also very effective with zero/low carb).

Can't say how much I have at the moment. Definitely in an upswing since I've been trying to bulk a little. I has this incredible ability to store water (most likely do to fat deposits) and look fluffy. If I zero out my carbs I will piss 20x that day and at 180 lbs the fat will look exactly the same as it did when I was at 148 lbs. Once I look at some bread my body will hold onto everything I drink and I'll fluff right up.

I've read that the last 10% will take all the effort of the first 90% and then some. I tried as I could to power through it and I can honestly say whatever is keep that last 10% is stronger than I am. When you starve for several weeks straight and lose nothing it's hard not to be defeated. I've considered for several years now going under the knife to win it but the prohibitive cost has kept me away from that and the desire to not be defeated by my body.

As I mentioned I've cycled weight lifting / cardio / diet dozens of times over the last few years to keep my body guessing without success.

Supplements: fish oil, multi-vit, whey, creatine, and sometimes fiber.

By not normal I mean old brown adipose or subcutaneous fat with very poor circulation which inhibits the bodies ability to flush hormones through it. This is the fat I've had for 20sh years (was overweight as a child) and I believe the body has practically forgotten about it so to speak.

[nashequilibrium]

Have you considered that it's excess skin because your weight was pretty high for your height and you were losing over 10lbs a month?

[sirtastic]

Absolutely. Definitely not excess skin.

[soundwave106]

One problem with calories is it definitely is not a simple mathematical "calories in / calories out" formula. Roughly it is a good guideline. But the body also is able to adapt to changes in calorie consumption and mass. (See myth #1.)

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article...

Most advice I've heard suggests that going way below your basal metabolic rate calorie consumption isn't that great of an idea, because your body adapts to that reduced calorie range (some people call this "starvation mode"). I would hazard a guess (though this is just a postulate without any data I could find) that this especially applies when you are at a more "normal" weight already.

There's a reason why weight loss is often described as a "lifestyle change".

[sirtastic]

I've considered "starvation mode" and for a while I tried cycling my caloric needs (high week, vs low week or two) in fruitless attempts to game my body. I attempted this in larger cycles as well, several months normal vs several weeks of intense dieting. Same issues. The fat wouldn't budge, I'd drop all the water my cells held onto during carb up periods and the fat would sit there. Gives the impression I've lost weight but it was really just water.

My theory from my research is that the fat in question is the oldest (fat I've had since youth) and do to it's age has poor vascularity which inhibits the bodies ability to mobilize it. I've read somewhere that your body will over time reduce blood flow to fat (the veins will over time diminish in size and density those areas) which reduces the flow of hormones into that fat and subsequently your bodies ability to break it down and expel it when needed.

I'm no anatomy expert and this is something I read many years ago so I can't argue it's accurate.

[SpaceCadetJones]

Are you sure it wasn't a mental issue? How were you measuring fat? 5'9 and 148lb isn't close to being overweight. I'm just under 140lb at 5'9 and I'm quite thin. It looks like I have some around my stomach due to poor posture, but that's it.

[sirtastic]

Definitely not. If you are curious I have pictures. (at home, would need to wait till I'm off work)

[asadkn]

It's frustrating for sure. And it's not as simple as everyone makes it to be.

The calorie in / calorie out has a lot of variables that need adjustment. It's very important not to go on an aggressive diet but requires working down from what you consume right now where the weight is stable (maintenance calories). Unfortunately, what most people don't talk about is the effect of LBM loss and its effect on the RMR/BMR [1]. Your energy expenditure decreases further as you lose the LBM. It will be further worsened if you went for a very aggressive weight loss strategy with very low calories as your body will adjust to that and your hormones might be temporarily imbalanced [2].

Weight lifting and a full strategy for fat loss is essential for long-term success.

I personally do believe metabolic damage (or the better term metabolic slowdown) does happen, but it can be fixed by gradually going back to the correct maintenance calories with a solid weight lifting program (3x per week works) to back it up for a few months. This will result in some gains in the short-term (hopefully more of it being LBM). And you can go back to the fat loss phase again from there.

To add to it, the course the calorie in / calorie out model isn't as simple since macros still need some thought. You definitely need about 0.6-0.8g of protein / lb of bodyweight to gain muscle or about 0.8-0.9g / lb to maintain it at times of calorie deficit. [3]

[1]: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-mai... [2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816/ [3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

[eigenvalue]

You might be a good candidate for some newer devices for non-invasive fat removal. Take a look at CoolSculpting, which freezes fat cells (leading to apoptosis), or Vanquish, which uses deep RF stimulation to heat fat cells and kill them. CoolSculpting has been around for about 5 years and has already been used for over 3 million treatments and seems to be pretty safe and effective. Vanquish and SculpSure (uses lasers) are much newer.

[sirtastic]

Looking into these though I'm always wary of things like these. Any personal experience?

[ZeroFries]

At what body fat percentage does your weight loss stall at? Are you insulin sensitive? Do you have good testosterone levels? Do you have a high stress lifestyle or chronic anxiety, or consistent sleep deprivation? You can get these things tested, and they may give you clues as to what's going on. Your body won't burn the fat you'd like it to if it's not in a good hormonal state.

[sirtastic]

I can't comment on bodyfat percentages since I've yet to do an accurate (float) test. I've used the electronic method before and it was at around 17-21% at the lowest). I can't comment on insulin sensitivity, never been tested. Testosterone levels were normal. Stress and anxiety comes and goes, would say it's regularly above average but over 5 years there has to have been times where it was normal during very cardiovascular heightened periods (backpacked the pacific crest trail), same goes for sleep. I sleep well 80% of the time I feel.

[funkyy]

Calories counting diet always work. What you are seeing here is miscalculation probably. Here, send me a PM and I will look over your diet. There is NO WAY you could be on a "fatter" side eating only 1200 calories. You wont cheat the chemistry, you wont run a car on half the fuel it needs.