For what length of time have you been eating in a deficit? Your metabolic rate can drop when deficits are sustained over long stretches. Refeeds or diet breaks may be worth exploring.
View: https://youtu.be/8HVdLMnr40M?si=S-ISshxcVQ2nB7uR
What am I doing wrong?
- Thread starter HereKittyKitty
- Start date
View: https://youtu.be/8HVdLMnr40M?si=S-ISshxcVQ2nB7uR
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
It's been going on for quite a while. Breaking my usual eating patterns isn't something I do on a regular basis — only a handful of times each year. Perhaps I should be doing it more frequently? The thought of that makes me anxious. It's likely I should go back to my RD to get things back on track.
In 2019 I was dx with T2, and 5y ago I had WLS to reverse it — which worked. More than half my weight came off. From nadir I put on 25#, and my goal is to land a bit under that nadir. My diet is something I'm obsessive about.
Edited for spelling
In 2019 I was dx with T2, and 5y ago I had WLS to reverse it — which worked. More than half my weight came off. From nadir I put on 25#, and my goal is to land a bit under that nadir. My diet is something I'm obsessive about.
Edited for spelling
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
So what comes next?
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
Looks like booking an appointment with my RD is genuinely necessary.
lessthanhalf
Explorer
Type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery, and sitting at 50% of your former body weight can account for a fair amount of weight stability despite eating so few calories. Research on how metabolism adapts over the long haul after weight loss is limited, yet it remains entirely plausible that a reduced metabolic rate can stick around for years—or even forever—following substantial weight reduction. That said, it does not offer much relief for what you are dealing with.
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
Got it! I'll take care of that. Thanks for pointing it out.
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
I stayed at a healthy weight for the majority of my life, and I swam at Masters level. The effects trauma has on someone can be terrible.
Wait… only 900 calories per day when she's also doing cardio plus resistance training 4–5 days each week?
There's no reason to drag the whole “starvation mode” argument into this. For that amount of activity, that intake is simply far too low. Eventually the body is going to cut back on energy expenditure.
And the extreme symptoms people expect from serious restriction — feeling cold all the time, being wiped out — don't show up for everyone.
If the GLP has killed her appetite to the point where 900 calories is the maximum she can get down, that strongly suggests the current dose is too high.
Sure, the human body is capable of some truly impressive adaptations — but it isn't performing miracles.
Calories aren't my preferred final word on measuring what someone eats, I'll admit that much. Still, once intake falls low enough, there are thermodynamic walls that no hormonal regulatory system can push past, and at that point calories take over.
If OP can still string together coherent sentences and doesn't need a heavy sweater just to stay warm inside, then it sounds like their body still has energy-conserving options in reserve that it hasn't used yet.
That said, I do believe OP — I've encountered other very experienced people in the extreme end of the extreme diet world who ended up in comparable binds. And there are definitely unusual medical conditions, lipedema being one (not saying OP has it, only using it as an illustration), where something goes wrong and the body either cannot or will not release what looks like stored fat.
So yes, it's true that not every person on a very-low calorie diet will deal with shivering, crushing fatigue, or mental fog. Even so, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that OP stalled under those circumstances AND did it without the body having to pull any of the extreme adaptations I listed.
tubby said:
Sure, the human body is capable of some truly impressive adaptations — but it isn't performing miracles.
Calories aren't my preferred final word on measuring what someone eats, I'll admit that much. Still, once intake falls low enough, there are thermodynamic walls that no hormonal regulatory system can push past, and at that point calories take over.
If OP can still string together coherent sentences and doesn't need a heavy sweater just to stay warm inside, then it sounds like their body still has energy-conserving options in reserve that it hasn't used yet.
That said, I do believe OP — I've encountered other very experienced people in the extreme end of the extreme diet world who ended up in comparable binds. And there are definitely unusual medical conditions, lipedema being one (not saying OP has it, only using it as an illustration), where something goes wrong and the body either cannot or will not release what looks like stored fat.
So yes, it's true that not every person on a very-low calorie diet will deal with shivering, crushing fatigue, or mental fog. Even so, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that OP stalled under those circumstances AND did it without the body having to pull any of the extreme adaptations I listed.
Maybe we're taking the theorizing too far here.
Taking in only 900 calories daily, combined with cardio and resistance training 4–5 days per week, is just an extremely low amount of energy.
Your body doesn't need to be so cold you're shivering in a sweater or so foggy you can't put sentences together before it begins conserving energy. At times, that "adaptation" simply presents as a stall.
When the medication kills appetite so thoroughly that 900 calories is the maximum that fits, that's typically a strong indicator the dose is higher than necessary — particularly for someone who is already near their goal.
Your reasoning has it reversed. It's not that the plateau serves as the adaptation mechanism — rather, the plateau comes about because of that mechanism. When someone's intake sits at 900 calories and they're also leading an active life, the body might respond through various adjustments (think severe cold sensitivity, or shutting down other important functions). It's not as if the body performs a trick and declares "CO is 900 now with no trade offs in functionality." To bring CO down to 900 calories while someone stays physically active, the body must sacrifice some functionality — that's the only route.Jfrick11 said:
tubby said:
Sure, the human body is capable of some truly impressive adaptations — but it isn't performing miracles.
Calories aren't my preferred final word on measuring what someone eats, I'll admit that much. Still, once intake falls low enough, there are thermodynamic walls that no hormonal regulatory system can push past, and at that point calories take over.
If OP can still string together coherent sentences and doesn't need a heavy sweater just to stay warm inside, then it sounds like their body still has energy-conserving options in reserve that it hasn't used yet.
That said, I do believe OP — I've encountered other very experienced people in the extreme end of the extreme diet world who ended up in comparable binds. And there are definitely unusual medical conditions, lipedema being one (not saying OP has it, only using it as an illustration), where something goes wrong and the body either cannot or will not release what looks like stored fat.
So yes, it's true that not every person on a very-low calorie diet will deal with shivering, crushing fatigue, or mental fog. Even so, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that OP stalled under those circumstances AND did it without the body having to pull any of the extreme adaptations I listed.
Maybe we're taking the theorizing too far here.
Taking in only 900 calories daily, combined with cardio and resistance training 4–5 days per week, is just an extremely low amount of energy.
Your body doesn't need to be so cold you're shivering in a sweater or so foggy you can't put sentences together before it begins conserving energy. At times, that "adaptation" simply presents as a stall.
When the medication kills appetite so thoroughly that 900 calories is the maximum that fits, that's typically a strong indicator the dose is higher than necessary — particularly for someone who is already near their goal.
I'm not claiming there's no mechanism by which the body lowers energy expenditure. What I'm saying is that those adaptations aren't necessarily huge or easy to spot.tubby said:
Your reasoning has it reversed. It's not that the plateau serves as the adaptation mechanism — rather, the plateau comes about because of that mechanism. When someone's intake sits at 900 calories and they're also leading an active life, the body might respond through various adjustments (think severe cold sensitivity, or shutting down other important functions). It's not as if the body performs a trick and declares "CO is 900 now with no trade offs in functionality." To bring CO down to 900 calories while someone stays physically active, the body must sacrifice some functionality — that's the only route.Jfrick11 said:
tubby said:
Sure, the human body is capable of some truly impressive adaptations — but it isn't performing miracles.
Calories aren't my preferred final word on measuring what someone eats, I'll admit that much. Still, once intake falls low enough, there are thermodynamic walls that no hormonal regulatory system can push past, and at that point calories take over.
If OP can still string together coherent sentences and doesn't need a heavy sweater just to stay warm inside, then it sounds like their body still has energy-conserving options in reserve that it hasn't used yet.
That said, I do believe OP — I've encountered other very experienced people in the extreme end of the extreme diet world who ended up in comparable binds. And there are definitely unusual medical conditions, lipedema being one (not saying OP has it, only using it as an illustration), where something goes wrong and the body either cannot or will not release what looks like stored fat.
So yes, it's true that not every person on a very-low calorie diet will deal with shivering, crushing fatigue, or mental fog. Even so, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that OP stalled under those circumstances AND did it without the body having to pull any of the extreme adaptations I listed.
Maybe we're taking the theorizing too far here.
Taking in only 900 calories daily, combined with cardio and resistance training 4–5 days per week, is just an extremely low amount of energy.
Your body doesn't need to be so cold you're shivering in a sweater or so foggy you can't put sentences together before it begins conserving energy. At times, that "adaptation" simply presents as a stall.
When the medication kills appetite so thoroughly that 900 calories is the maximum that fits, that's typically a strong indicator the dose is higher than necessary — particularly for someone who is already near their goal.
Often it's small drops in NEAT, changes in hormones, and better metabolic efficiency that go unnoticed by the person.... and yes, that can definitely lead to a stall.
Regardless, 900 calories at that activity level is still extremely low, and if appetite suppression means that's the only amount someone can take in, it's reasonable to wonder if the dose is just too high at this point.
When I moved from Sema to Reta, the same thing happened to me. Nothing budged for several months, until I reached 8 mgs — then the loss kicked in again. Once it did, I hit my goal weight in 8 weeks! So be patient, keep increasing the dose, and with luck you'll make it too.
That's basically what I'm getting at too, so we see it the same way. When someone's intake sits at 1500 calories, I could accept that small drops might slip by without being noticed — though honestly, even at that level paired with that volume of exercise, I'd still have some doubt. But 900 calories while being extremely active, and those cuts still going unnoticed? That just seems unbelievable. Of course, there's plenty I don't know, and your threshold for calling something very low calorie may not match mine.Jfrick11 said:
I'm not claiming there's no mechanism by which the body lowers energy expenditure. What I'm saying is that those adaptations aren't necessarily huge or easy to spot.tubby said:
Your reasoning has it reversed. It's not that the plateau serves as the adaptation mechanism — rather, the plateau comes about because of that mechanism. When someone's intake sits at 900 calories and they're also leading an active life, the body might respond through various adjustments (think severe cold sensitivity, or shutting down other important functions). It's not as if the body performs a trick and declares "CO is 900 now with no trade offs in functionality." To bring CO down to 900 calories while someone stays physically active, the body must sacrifice some functionality — that's the only route.Jfrick11 said:
tubby said:
Sure, the human body is capable of some truly impressive adaptations — but it isn't performing miracles.
Calories aren't my preferred final word on measuring what someone eats, I'll admit that much. Still, once intake falls low enough, there are thermodynamic walls that no hormonal regulatory system can push past, and at that point calories take over.
If OP can still string together coherent sentences and doesn't need a heavy sweater just to stay warm inside, then it sounds like their body still has energy-conserving options in reserve that it hasn't used yet.
That said, I do believe OP — I've encountered other very experienced people in the extreme end of the extreme diet world who ended up in comparable binds. And there are definitely unusual medical conditions, lipedema being one (not saying OP has it, only using it as an illustration), where something goes wrong and the body either cannot or will not release what looks like stored fat.
So yes, it's true that not every person on a very-low calorie diet will deal with shivering, crushing fatigue, or mental fog. Even so, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that OP stalled under those circumstances AND did it without the body having to pull any of the extreme adaptations I listed.
Maybe we're taking the theorizing too far here.
Taking in only 900 calories daily, combined with cardio and resistance training 4–5 days per week, is just an extremely low amount of energy.
Your body doesn't need to be so cold you're shivering in a sweater or so foggy you can't put sentences together before it begins conserving energy. At times, that "adaptation" simply presents as a stall.
When the medication kills appetite so thoroughly that 900 calories is the maximum that fits, that's typically a strong indicator the dose is higher than necessary — particularly for someone who is already near their goal.
Often it's small drops in NEAT, changes in hormones, and better metabolic efficiency that go unnoticed by the person.... and yes, that can definitely lead to a stall.
Regardless, 900 calories at that activity level is still extremely low, and if appetite suppression means that's the only amount someone can take in, it's reasonable to wonder if the dose is just too high at this point.
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
I appreciate everyone's responses. I've reached out to my RD with a message so we can set up a time to meet. Curious to hear what her suggestion will be.
If she says so, I have no problem reducing how much I take!
If she says so, I have no problem reducing how much I take!
Appreciate you sharing that video — the material was great. Turns out I've been following the "refeed" approach without realizing it....
Maintenance for me (TDEE) sits near 2,700 calories. During the week, Monday through Friday, I take in roughly 1,800 calories. Come Saturday and Sunday, I stop tracking altogether, so the number is a mystery, though I'd guess it lands somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 calories, and Saturday tends to be the bigger of the 2 days. Being able to look forward to a couple of higher-calorie days makes it easier to stick with the lower intake Monday through Friday. My hope is that this pattern supports my metabolism instead of tanking it, which is what might happen if I just held steady at, say, 2,200 calories every day for 7 days. On top of that, I'm not shivering and I can still string coherent thoughts together — though my colleagues might disagree
— but that's a whole separate matter.