Why am I not losing anything?

[TomAllenWife]

I have a stone to lose.
I'm 45 and am noticing that even one cheat meal a week means zero loss

I exercise 4 times per week. 2 body combat, 2 weights sessions, each burning about 300-400 cals.

A typical day looks like:
Fast until 11am
Protein yoghurt
Lunch usually tuna or egg salad
Handful of almonds (no more than 8)
Dinner is something like chilli with cauliflower rice, or fajitas but I'll have lettuce cups

I drink alcohol thurs - Sunday typically which I know isn't great but surely that can't be the only factor that is preventing me from shaping up

I'm seeing all these different ads on FB like V Shred and how women in their 40s shouldn't be doing hours of exercise etc etc but don't know if it's all scams

Can anyone please shed any light on what's going on for me

Walk walk walk..fast and you will shed the weight.

This would be supported by a lot of the theory behind MAF training.

If you are “insulin resistant” then you can’t effectively move glucose from your blood into cells for storage.

I don’t see how that fits in with the theory that too much insulin = increased weight gain. If you’re insulin resistant then how is excess glucose moved into fat storage? As I understand it, the insulin receptors which signal the body to turn insulin production off become overloaded and less receptive. It's the insulin receptors which are resistant. This in turns means higher blood insulin level which means excess glucose is moved into fat storage.

As I understand it, the insulin receptors which signal the body to turn insulin production off become overloaded and less receptive. It's the insulin receptors which are resistant. This in turns means higher blood insulin level which means excess glucose is moved into fat storage

But surely blood insulin doesn’t matter if insulin receptors are resistant- the insulin cannot signal them to take up glucose from the blood. Same effect- high blood glucose, as we see in diabetics which is then excreted through the kidneys, not into fat.

Bottom line as far as I can see is if insulin doesn’t do it’s job, whether that’s because it can’t trigger glucose uptake because cells are resistant, there is no glucose moving into cells and therefore how does fat storage increase?

But surely blood insulin doesn’t matter if insulin receptors are resistant- the insulin cannot signal them to take up glucose from the blood.

Because the body compensates and can over compensate by producing more and more insulin. Some receptors still do work. But the body will produce more insulin until it it can't and then you're right the whole system is truly kaput.

Here:

www.diabetes.co.uk/hyperinsulinemia.html

Oh and if you have elevated levels of insulin it can trigger hunger which starts the whole vicious circle up again...

I was just about to say- dredging up by diabetes knowledge- high blood sugar/insulin resistance causes an increase in appetite and sugar cravings.

So it makes more sense that changing lifestyle to lose weight and get blood sugar/insulin under control and appetite back to normal will help with weight control, rather than any magic theory about spiking insulin and increased fat storage. That’s what I couldn’t understand.

@Reallyreallyborednow, to miy mind there's bits of truth in it all but it's all part of a bigger picture.

The body can burn fat. Exercise can burn fat. It's certainly not impossible. But some bodies are set up for the fat burning function more than others. A fat adapted body could run fasted and utilise fat for fuel quite happily. One that is not used to burning fat once they have used up the glycogen store they will feel weak and hungry. But training can help with that.

We can eat less. But the body can compensate it can trigger feelings of hunger and fatigue.

Different foods can trigger different levels of satiety and hunger.

Get the body used to burning fat and you're away in terms of weight control.

Oh and if you train to a heart rate level, then this overcomes the problem of the exercise getting easier with practice and muscles becoming more efficient. You can ensure the actual effort is at a consistent level.

Gosh, this conversation has all got quite a bit more scientific since I last left it!

I think we fundamentally make this harder than it is for ourselves because we often don't want to accept the brutal truth that losing weight often means eating a lot less or doing a lot more exercise than we want to. Everyone has a different theory that proves their own particular method works best but here is what I know about myself, as someone who has veered between slim and slightly overweight for my entire adult life:

When I eat moderately and well and do lots of exercise, I am slim. When I stop exercising and eat whatever I want, I am overweight. When I become overweight, I start eating sensibly and exercising again and this immediately gets my weight under control again.

To the 'exercise makes no difference' people, I will just say this. When the first lockdown started, I ate exactly the same as I did pre-lockdown. And I put on weight. The only lifestyle change I made was that I stopped moving - normally my commute means I walk about 8,000 steps in a day. Once this commute stopped and I sat at a desk at home all day, I put on weight.

To the person pointing out that there are some obese marathon runners: yes of course there are. And presumably those obese marathon runners are eating a lot of food? But something I find helpful when I am going through 'it's so annoying that I'm not thin' phase is to look at my friends who are thinner than me and what they are doing differently. They are all eating a lot less and/or exercising a lot more and/or both.

I think we fundamentally make this harder than it is for ourselves because we often don't want to accept the brutal truth that losing weight often means eating a lot less or doing a lot more exercise than we want to

I think that's quite a brutal way of putting it though, because, due to the fact that everybody is different, it is significantly easier for some than it is for others. We're not taught how to make it easier for ourselves, we're not taught that it's not the same for everyone, and the 'healthy diet' recommended by the NHS is only healthy (and that's debatable in itself) for an already healthy body. As far as I can see, it's equivalent to saying 'Doing the plank is good to strengthen your lower back', and then as a result, recommending the plank to someone with a lower back injury.

What you're saying is a bit like a poor teacher blaming the student for failing the exam because they didn't understand the teaching. It's true that if everyone moved more and ate less, there would be a drop in obesity, but the individual struggles are often due to many many failed attempts, and eventually disillusionment, rather than a lack of admitting that effort needs to be made.

If you are doing some exercise, even if it is a relatively gentle walk, then you are very unlikely to be putting food in your gob - which has got to be a good thing, no?
Plus, the endorphin hit you get from exercising - especially if it's outside - means you are less likely to be seeking that 'feel good' hit from food.
Exercise good.

@throttlebottom

If you are doing some exercise, even if it is a relatively gentle walk, then you are very unlikely to be putting food in your gob - which has got to be a good thing, no? Plus, the endorphin hit you get from exercising - especially if it's outside - means you are less likely to be seeking that 'feel good' hit from food. Exercise good.

The trouble is, exercise can make you hungrier. I always get starving when I’m running a lot. People often overestimate how many calories they’ve burned so test themselves and either cancel out the exercise deficit or eat even more.

Exercise is brilliant for health and also making you look better but not that great for weight loss. Diet is far more important in that respect.

It’s basically finding out what works for you.

I find aerobic exercise drives my appetite. So I do weight or MAF sessions as mentioned.

If I don’t have carbs I also get incredibly hungry. Low carb does not work for me.

The biggest difference for me, again as mentioned, is NEAT. I look at my 20’s lifestyle- cycling to work, walking, buses, no car. At work the computer infrastructure didn’t exist so again getting up regularly to fetch a book, speak to a colleague, down the stairs to IT, across campus to the library for research. Pulling books from shelves and photocopying..

Now I drive, as I need the car to pick up kids on way home from work, works is all computer based, skype to contact colleagues, libraries all online. Even going to work I’d rack up 3k steps walking from car park to office, two flights to canteen/toilet… at home I struggle to to 500 steps in the same shift.

So i exercise to compensate for loss of NEAT. Means I still only need 1200 cals to lose weight. If I stop exercise my calorie needs drop to under 1000 as I am so sedentary, which isn’t doable.

If low carb works and is sustainable, or eating certain food groups, or whatever, crack on. It’s still no magic metabolic fix where you can eat twice as much and still lose weight.

If you aren’t losing weight you need to reduce calories, increase exercise, or both. If it isn’t working you are either eating more calories than you think, or are overestimating your calorie needs.

I wonder about that lifestyle stuff when I see young teenagers whizzing about on the electric scooters, some of them even have a seat... they're basically putting themselves on a mobility scooter just to do short journeys that they otherwise would have walked.

All the daily dribs and drabs of exercise are getting filtered out, and there are more and more flavours of Oreos and ice creams... it's just a recipe for the most obese culture possible. I wonder if we won't need our limbs eventually and we'll evolve into just being a brain with eyes and a mouth...

I'm 64 and have lost 3.5 stone since February and have 1/2 stone to go which is to about mid range healthy weight. I've found weight loss easy down to the top of healthy weight and very slow going since. OP you say you are now healthy weight so maybe that is why your body isn't happily sacrificing the lbs at the moment.
I have 30 g branflakes with soy milk and blueberries or an egg on toast with raw tomato for breakfast.
For lunch I tend to have tofu with salad and an apple. For dinner I just eat whatever the family are having, so veg curry, chilli, something with chickpeas and aubergine but I have a small portion with cauliflower and lots of other veg or salad and a piece of fruit or some berries afterwards. No snacks, no alcohol. I weigh and count everything and know that for me, at 5'3" and pretty ancient 1000 calories a day is all I can eat if I want to lose weight.
I do find that the weeks when I run three times and go to 3 x yoga or pilates classes I tend to lose more weight but I think this is to do with the mental benefits and lack of desire to eat after exercise than anything metabolic. It really is quite hard to lose that last few pounds.

Yes sorry @TheFoundations - I didn't mean to suggest it's easy - I don't think it's easy at all. I meant 'it's not that hard' in the sense of 'it's not that complicated'.

If I did and ate exactly what I wanted, I would be the size of a house. It takes massive self-discipline and rigour on my part to remain either 'only just overweight' or 'just about slim' and for the last 18 months I have been mainly on the overweight side of that line. I just meant I don't think it's hard, as in, when I am putting on weight, I can very clearly see why I am - it's when I either can't make myself eat less and/or am being very sedentary.

I think there are lots of things which can help.

Jason Fung's research which shows how saturated fat is extremely satiating helps me. I don't cut fats although I do count the calories. However, like Fung's research, I find if I have cream in my coffee for example, I'm not hungry.

Running helps me, as I do it at at MAF intensity which I have found doesn't increase the appetite particularly. The opposite if anything. The running I do does burn a significant amount of calories. Most days I'm clocking in a 700 calorie burn for a run of just over an hour and a 300 to 400 calorie burn for a walk of about an hour. This certainly gives me more freedom in terms of what I can eat.

Oh and my NEAT is not great. If I don't exercise I only burn abut 1400 calories. I'm not much of a potterer and have had quite a bad back in the past. With exercise I have been able to move in a more purposeful way that doesn't hurt my back. However, much unpredictable types of movement and I can easily strain it again. It's getting better but I limit periods of housework, for example, to a small amount and often because I find that's when I ache, more than with exercise!