I've hit a plateau !

Hi people,

I've been on the GI diet for the last 4 months and done really well.
I've gone from 92kg to 84.5kg. Problem is I can't shake anymore weight
for some reason. My target is to get to 78Kg and I havn't changed my
diet and am doing loads of aerobic exercise in the gym, drinking water
etc.

About once a week I have a drink or two but nothing crazy. I can't
believe that its this that's hampering my progress.

Does anyone have any similar experiences to this?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jules.

JulesB wrote:
Hi people,

I've been on the GI diet for the last 4 months and done really well.
I've gone from 92kg to 84.5kg. Problem is I can't shake anymore weight
for some reason. My target is to get to 78Kg and I havn't changed my
diet and am doing loads of aerobic exercise in the gym, drinking water
etc.

About once a week I have a drink or two but nothing crazy. I can't
believe that its this that's hampering my progress.

Does anyone have any similar experiences to this?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jules.


I can't say I've read any books on the GI diet but if I remember
correctly the GI diet suggests eating low Glycaemic foods to control
hunger and therefore avoid snacking. Does the diet involve any tracking
or counting of calories? If so, is it possible to remove ~100 calories
each day ~700/wk from your current WOE?

As for the cocktails, they are typically ~250 calories each. Removing
two a week would yield ~500 of the ~700 calories I suggested losing but
perhaps you'd rather keep the drinks and find another area to shave
calories from. That choice is yours.
--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese

JulesB wrote:
Many thanks for that. I don't actually count the calories - just stick
to low GI foods. You're probably right - cut out the alcohol
altogether.

Also - I need something to snack on apart from fruit. Something
biscuit like without it being a biscuit - if that makes sense!?


Snack's a tough one. I'd like to say 1/2 whole grain English muffin
w/natural crunchy peanut butter but that's a bunch more calories than
the fruit it's replacing. Is it a multi-fruit snack?
How many calories do we have to work with here?
To get inside a fruits calories I'd have to say cottage cheese but
that's nothing like a biscuit.
--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese

JulesB wrote:

I've been on the GI diet for the last 4 months and done really well.
I've gone from 92kg to 84.5kg. Problem is I can't shake anymore weight
for some reason. My target is to get to 78Kg and I havn't changed my
diet and am doing loads of aerobic exercise in the gym, drinking water
etc.

Let's start out asking a couple of questions:

1) How long since the last new low? If it's been under 4 weeks you
aren't really stalled yet. Pauses are to be expected and as long
as you're staying with a well designed plan they aren't a sign that
anything is wrong until well past 4 weeks.

Does anyone have any similar experiences to this?

Sure. It's also standard issue for folks without a lot to lose. And
that leads into the next question

2) How did you select your goal weight and what are your stats?
Where the point of the previous question was to get to what
expectations are realistic and what aren't, the point of this
question is to see if you're trying to reach below your ideal weight.

Insurance tables run about 5 kg too low for example. Men tend
to round up their height and women tend to round down their
weight so the tables get biased with those errors. And picking
a goal based on styles very often leads to a goal below what
your body really wants to be at.

The higher you are above what your body thinks is its ideal
weight, the easier it is to lose. It takes plenty of work in the
last 5-10 kilos. It takes eternal struggle if you want to stay
below your ideal.

So depending on how you answer, the response could be
anywhere from you're doing great and slower loss is to be
expected as you progress so well through it's time to taper
down your portions through asking if you're really sure you want
to go that low.

Thanks for that.

My stats are as follows: I'm 6'2", my last new low was within the last
3 weeks and my target is 22BMI which translates as 78Kg (I'm 84 now).

JulesB wrote:

My stats are as follows: I'm 6'2", my last new low was within the last
3 weeks

So your loss has slowed and that has you frustrated. Quite
natural. But you aren't stalled. The definition by Atkins is
not arbitrary - It's about what is and what isn't realistic in
setting expectations. The Atkins definition officially only
applies to folks on Atkins, but it is a very realistic view that
should work across the board.

and my target is 22BMI which translates as 78Kg (I'm 84 now).

Good target. Now let's consider the fact that rate of loss is
proporational to the amount of excess fat that remains to
be lost. Have 50+ kilos of excess fat and the stuff melts
away nicely. Have 5- kilos of excess fat and it takes ten
times as long for each new low. You're in the tale end of
that curve.

Another bit of advice from Atkins that should apply across
the board - The last ten pounds is supposed to be lost very
slowly. That means if it goes off at a pace that doesn't
trigger impatience there's something wrong. With 6 kilos
to go that's your range now.

You've hit an amount to lose where the standard advice says
you should be losing it so slowly you get impatient. Sure
enough you're losing at a pace that makes you impatient.
Grit your teeth and understand that your success now is very
real, very enviable, and very predictable.

"Fail to prepare and you are preparing to fail" is a modern
wise saying. Right now you're preparing for maintenenace.
Focus on that as your task. It will help reduce the frustration
you're feeling right now.

Brilliant advice - thank you so much.

Julian.

On 15 Feb 2006 08:18:25 -0800, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

Another bit of advice from Atkins that should apply across
the board - The last ten pounds is supposed to be lost very
slowly. That means if it goes off at a pace that doesn't
trigger impatience there's something wrong. With 6 kilos
to go that's your range now.

Just out of curiousity, what would that "something wrong" be? I
didn't do Atkins, but -- entirely to my surprise -- I lost the last 10
pounds easily. In fact, I reached what I thought would be a goal
weight and then just ended up losing another 10 pounds over the next
couple of months. I was gradually -- but apparently more slowly than
need be -- upping my calories, and eventually reached a steady state
at that lower weight. This isn't how I'd planned things,
particularly, but I don't think it was a sign of anything wrong, per
se.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004

Chris Braun wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Another bit of advice from Atkins that should apply across
the board - The last ten pounds is supposed to be lost very
slowly. That means if it goes off at a pace that doesn't
trigger impatience there's something wrong. With 6 kilos
to go that's your range now.

Just out of curiousity, what would that "something wrong" be?

Since rate of loss is usually proportional to amount left to lose,
it should be something. Very few lose well as they reach their
ideal weight.

The main thing to be wrong would be expectations that final
loss should happen at a similar pace to previous loss.

I
didn't do Atkins, but -- entirely to my surprise -- I lost the last 10
pounds easily.

Note that you were surprised. That's because you're aware
that the final pounds normally take much longer.

In fact, I reached what I thought would be a goal
weight and then just ended up losing another 10 pounds over the next
couple of months. I was gradually -- but apparently more slowly than
need be -- upping my calories, and eventually reached a steady state
at that lower weight. This isn't how I'd planned things,
particularly, but I don't think it was a sign of anything wrong, per
se.

It does sound like your original estimate of your ideal rate was
incorrect, though. Not the usual sort of problem.