Why did I stop losing weight?

Why did I stop losing weight? Tips to Overcome a Weight-Loss Plateau , Anyone who has set a goal to lose a few pounds and reduce their fat percentage by a few steps down is certainly included in this so-called plateau / stagnation – a moment when the rate of weight loss occurs and sometimes gains weight. A long time ago you discussed this topic in the article or the economic regime of the body, which is recommended to read in case all the others are not. Although she announces things well, she does so in a very general way. This material will delve deeper and will consider perhaps the most likely reason for this in detail.

Energy balance as a driving force

If there is one thing that is confirmed by science, it is that energy balance (EB) is the main driving force that determines how our weight will change. At first glance, the equation for energy balance is very simple and states that the amount of energy stored (ES) is the result of the difference between energy expended (EE) and energy consumed (EP). ES = EE – EP Ideally, energy intake = energy expenditure (EP = EP) and then we maintain our weight. Then we are in calorie / energy balance.

If we want to lose weight, we must create a state of calorie deficit by increasing energy expenditure and / or reducing energy intake. For example, if our energy intake is 2,000 calories and our energy expenditure is 2,500 calories, then: ES = 2000 – 2500 = -500 kcal The result is a calorie deficit of 500 calories, which can be presented as a percentage, in this case – 20%. But the theory of energy balance is probably painfully familiar to most of you, and it is based on most diets aimed at weight loss. According to her, each 1 kg of adipose tissue is equal to 7000 kcal / the original source defines them as 7700 kcal

According to this theory, however, the weight loss process is linear and constant. For example, if we want to lose 10 kg, we just need to burn 70,000 (10 * 7,000) calories. Accordingly, everyone can make a rough calculation that if he eats, for example, 500 calories less every day, after 140 days he will lose 10 kg and lose 0.5 kg every week. What happens in practice, however, is that probably after the second week, instead of 500 grams, the scales begin to count 400 grams. After another week or two he weighs only 300 grams and so on, until one day you get on the scales and see no difference from the previous week.

You wait patiently for another week without changing anything, get on the scales and again – no result. In some of the more severe cases, you may even notice a slight weight gain, which puts your psyche to a severe test. If you are looking for an answer to what causes this phenomenon, keep reading. Before that, it is important to note something. What we will describe in this article is not the whole story. The reasons can be really many and not all of them can be discussed in detail in one article. Here we will consider only one, which is generally a consequence of most of the others.

Where do things fail?

As already mentioned, in order to lose weight, the condition EE < EP must be met. Although the apparent increase in energy intake is a real problem, as well as the fact that many people simply cannot properly estimate the amount of food they eat , for the rest of the article we will conditionally assume that all other factors, including energy intake are constant and there is no change in them.

Therefore, if the weight lost per week decreases or stops completely, then there must be some change in energy expenditure for the day, which will lead to a reduction in the total energy deficit. Unlike EP, which consists mainly of the food and beverages we eat on a daily basis, total energy expenditure (TEE or Total Energy Expenditure) is a consequence of several things:

  • Resting Energy Expenditure (60-70% of TEE)
  • Thermal effect of food (TEF) (10% of TEE)
  • Energy Expenditure (AEE or Activity Energy Expenditure) (20-40% of TEE)

In turn, the AEE consists of:

  • Energy expenditure from sports activities (EEE or Exercise Energy Expenditure)
  • Energy expenditure from non-sporting activities (NEE or Non-exercise Energy Expenditure)

Some of the terms are found in the scientific literature and so:

  • REE → BMR or Basal Metabolic Rate
  • TEF → DIT or Dietary Induced Thermogenesis
  • NEE → NEAT or Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis

As you can see, energy expenditure is the sum of several different things. It’s easy to just say that weight loss decreases because energy expenditure decreases. Let’s dig a little deeper. Let’s look at how each of its components changes.

What happens when we are on a diet?

The answer to this question varies according to the different scientific studies that have been conducted. Variation in research is influenced by factors such as:

  • whether the study is on animals or humans;
  • what is the duration of the study;
  • what is the size of the calorie deficit;
  • how much is the total weight lost and what it consists of (fat, muscle or other tissue);
  • whether the participants followed a training program and if so, what it was – aerobic (cardio) or anaerobic (weight training).

For many other factors, it is not yet entirely clear what effect they have, so here we will only look at the available information, only in humans. The thermal effect of food (TEF) will not be considered, because with a balanced menu, it remains constant and has no significant effect.

How does the total energy expenditure for the day (TEE) change?

Let’s start with the most general. Let’s start by looking at what changes are observed in TEE. In the exclusive Biosphere 2 experiment, due to a loss of 8.6 kg, there was a decrease in TEE of 760 calories or 9.36% compared to the control group. The participants did not follow a training regime, except for farming with a moderate load.

Rudolph L. Leibel and colleagues observed a decrease of 551 kcal (17.77%) TEE in obese people who lost 10% of their weight and a decrease of 886 kcal (28.32%) TEE in 20% weight loss.  Manfred James Müller and colleagues observed a reduction of 258 kcal (10%) after a 50% calorie deficit and a loss of 6 kg (7.55%) over a period of 21 days . Jebb SA also observed a 10% drop in 3 kg loss. ,T.P. Stein and colleagues subjected 8 overweight men to a 50% calorie deficit for 4 weeks. There was a decrease in TEE of 184 kcal (7.2%) after losing 4 kg.

Goele K observed a decrease of 137 kcal (5.7%) TEE with a loss of 8.4 kg (8.34%). (8) Roland L Weinsier observed a decrease of 114 kcal (5.25%) TEE with a loss of 13 kg (16.37%).  The participants in the study of W G van Gemert and team were observed 12 months after vertical gastroplasty. They lost 26 kg (20%) in the first 3 months and 46 kg (35.5%) at the end of the period. At the end of the third month, TEE was reported to be 929 kcal lower (28.72%), and these results remained at the same level at the end of the study.

In a study by Sai Krupa Das and colleagues, participants lost an impressive 53 kg (38%) within 14 months of having a gastric bypass. There is a 25% decrease in TEE.  E Ravussin and his team reported a reduction in TEE of 380 kcal (16%) with a weight loss of 12.6 kg (13%). One thing stands out well and that is that TEE depends very much on weight. The more you lose weight (as a percentage of your initial weight), the more your body’s total energy expenditure decreases. With a weight loss of between 10 and 20% of the initial weight, between 10 and 30% reduction in total energy consumption can be expected.

Is the metabolism slowing down (REE / BMR)?

By “metabolism” most people understand radically different things, but in reality the speed of our metabolism is the expenditure of energy at absolute rest, without eating or drinking anything. The energy expended by the basic metabolism is mainly used to keep the body alive and the optimal functioning of all organs and systems. We noted above that REE represents about 60-70% of TEE. If you burn 2,500 calories a day, then between 1,500 and 1,800 of them will be burned even if you sit still without moving. But does the metabolism slow down when we lose weight?

Unfortunately, this is also clearly shown by the research examined so far. The decline in REE is also closely related to total weight loss – the more we lose weight, the greater the decline. With a decrease between 5 and 10% of the initial weight, a decrease in REE between 5 and 15% can be observed , and with a more serious weight loss of about 20 or 30%, the decrease may reaches 20-25%.

  But this is completely normal!

This is probably already being shouted by some of the more familiar ones, who are wondering why we make an elephant out of a fly and how exactly we don’t know that. We know it, but many other people don’t. We will also explain why this is normal. One of the reasons few people think about it is that we are getting smaller. Less energy is required to move a smaller body in volume and weight. On the other hand, during weight loss we lose various tissues such as fat, muscle and other organ mass, and these tissues use a certain amount of energy. Energy consumption varies according to different authorities. Per day, each kilogram of the following tissues requires:

  • brain – 240 kcal
  • liver – 200 kcal
  • heart – 441 kcal
  • kidneys – 441 kcal
  • skeletal muscle – 13 kcal
  • adipose tissue – 4.5 kcal

In a study by Anja Bosy-Westphal and team, after a 12-week diet (800-1000 kcal), participants lost 9.5 kg of weight (9%), 3.1 kg of which was pure (fat-free mass / lean mass). Lost net weight and organ mass consist of muscles (−3%), heart (−5%), liver (−4%), and kidneys (−6%). There is a decline in REE of 8%.  The study by W G van Gemert, which we discussed above, is also a great example. In the first 3 months TEE decreased by 929 kcal (28.72%), while in the remaining 9 there was no additional change in TEE. The reason for the decline in TEE only in the beginning is that in the first 3 months the participants lost 8.8 kg of net weight, while between months 3 and 12 only 0.6 kg (out of 20 extra pounds lost).

But not everything is normal

So far we have looked at some predictable changes that occur during weight loss, but the human body is not some simple machine and not everything can be calculated by a mathematical formula. In Rudolph L. Leibel’s study, the decline in TEE and REE is very different from what it should have been and predicted. With 10% weight loss, TEE is lower by an average of 230 calories below expectations, and with 20% weight loss – 301 calories. REE is lower by 137 and 79 calories, respectively.

Darcy L. Johannsen and team also observed discrepancies. The study included people with a very high degree of obesity (49% fat). Within 7 months, they lose 38% of their initial weight. In week 6 there is a decrease in REE of 244 calories (-9%), and in week 30 – 504 calories (-20%). Both declines are in addition to the predicted values. .The study by Eric Doucet and team also saw significant additional adaptations. After 2 weeks of calorie restriction, the REE of men decreased by 112 kcal below the expected, and in women by 151 kcal. At the end of week 8, men’s REE reached 230 kcal below the target, while women kept 146 kcal.

Similar results are observed in many other scientific papers and this is not something new. This phenomenon is known as “adaptive thermogenesis”. The term covers all adaptations that occur during a prolonged caloric deficit or calorie surplus that are beyond the anticipated. At this stage, however, it is not entirely clear what these adaptations consist of, what they depend on and to what extent they can manifest themselves. There are some proven claims, such as hormonal changes, changes in the functioning of the nervous system and changes in the activity of brown adipose tissue, but more data are needed in this direction.

As with many other scientific theories, adaptive thermogenesis is not supported by all  and not all studies show a difference between predicted and observed values.  It is important to know and keep in mind that there is a high probability that weight loss will not go according to plan, even if you take into account the normal delay due to weight loss. However, adaptive thermogenesis can be really cruel, as seen in some studies.

What about physical activity (AEE)?

So far, we have looked at most of the components of the energy balance – TEE, REE and TEF. TEF has a relatively small impact on the whole process, and the decline in REE may be only a small part of the decline in TEE, despite the fact that REE is about 60% of TEE. While in some studies the decline in REE represents about 50-60% of the decline in TEE, in others this percentage is only 20-30%. As you can probably guess, the rest of the picture is filled with physical activity. Its variation can be so great that sometimes only it can reset the calorie restriction you have undergone.

In the study of Rudolph L. Leibel at 10% weight loss there was a decrease in NEAT between 200 and 250 calories. With a decrease of 20% in weight and a decrease in physical activity decreases twice – 500 calories.  In the Biosphere 2 experiment, led by Christian Weyer and colleagues, participants had to starve to an extremely large extent during the first 6 months of the experiment. Men maintained a caloric deficit of about 2,200 kcal, and women 1,200 kcal. In these 6 months, men lost 12 kg (16% of initial weight) and women 7.5 kg (12%). Physical activity during this period decreased by nearly 900 calories per day. 

Biosphere 2 is a bit of an extreme example, but it is not the only case where there has been a huge drop in activity. Very few of the groups in Michael Rosenbaum’s study reduced their physical activity by about 200 kcal, but the other groups varied between 400 and 600 kcal. The decrease in one of the groups reaches 700 kcal.  Such results are not entirely surprising. It is quite logical that during a serious and prolonged caloric deficit, due to lack of energy and a feeling of discomfort, a person feels less need and has less desire to move.

The problem is that in most cases this happens completely unconsciously, and even if everything in the diet is calculated perfectly, the person who loses weight can still fall into stagnation, not realizing that he is moving with 400-500 calories less. Of course, the coin has two sides. Roland L Weinsier and colleagues observed an increase in physical activity after losing nearly 13 pounds.

Do workouts have an impact? One “small” feature about everything we have described so far is that all the data presented above are in people who do not exercise and have not used a training program during weight loss and calorie deficit. But does adding aerobic (cardio) and anaerobic (strength) workouts change things? In a study by Leanne M. Redman and team, a group of overweight men and women were subjected to a 6-month calorie deficit. They are divided into 4 groups:

  • control;
  • 25% deficit only by reducing food;
  • 25% deficiency (12.5% ​​of food and 12.5% ​​of aerobic exercise);
  • VLCD (890 kcal until reaching 15% weight loss).

Groups 2 and 3 reduced their weight by 10% and group 4 – by 14%. While in none of the groups there were practically no significant differences in REE, in the groups that lost weight only with a reduction in diet, in the 3rd month physical activity (AEE) decreased by between 350 and 500 kcal (respectively for groups 2 and 4). ), and on the 6th there is a slight increase, but nevertheless the activity remains below the initial – by about 250 kcal. In the group with included aerobic training, no change in AEE was observed at the 3rd month, and at the 6th month there was an increase of nearly 200 calories.

James P. DeLany and team also compared two groups, only one of which was asked to increase their physical activity. And although this activity was usually brisk walking, the more active group lost almost 3 kg more (all adipose tissue) and no decrease in TEE was observed.  In their studies, Steven B. Heymsfield and JO Hill, for their part, did not show a difference in total weight loss between groups with and without aerobic exercise, but the results show that the training group managed to lose a little more fat and maintain a lean weight ( lean mass).

Gary R. Hunter and his team conducted a great experiment involving 3 groups of participants – without training, with aerobic training and strength training. Although the three groups had approximately the same decrease in REE, no decrease in TEE and NEAT was observed in the training groups. The group performing strength training even has a slight advantage, as they show a significant increase in total energy expenditure for the day and physical activity (TEE, AEE and NEAT).

Darcy L. Johannsen and team also observed similar results. Due to the included combination of aerobic and anaerobic training 6 days a week, in this group of participants there was a significant increase in physical activity AEE by an average of 17%, which leads to the preservation of TEE compared to the control group.

Another interesting study is that of Kitty PG Kempen, which again compares two groups of people – one relying only on cutting food, and the other follows an additional combination of aerobic and strength training. The group following the workouts lost 2 kg more than their total weight and 2.3 kg more fat. The authors conclude that the training group was more deficient in calories due to the training, but their data show that there is no difference in physical activity between the two groups.

This, together with the fact that there is no difference in REE between the two groups, leads to the conclusion that the training group has significantly reduced NEAT, neutralizing energy expenditure from training, which contradicts other studies in which there is either no change in NEAT or increase.  Last but not least, there are also studies that do not find the benefit of energy consumption from the addition of a training regime.  Fortunately, this type of research is very small.

What does all this mean in practice?

In fact, all this means that if you rely on the template alone 7000 calories and just cut the food once, without taking into account the changes that will occur, sooner or later the weight loss process will stop or slow down significantly. As discussed above, it is quite normal, depending on the weight lost, to reduce the total energy expenditure by between 10 and 30% and the basic metabolism by between 5 and 20%. Separately, there may be unforeseen adjustments to increase these percentages by between 5 and 20%.

Science clearly shows that a decrease in physical activity, especially unconsciously, can often be the most serious factor leading to stagnation. Adding a workout regimen, preferably one involving weightlifting, is critical to maintaining high energy expenditure, not to mention a number of other health benefits. It is also critical that the loss of lean mass be kept to an absolute minimum. The greater the loss of net weight, the greater the decrease in TEE and REE. In general, this is not a big problem and does not happen in people who are overweight or obese, but it is not a bad idea to work in this direction.

In cases of plateau / stagnation, a way must usually be found to further increase calorie deficit and energy expenditure. This is mainly done by further reducing food and / or increasing physical activity. Of course, these additional changes must be made within reasonable and as healthy limits as possible. Sometimes it gets to the point that the weight loss process just has to be interrupted for a while, but that’s another topic.

In any case, prepare for a slow process and a number of obstacles to jump on the road. However, with enough desire and most of all patience, you will reach the desired weight and / or percentage of subcutaneous fat.

Sources used

  1. Caloric Equivalents of Gained or Lost Weight
  2. Energy metabolism after 2 y of energy restriction: the Biosphere 2 experiment
  3. Changes in Plasma Lipids and Lipoproteins in Humans During a 2-Year Period of Dietary Restriction in Biosphere 2
  4. Changes in Energy Expenditure Resulting from Altered Body Weight
  5. Metabolic adaptation to caloric restriction and subsequent refeeding: the Minnesota Starvation Experiment revisited

People also look for :

Is Watching TV While Eating Harmful ?

Allicin – The reason for the miraculous effect of garlic

Hunger for sweets and sweet foods – how to deal with this “vice”?