Slow Weight Loss v Inch Loss

Welcome to The Fast Diet The official Fast forums Body Weight loss
Slow Weight Loss v Inch Loss

This topic contains 13 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Ally61 8 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

  • Hi all, I have tried to read older posts regarding this topic but can’t find any real data on it.

    I am on the fourth week of this diet. I am 55 years old, post-menopausal, 5’3″ who was 66kg at the start. I am now 64.5kg and want to get down to 60kg. The instructions in “How it Works” say “it’s easy to comply with a regime that only asks you to restrict your calorie intake occasionally” but I wanted to know how much I was eating on non-fast days so have logged all my calories over that period. On a couple of occasions I have eaten over 2000 calories a day, but mostly I have been between 1500 and 1700 and my average over the time (including the fast days) is 1205.

    So I am actually restricting my calories most days, and I’ve only lost 1.5kg in three weeks. I have friends who have lost a stone in one month (who weren’t big to start with, but younger) and am baffled by the difference. I am possibly just being impatient, but at the moment it seems no different from being on a normal reduced calorie diet. Due to an injury I cannot do high impact exercise.

    One of the replies to this problem has been to take measurements as the measurements will show a difference where the scales don’t.

    What I do not understand at all is how this is possible. For the measurements to shrink, *something* must have changed, even if you’ve just flushed water out. And water weighs. So what scientifically is going on here?

    Thanks in advance for your replies. As I said, I have tried to check older posts but no-one seemed to be able explain why this happened.

    Hi Ally,

    You don’t seem to be aware of Total Daily Energy Expenditure(TDEE). 5:2 is, for females:

    FAST DAYS – 2 non-consecutive Fast Days (FDs) per week – 500cals, or less than 500cals, or 1/4 of your Total Daily Energy Expenditure per FD. (For males 600)

    NON FAST DAYS (NFDs) – 5 nonFDs per week – up to, but not more than, your TDEE. You have to calculate your TDEE. At the top of this page you’ll see a heading ‘Resources’. Click on that, then click on BMI on the drop down menu. On the right hand side of that page you’ll see a calculator for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE). Fill that out, including your physical activity level. On the left hand side you will see descriptions of what each physical activity level means.

    When you have calculated your TDEE level that is the maximum calories per day for your NFDs. This is not a small or restrictive figure. It is actually how many calories your body needs for your sex, height, weight, activity level, on a daily basis. If you eat over this number of calories in a day you are over eating. Eating your TDEE is not restricting calories. It may be less than what you’re used to, but if so, you have been eating/drinking too many calories on a daily basis. This is not new to any of us because this is how we all put on excess weight in the first place.

    Weight loss on 5:2 – On your FDs you eat restricted calories, so only 2 days have restricted calories. Averaging the 7 days out is not needed in 5:2. 5:2 works by the body alternating between normal calories and restricted calories. On the restricted calorie days (FDs) you will lose weight. On the other 5 your aim is to stay somewhat steady. Your weight will go up and down a little bits but it will be in a downward direction.

    Health on 5:2 – this is 5:2,s original intention – to improve health. On the 2 restricted calorie days your body will go into repair mode for that fasting period.

    Please read the thread -Info for Newbies by simcoeluv. It is an excellent overvue of 5:2.

    Merry

    Hi Merry, thanks for your help and reply.

    My TDEE is 1683, which is why I have been eating between 1500 and 1700 calories on non-fast days, apart from a couple of days where I hit 2000. It may be that 1683 what my body needs to survive, but the way the diet is publicised, even on this site, is that you don’t need to think about calories on non-fast days, and that plainly isn’t true (and I wouldn’t actually expect it to be).

    I read the thread but I’m afraid it didn’t really answer my actual question regarding how you can lose inches and not weight.

    Ally,

    There is no magic involved. There is a caveat to you don’t need to think about calories. If you have a good sense of portion control you don’t need to think about calories! I don’t count calories on non fast days or fast days. The trouble is if you are over weight then your sense of portion control probably isn’t what it should be so you may need to count calories, at least initially. A lot of overweight people do not receive clear signals as to when they are satiated and continue to over eat.

    The only way that you an lose inches but not weight is if you replace the fat you have lost with lean mass (muscle). Fat is less dense than lean mass so it will occupy more volume. Lose 10 pounds of fat and replace it with 10 pounds of lean mass and you will be slimmer.

    Hi again Ally,

    TDEE isn’t what you need to survive, it’s what you use on a daily basis. BMR – Basal Metabolic Rate – is what your body uses to stay alive. And stay in stasis i.e. the same. The extra between the 2 is the amount you use extra above BMR to move throughout the day.

    If you read the 5:2 book by Dr Michael Mosley and ……. sorry, doing a momentary blank, you’ll see that it says you can eat whatever you like. It doesn’t say eat as much as you like. It’s talking about types of foods not quantities of food.

    If 1683 is your TDEE, and you stick to <500 on FDs, then it’s any days > than 1683 cals that are stopping you from losing weight quicker.

    Re losing weight versus losing inches: when we lose weight we expect it to be in a steady downward line and our size to go down steadily in concert with it. This is idealistic. Instead, what seems to happen is the weight can go down in steps and stair for some people, and occasionally people plateau for a few weeks. Similarly, losing inches isn’t always steady either. Sometimes weight goes down a bit but inches seem to not move much. Other times weight can plateau but the inches still keep going down. This can be because of our fluid balance in the body, which depends on all sorts of factors. For example, I occasionally retain more fluid than usual, especially if I am overtired, but when I retain fluid it’s often in my feet, ankles and legs not my waist, bust, neck, arms etc. We can retain several lbs of fluid.

    Any info you’ve read about lising weight versus losing inches usually refers to this phenomenon where sometimes people are puzzled why their weight is not reducing. So, checking the measurements is a way of ascertaining whether it’s a fluid retention issue or some other reason for the plateau.

    Another reason for the weight versus inches conversation is that a few people do 5:2 without using scales. Most people use weight as their measure, but some choose to do it by measuring only, and some do it by the fit of their clothes.

    A third area in discussions of weight versus inches is where people can lose internal fat but not show a loss of external inches. This is fat that is wrapped around internal organs which is not good, but some people are more susceptible to.

    Does this answer your question?
    Merry

    Hi Merry

    Thanks again for your answer.

    Unfortunately it doesn’t.

    Say, for example, I weigh 50kg. After 4 weeks on the diet, I still weigh 50kg, but I have lost 10cms from various measurements. The mass which made up those 10cms has to have been lost from somewhere, it can’t just vanish. If it’s water, that had a weight, if it’s visceral fat, that had a weight, if it’s subcutaneous fat, that had a weight. And so that lost weight should be reflected in the scales. This is what I am struggling to understand.

    Thanks bigbooty for your reply – I would love to replace my fat with muscle but that’s sadly not going to happen, should have done it years ago πŸ™‚

    See my answer above. Other than that I don’t know how you can lose inches but still weigh the same.

    Me neither. I started reading the forums to look for other people with very slow weight loss, and there seemed to be lots of people who said they hadn’t lost much weight but their clothes were a lot looser. So I am just a bit baffled by that. You would surely need to be a high end athlete to convert so much fat to muscle in a few weeks? Also if you need to exercise to that level I am doomed πŸ™

    Ally, my non-medical, but long exercising and avid health/food researcher, opinion is:

    1. You do not have to be a high end athlete to convert fat to muscle – but you do have to be doing “something” towards that goal, even walking regularly is excellent exercise for your health. Converting fat to muscle is actually a misnomer; one loses fat and builds muscle, and building new muscle fibers is a process that takes months.

    2. Your body may be, from fasting, learning how to utilize energy differently, and burning fat, so it’s very reasonable you have some fat loss and your clothes are looser.

    3. Your weight isn’t that high to start with; my understanding is that those with less to lose, do so more slowly. You said you had friends losing more, but younger; being post-menopausal is a medically valid condition which affects your rate of weight loss.

    4. Losing weight slowly is the way to go! Being a lifestyle change, vs a diet (ie temporary) means you have a much, much higher chance of losing the weight and keeping it off, verses doing the diet, losing the weight fast, going off the diet, gaining it back. This yo-yo effect is actually worse for your health and metabolism than making small habit changes which result in weight loss over the long term.

    5. You have seen a change in the scales. You said you have lost 1.5 kg, which is over 3 pounds (American here) – have you ever seen how much a pound, or 5 pounds, or a couple kg’s of fat looks like? Sometimes gyms have them. It’s quite a hunk of stuff! Take a pound of fat here or there, and couple that with your small frame, and it is very likely that the inches/cms you are seeing lost are directly correlated to your weight loss.

    So I want to encourage you to embrace where you are, for everyone is different, and steel yourself for the long-term. At 55 years old, your body has been used to a certain mode of consuming and utilizing energy for a long time; it may, it will, take a bit to adjust to this. There are many health benefits to the 5:2 outside of weight loss, and you can encourage yourself that even if the weight isn’t coming off as fast as you like, you are helping yourself become less disposed to getting diabetes, Alzheimers, and certain kinds of cancer.

    Hi Ally and welcome:

    First, the average weight loss on 5:2 is a little less than a pound a week for women. You have lost over 3 pounds in 3 weeks, so you are ahead of the game! The larger weight losses you hear about are mainly water weight, but not everyone loses that much water. It depends on what else they eat – if you eat a lot of carbs, you lose less water weight, for instance.

    As for inches, you are also talking water weight. You note there must be something to it because there is an entire thread talking about it. You understand that it is a very short term issue – measured in a week or two, maybe three. People often think that when they are on a diet they should be losing weight all of the time. Of course, it does not work that way, but they look for a way to stay motivated even though the ‘scales are not moving’.

    If you are doing 5:2 correctly, you will be constantly losing fat, and the weight that goes with it. But if you have done the numbers, you know you will not be losing that much fat that fast (see my TDEE post for an explanation).

    You also understand your weight can vary by day. Just ask anyone who weighs daily and they will tell you their weight can vary by pounds even within a day, much less from day to day. The two major factors are water weight and weight in transit. These variables can affect weight not only for hours but for days and weeks. If you read my plateau post you know that it really isn’t a plateau unless you don’t lose any weight for at least a month.

    So how can you lose ‘inches’ and not lose ‘weight’? If you stick to the diet you will be losing fat. That fat may be lost from any part of the body. Let’s say the stomach. So your stomach measurement goes down. But, for whatever reason(s) your body at the same time is retaining water. That water deposits itself in cells all over the body, not only in the stomach area. So your stomach measurement goes down because of fat loss, but your weight remains the same because water and its weight has taken residence in other parts of the body.

    Again, this is a short term thing (less than a month), and unless you are really exercising a lot over a long period of time it won’t continue. I remember losing 4 inches from my waist but gaining 5 pounds after six months of training for a race.

    So there is a simple explanation. Here are some tips: https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/the-basics-for-newbies-your-questions-answered/

    Good Luck!

    Hi J-Ray and Simcoeluv

    Many thanks for your kind words of encouragement πŸ™‚

    I shall plod on and hope. I totally agree with your opinions that being older and not needing to lose too much probably means it’ll be a slow journey, which does make it easier for a new way of eating to become habit. Luckily I find the fast days quite easy.

    Thanks also for the description of the water rearrangement, that makes a lot of sense and makes things easier to understand. Tomorrow is a weigh day, so I hopefully will see a reduction in both fat and water!

    Thanks to all for your help.

    Just reread your intro post. You’ve lost 0.5kg per week and you only weigh 64.5kg. Id say that’s pretty good, so where’s the problem? I went from 92 to 70 kg and it took a year so that’s 0.4kg per week average loss. Fat has 9.3 cal/gram. So if you’re restricting your intake by 2000 cal per week then 2000 divide 9.3 = 215 grams per week. There is no magic. A light person will lose at a far slower rate than an overweight person.

    Yes, I think I just have to be realistic – long term is best!

    But down to 63.7kg this morning so getting there πŸ™‚

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply.