Training harder, sleeping better, eatting beyond clean but not losing weight

theballz

Hi All

I am a 31 year old male, my weight since my late twenties has been an issue but I love training and have gone up and down in weight over the years.

Cliffs: when I train I see results

This time round however is different.
I train 5 days a week (2 upper body workouts, 2 lower body, 1 full body,) burning around 500-600 kcals per session with avg heart rate between 120-130bpm

I eat clean, salad for lunch and salad for dinner. Protein in both servings with a small portion of carbs. I train early in the morning before work and have 2 scoops of whey protein. I don’t have any breakfast outside of that

I sleep well 5-6 hours an night and my stress levels are average (covid has been a challenge,) my wellness and mental health in general is good. I take some time to excerise my mind daily by reading and I meditate for about 20-30 mins a day.

Overall, I feel better than ever before. I am lifting heavier than ever before, I am enjoying training more than I ever have and my body shape is changing (muscle growth.)

However, with all of this in my mind. I cannot seem
to shift the fat. I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Any ideas?

el Fenomeno

Can't comment on the weight loss - though I imagine it may be as simple as your late night snacks are more calories than you think and result in you not hitting a calorie deficit.

But 5-6 hours sleep a night is not "sleeping well", no matter how well you think you function or how used to it you are. However well you're doing now, you'll be doing much better if you added a couple of hours sleep each night.

Dial Hard

If you feel the need to snack until 10pm you're not eating enough earlier in the day. Now, I don't subscribe to the whole "eating late means gaining weight" mantra - what you eat over a given period is far more important than when you eat it - but in my experience snackers and grazers tend to vastly underestimate a) how much they're actually eating and b) the calories therein.

Try increasing your portion sizes at lunch and dinner and cutting out the snacks. And btw, eating "clean" doesn't have to equal salads twice a day every day. There's a world of curries, chillies, stews, casseroles, tagines etc. that you can make from scratch using entirely clean ingredients.

Alf Veedersane

Do you track your calories?

How are you getting 500-600 kcals burned per session?

How are you gauging the fat level?

Cill94

theballz wrote: »

Overall, I feel better than ever before. I am lifting heavier than ever before, I am enjoying training more than I ever have and my body shape is changing (muscle growth.)

Unless you are obese, I would suggest that you don't need to change much just yet. It's not uncommon for people in the early stages of training to gain weight while losing fat, as they are also gaining muscle.

If you are overweight though, here are some things to consider:

1. As someone pointed out, your sleep is poor. Bad sleep elevates stress hormones which will hinder fat loss. 8-9 hours is considered good.

2. Highly doubt you're burning 500-600 cals in a session. That's a lot.

3. You're taking in too many calories. If you're not losing fat it's as simple as that. I would be pretty sure there is at least one meal/snack that you're underestimating calories for. Use something like myfitnesspal to track calorie intake.

4. Ensure you are weighing yourself under same conditions multiple times per week. I.e. First thing in the morning, same amount of clothes on, after using toilet, before eating a meal.

Hope that helps.

bladespin

I wouldn’t count training calories unless deliberately trying to bulk, very easy to overestimate and varies a lot.

FaIIcon

You are not correctly tracking calories in and out if you are not losing weight, its that simple.

ittakestwo

As well as the above try and cut your daily eating window to less than 8 hours. This includes all liquids apart from water. This helps burn fat.

Cill94

ittakestwo wrote: »

As well as the above try and cut your daily eating window to less than 8 hours. This includes all liquids apart from water. This helps burn fat.

It doesn't.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

As well as the above try and cut your daily eating window to less than 8 hours. This includes all liquids apart from water. This helps burn fat.

Let's not over complicate a calorie deficit. Because that's all time restricted fasting is...a tool to manage a deficit.

ittakestwo

It's not that complicated. Eat your food with in 8 hours and see your fat decrease.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

It's not that complicated. Eat your food with in 8 hours and see your fat decrease.

It's a calorie deficit. How you manage works differently for different people. Could it work in terms of cutting out the snacking at night? Yes. But so could having no window and not snacking at night.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

bladespin

ittakestwo wrote: »

It's not that complicated. Eat your food with in 8 hours and see your fat decrease.

No, it’s not that simple, eat below your calorific requirement and you loose weight, how you do that is up to you: intermittent fasting is one way but it’s no better than any other.
If you eat above your requirements in that 8 hrs you will gain weight.

Cill94

ittakestwo wrote: »

It's not that complicated. Eat your food with in 8 hours and see your fat decrease.

So by your logic I could just eat doughnuts and big macs all day but as long as it's within an 8 hour window I'll lose fat. That's not how it works.

Meal timing has consistently been shown to have very, VERY little effect fat loss.

ittakestwo

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's a calorie deficit. How you manage works differently for different people. Could it work in terms of cutting out the snacking at night? Yes. But so could having no window and not snacking at night.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Well no. All things equal. A person who eats their daily allowance in 8 hours will burn more fat than a person who eats the same amount in 14 hours.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

Well no. All things equal. A person who eats their daily allowance in 8 hours will burn more fat than a person who eats the same amount in 14 hours.

To a negligible degree in the real world.

Far more pertinent things for the OP to concern themselves with.

ittakestwo

No I found it to be significant, worth a try for the OP if they have hit a plateau too. They might react well to it. Would need to give a few weeks.


Moving on. OP sometimes when you count calories you can leave out calories that you think is insignificant like milk in tea/coffee or Mayo and dressing salad on a salad. But they can add up to more than you think just in case they are being overlooked. Particularly milk, it is a disaster for people trying to lose weight.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

No I found it to be significant, worth a try for the OP if they have hit a plateau too. They might react well to it. Would need to give a few weeks.


Moving on. OP sometimes when you count calories you can leave out calories that you think is insignificant like milk in tea/coffee or Mayo and dressing salad on a salad. But they can add up to more than you think just in case they are being overlooked. Particularly milk, it is a disaster for people trying to lose weight.

N = 1.

Science suggests otherwise.

Anyway, OP likely needs to look at more fundamental elements of their lifestyle than theit eating window

ittakestwo

No studies on it show it helps. The Body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat. Anyway will be up to OP to try. No harm as especially they have hit a plateau and worth a shake it up.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

No studies on it show it helps. The Body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat. Anyway will be up to OP to try. No harm as especially they have hit a plateau and worth a shake it up.

Studies show what degree of 'help' though.

But the OP likely needs to get a better handle on what they're eating first because they should have a better idea of the problem before they look at a tool to help fix it.

I've no issue with time restricted eating as a tool but the major benefit, by far, for the general population, for whom it is effective, is that it helps them control their caloric intake.

bladespin

ittakestwo wrote: »

No studies on it show it helps. The Body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat. Anyway will be up to OP to try. No harm as especially they have hit a plateau and worth a shake it up.

Very little, and not much at all at this level (elite athlete maybe), please don't turn this into another IF/Keto etc battle, they all do the same thing - lower calorie intake which makes you burn fat - very simple.

calfmuscle

FaIIcon wrote: »

You are not correctly tracking calories in and out if you are not losing weight, its that simple.

Sorry but that is not true. Often people on a calorie deficit will stop losing weight and although this isn't totally understood it is common. Normally if the person sticks to the calorie deficit eventually the weight loss returns.

I worked in a weight loss clinic before with a woman who ate nothing but a box of cereal a day then milk and supplements. She went 1 month in the middle of her weightloss journey without losing a pound. Thankfully she started losing again after this.

Cill94

calfmuscle wrote: »

Sorry but that is not true. Often people on a calorie deficit will stop losing weight and although this isn't totally understood it is common. Normally if the person sticks to the calorie deficit eventually the weight loss returns.

I worked in a weight loss clinic before with a woman who ate nothing but a box of cereal a day then milk and supplements. She went 1 month in the middle of her weightloss journey without losing a pound. Thankfully she started losing again after this.

Except people are notoriously bad at reporting and accurately recording their calorie intake - studies have shown this. If someone has hit a weight loss plateau it's more likely that they just need to create a larger deficit. It's unlikely that the laws of thermodynamics just stop working for a while.

Johnny_BravoIII

Get your thyroid checked. It could be a metabolism issue.

calfmuscle

Cill94 wrote: »

Except people are notoriously bad at reporting and accurately recording their calorie intake - studies have shown this. If someone has hit a weight loss plateau it's more likely that they just need to create a larger deficit. It's unlikely that the laws of thermodynamics just stop working for a while.

This lady was a hospital in patient who was bed bound.......no mistake in reporting....lots of articles on this phenomenon

Alf Veedersane

calfmuscle wrote: »

This lady was a hospital in patient who was bed bound.......no mistake in reporting....lots of articles on this phenomenon

The the CICO is a model that accounts for enough to make it meaningful for the vast majority but doesn't capture all the complexity.

That case is probably one of those outliers. It doesn't mean the CICO model is redundant

SimplyBlue

Don't use the calories you think you worked off training to add onto your daily allowance. As someone said above these are usually over estimated.

Calories burned training should be a boost to fat loss and not really added to have another snack etc

Mellor

calfmuscle wrote: »

This lady was a hospital in patient who was bed bound.......no mistake in reporting....lots of articles on this phenomenon

A whole box of cereal with milk plus supplements doesn't sound like a huge deficit. Unless you mean single serve.

How was he energy expenditure counted?
How was fluid retention and fat mass measured?
etc, etc.

There are a huge number of variables at play. People are very quick to assume that one thing was or wasn't happening.

calfmuscle

Mellor wrote: »

A whole box of cereal with milk plus supplements doesn't sound like a huge deficit. Unless you mean single serve.

How was he energy expenditure counted?
How was fluid retention and fat mass measured?
etc, etc.

There are a huge number of variables at play. People are very quick to assume that one thing was or wasn't happening.

It was a single serve and the diet was monitored by the hospital dieticians. She was on less than 600 calories a day. This woman was over 300kg but had lost 60kg then stopped losing despite daily exercise and calorie deficit. Its more common than u think. As i said after 4 weeks she started to lose weight again.

Cill94

calfmuscle wrote: »

It was a single serve and the diet was monitored by the hospital dieticians. She was on less than 600 calories a day. This woman was over 300kg but had lost 60kg then stopped losing despite daily exercise and calorie deficit. Its more common than u think. As i said after 4 weeks she started to lose weight again.

Sorry didn't realise it was someone being monitored that closely.

I think fair to say though that 300kg makes her a major outlier with a very different set of metabolic issues to the average person.

Mellor

calfmuscle wrote: »

It was a single serve and the diet was monitored by the hospital dieticians. She was on less than 600 calories a day. This woman was over 300kg but had lost 60kg then stopped losing despite daily exercise and calorie deficit. Its more common than u think. As i said after 4 weeks she started to lose weight again.

Her body would have been used more than 600cals. Just for basic functions, even when bedridden. That energy had to come from somewhere, or else it defies laws of physics.

Not losing weight isn’t the same as not burning fat. Especially at 300kg, there could be water retention affecting the appearance on the scales for example.

calfmuscle

Mellor wrote: »

Her body would have been used more than 600cals. Just for basic functions, even when bedridden. That energy had to come from somewhere, or else it defies laws of physics.

Not losing weight isn’t the same as not burning fat. Especially at 300kg, there could be water retention affecting the appearance on the scales for example.

I dont understand why you're arguing with me. Please look into this phenomenon, its not understood in the medical community but it is acknowledged as occurring. Calorie deficit is not a law of physics its biology and we do not fully understand everything in this field.

As per my original post, sometimes the body just stops dropping weight even when doing everything right, it doesn't last forever but it can happen for a short period of time. Life is not all black and white or calories in versus calories out.

Mellor

calfmuscle wrote: »

I dont understand why you're arguing with me. Please look into this phenomenon, its not understood in the medical community but it is acknowledged as occurring. Calorie deficit is not a law of physics its biology and we do not fully understand everything in this field.

I'm not arguing with you, I've no doubt that this person didn't lose weight on the scales. I' as you describe. I'm just pointing out that weight loss and fat loss are not the same. That's fairly widely acknowledged.
Assuming that no weight loss means no fat/tissue was used for energy is a bad conclusion.

Calories are simply a unit of energy. Kilojoules are another unit.
Conservation of energy is a basic law of physics. It applies universally, whether we fully understand our biology or not.
If you have any links describing phenomenon I'd love to see them. I'd be very surprised if the conclusion was that the person functioned without energy from somewhere.

scilover

theballz wrote: »

Hi All

I am a 31 year old male, my weight since my late twenties has been an issue but I love training and have gone up and down in weight over the years.

Cliffs: when I train I see results

This time round however is different.
I train 5 days a week (2 upper body workouts, 2 lower body, 1 full body,) burning around 500-600 kcals per session with avg heart rate between 120-130bpm

I eat clean, salad for lunch and salad for dinner. Protein in both servings with a small portion of carbs. I train early in the morning before work and have 2 scoops of whey protein. I don’t have any breakfast outside of that

I sleep well 5-6 hours an night and my stress levels are average (covid has been a challenge,) my wellness and mental health in general is good. I take some time to excerise my mind daily by reading and I meditate for about 20-30 mins a day.

Overall, I feel better than ever before. I am lifting heavier than ever before, I am enjoying training more than I ever have and my body shape is changing (muscle growth.)

However, with all of this in my mind. I cannot seem
to shift the fat. I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Any ideas?

there are no issues as long as you love what you're doing. If you love what you're doing now. That is good for you.

rubadub

Mellor wrote: »

Calories are simply a unit of energy. Kilojoules are another unit.
Conservation of energy is a basic law of physics. It applies universally, whether we fully understand our biology or not.

calorie energy balance is an exact science when talking about physics. In biology, they way people use it for calorie counting, it's only an estimate. A very simple example is eating sweetcorn or peanuts, eat them whole with no chewing and they pass through the system, liquidise them into a soup or peanut butter and you get more energy from them. Same calories if physically burned but not the same energy available to a typical human.

Alcohol is high in calories, a car engine makes good use of it. Humans do not get the same energy from it, and people differ, studies showed heavy drinkers do not get as much energy from it. As a heavy drinker I know this to be true and ignore the calories from it if I am counting, (I would factor in added or unfermented sugars).

If Shane MacGowan or some of these "2 bottles of jack daniels a day" rockstars totted up their calorie intake then they should be massively obese if the "3500kcal ingested will lead to 1lb of fat gain" was always true.

Mellor wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if the conclusion was that the person functioned without energy from somewhere.

+1, she was in a bed, not a padded cell, food could be sneaked in. I remember some program where a morbidly obese guy was in his room but still putting on weight. Turned out he had a secret bucket on a rope and would ring the local takeaway, lower the bucket with money in it and haul up the food!

Anorexics may put secret weights on their body/clothes to trick doctors into thinking they put on weight.

Mellor

rubadub wrote: »

calorie energy balance is an exact science when talking about physics. In biology, they way people use it for calorie counting, it's only an estimate

Energy balance is always an exact science though.
Any variation in biology is due to inaccurate counting, not inexactness of energy balance.

A very simple example is eating sweetcorn or peanuts, eat them whole with no chewing and they pass through the system, liquidise them into a soup or peanut butter and you get more energy from them. Same calories if physically burned but not the same energy available to a typical human.

Energy balance is zero in both examples. In one we just need to account for “waste energy” .
It can never go in the other direction however. You can’t ever get more energy out of food that a calorimeter. So you can only ever lose more weight than you should.

Alcohol is high in calories, a car engine makes good use of it. Humans do not get the same energy from it, and people differ, studies showed heavy drinkers do not get as much energy from it.

The problem with this studies is that they are aligning sober BMR with alcohol intake and drawing a bad conclusion.

FWIW I usually use petrol to make calorimeter point.

If Shane MacGowan or some of these "2 bottles of jack daniels a day" rockstars totted up their calorie intake then they should be massively obese if the "3500kcal ingested will lead to 1lb of fat gain" was always true.
They aren’t massively obese because alcohol has a metabolic effect. 2 bottles a day and they are probably running a few degrees hot in body temp constantly. (That’s how some diet pills worked) Plus the liver is in over drive. BMR is through the roof compared to somebody just eating 2400 calls of clean food. Rockstar is probably missing meals.
I bet when you balance it all energy is accounted for, and balance is zero.

+1, she was in a bed, not a padded cell, food could be sneaked in. I remember some program where a morbidly obese guy was in his room but still putting on weight. Turned out he had a secret bucket on a rope and would ring the local takeaway, lower the bucket with money in it and haul up the food!

Anorexics may put secret weights on their body/clothes to trick doctors into thinking they put on weight.

The less closing people are monitored the more I expected results and variation pops up.

theballz

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

Alf Veedersane

theballz wrote: »

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

No late night snacking, I'm guessing?

theballz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No late night snacking, I'm guessing?

Not eatting a single thing after 8pm.

Alf Veedersane

theballz wrote: »

Not eatting a single thing after 8pm.

That's the win right there...removing the mindless snacking.

theballz

theballz wrote: »

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

Down a further 2kg in 4 days since this post,

No doubt I will plateau shortly but super happy with the results from very slight adustments.

Thanks to all for the help

theballz

Further update:

Changes I made:
- cut out snacking entirely
- intermittent fasting 16:8
- training days a week (5 gym, 1 Pilates)

Result:
- down 7.6kg in three weeks
- resting heart rate has decreased from 65 bpm to 52 bpm

theballz

Cill94 wrote: »

It doesn't.

It definitely does.

Sos88sos88

theballz wrote:

Changes I made: - cut out snacking entirely - intermittent fasting 16:8 - training days a week (5 gym, 1 Pilates)

theballz wrote:

Result: - down 7.6kg in three weeks - resting heart rate has decreased from 65 bpm to 52 bpm

Can I ask what your initial weight was as thats a fantastic weight loss well done.
Also how many calories a day are you going through now?

Alf Veedersane

theballz wrote: »

It definitely does.

To be fair, he was commenting that it's the reduction in calories is what burns it. Not the fact its within a window. You've already cut the mindless night time snacking so you've reduced caloric intake and lost weight.

The reduced calories is primarily why you've lost the weight.

Nonetheless, the salient point is that its working for you so hopefully it continues to work for you

Mellor

theballz wrote: »

It definitely does.

You are eating less overall. Which is the main driver, not the magic window.

theballz

Sos88sos88 wrote: »

Can I ask what your initial weight was as thats a fantastic weight loss well done.
Also how many calories a day are you going through now?

I was 110kg, as if this morning I was 102.1kg.

For the month of August I am taking in 1.8k calories. September will be 1.6k, October 1.4k etc etc

The ultimate goal is to get down to 90kg.

theballz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, he was commenting that it's the reduction in calories is what burns it. Not the fact its within a window. You've already cut the mindless night time snacking so you've reduced caloric intake and lost weight.

The reduced calories is primarily why you've lost the weight.

Nonetheless, the salient point is that its working for you so hopefully it continues to work for you

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

ittakestwo

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Alf Veedersane

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Those tribes also have less ****ty food at hand and are typically more active, which are far bigger factors.

Not sure if the being offended bit was aimed at me but I'm not offended. I have absolutely nothing against time-restricted eating and some people have great success with it. But for the general population, that's largely because it helps them manage caloric intake better.

Alf Veedersane

theballz wrote: »

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

So back to the OP:

theballz wrote: »

I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Do you still eat those snacks but just earlier in the day now?