Fat Loss Troubleshooting

Reading Time

Working out why you're not losing weight.   

Have you ever started a new 'diet', gotten results initially, but soon after plateaued and failed to progress further? Or have you observed the success of a particular 'diet' only to fail to obtain progress when trying it yourself?  

It is this dilemma where people feel a lot of confusion and develop 'diet desperation'. All of a sudden there is a gap for fads and nutrition BS to be marketed and successfully sold for financial gain. 

Rather than reaching for 'that next thing', this article will give you a step by step list of questions, and things to think about when it comes to fat loss troubleshooting.

Question 1: Are you sure you aren’t progressing?

1. Are your expectations of rates of progress not feasible, therefore leading you to think you're not progressing? Often people just don't realise how slow fat loss happens over time. 

-If you're looking at scale weight alone (full of limitations) the upper limit of whats generally feasible is 1% body weight drop per week. 

2. Are you controlling, considering and accounting for confounding variables when assessing progress?-Limitations & inaccuracies of DXA and other assessments of body fat%. 
-Acute influencing factors of scale weight

-Have you potentially gained muscle mass? (body recomp)
-Influence of thoughts and feelings on a subjective sense of progress?

-Is fat loss occurring in the absence of weight loss?

3. Do you realise fat loss is not linear, especially when considering the ways we may assess fat loss?

4. Have you given 'the diet intervention' enough time to see if it's working?

You're 100% sure you're not progressing. It's now time to fat loss troubleshoot. 

Weight change over time is not method driven, it's principle-driven. Before you start troubleshooting, you need to reframe the question from 'why is the diet not working', to 'why is an energy (Calorie) deficit, not present consistently over time'. 

Question 2. Are you actually eating as little as you think?
This is almost always the reason for lack of weight loss. Diet under-reporting, even for those who track Calories has been demonstrated well. In fact, a study by Lichtman and colleagues showed obese subjects who claimed to eat less than 1200 Calories a day, under-reported their intake by a whopping 47%, meaning that ate over 1000 Calories more than they thought. 

Play devil's advocate on your diet adherence (and/or tracking if that's the way you're choosing to control your Calories). Consider gaps in tracking/dieting practices and see if you can identify why there may be a difference between the Calories you think you're eating versus the Calories you're actually eating. Consider weekends, eating and drinking, sauces, cooking oils, things you 'forgot', etc. Because it's all the little things that can add up and cancel out a deficit. 

You know you're not progressing and you're 100% sure you're controlling variables sufficiently, yet still not achieving fat loss results?

Question 3. Have you overestimated your weight maintenance Calories?

If you've overestimated the number of Calories you need to maintain weight, then you've likely overestimated an appropriate intake of Calories to lose weight. 

Usually, we use predictive equations to estimate total daily energy expenditure but at the end of the day, these equations are just estimations based on averages, that honestly only form a rough starting point to monitor and adjust from. 

The activity factor you used in your predictive equation might have been a little optimistic. It's worth considering the fact that you might just burn less energy than you think. It might be worth trying lowering your intake by ~10% to see what happens. 

However, sometimes you're already eating so little, and eating even less doesn't quite add up, you need to consider the possibility of adaptive thermogenesis. 

You know you're not progressing, you're 100% sure you're controlling variables sufficiently and the idea of you overestimating your maintenance Calories is unlikely, yet still not achieving fat loss results?  

You might think you're in a deficit, not seeing progress and therefore beginning to question the Calories in versus Calories out model. Here is the thing... you're not in a deficit. In fact, you might even be 'energy-deficient' but still not in a deficit.  But, it's not really your fault...

Question 4: Is your lack of fat loss results due to increased energy efficiency?

This is where the following terms or phrases come in. 
-'A slow metabolism". 
-'Metabolic damage'. 
-'Metabolic adaptation
-'Adaptive thermogenesis. 

What do these terms all sort of essentially mean?
A reduction in 'metabolism'. 

What is metabolism?
It's simply just the summation of chemical reactions that occur with in the body... It's a unit of 'fuel', or 'energy burn'. It's how many Calories your body uses.

So with that in mind the aforementioned 4 phrases, relate to a reduction in the amount of energy your body burns. 

The good news is; These reductions are not forever,... they're acute. Meaning permanent slow-down or 'metabolic damage' can basically be deleted from the periphery of thought. You're not broken, but you may just be acutely adapted. 

Your metabolism (or the components of your daily energy usage/needs) can be broken up into two main categories. 

1. Resting energy expenditure - Human function at rest, and the energy cost of digesting and absorbing food. 
2. Non-resting energy expenditure - All spontaneous, planned and unplanned physical movement, activity, and exercise. 

Both of the above components of energy usage can change over time, both will impact your ability to create an energy deficit, but it's increased 'resting energy efficiency' that can impact your health and wellbeing.

Weight maintenance Calories required at 'full human functional capacity' versus weight maintenance Calories at any given time which could potentially be in a suppressed state are not the same thing. What was once an energy deficit Calorie intake, might now have become weight maintenance Calorie requirements. The body is smart and really adaptable in the name of survival. In the event of a famine or a food shortage. The body can learn to function with less energy, it can become more efficient with its usage and thus can function and survive on fewer Calories. This is great for the human race if a famine was actually present. This efficiency-seeking 'is what we're talking about when we say 'metabolic slowdown or adaptation. 

However, while the body is smart, it doesn't actually know if there is a famine. It can only get an idea based on energy availability. The outcomes of 'metabolic slow-down' might not be wanted or needed. Functioning well enough to survive versus thrive is different. The 'survival mechanism' of metabolic adaption doesn't come 'free of charge'. When the body has limited energy available it needs to prioritise the things that really matter. The means the 'other stuff' that doesn't matter so much, gets put aside. These impairments are not desirable (unless a famine is actually present). Not only do they make fat loss harder, but they may also severely impact health and wellbeing. 

'Energy deficiency' or 'low energy availability' can affect health and wellbeing in many ways. Shifting hormonal markers can result in a cascade of negative effects ranging from low bone mineral density, impaired cognition, muscle and strength loss, low testosterone (males), loss of the menstrual cycle (females), suppressed immunity, and more, all leading to performance loss, increased risk of illness, injury, poor health and poor self-image. 
So in short, the reason why you might not be in a state of negative energy balance (not losing fat) is because you may be experiencing a reduction in the number of Calories you expend over time due to 'metabolic slow-down'. 

The likely solution to 'metabolic slow-down'. 
Well, we can just 'do more, and/or eat less' but there is a limit to this because you can't just keep 'doing more and eating less', to stay ahead of metabolic adaptation. 

The solution might blow your mind. If I went straight to the solution without explaining metabolic adaption it would only add to the confusion, which would only result in you, the reader questioning 'Calories in versus Calories out' even more. 

Eat more. Increase your Calories for a period of time. Give the body the confidence to revert back to energy 'inefficiency', and therefore function at its full ideal working capacity which will, therefore, mean Calorie usage skyrockets back up. After you're in full functional health, only then can you start to consider recreating an energy deficit. 

At this point, your body will be far better primed for successful and 'healthier' fat loss results. 

Often a concern among people trying to lose weight when being told to eat more is the fear of gaining weight. As previously stated metabolism is dynamic and any adaptions are acute. As you increase energy availability (eat more) the body will just start doing the things it really wants to do, and therefore, as a result, will only just churn through the additional Calories up to the point where 'a true' surplus of Calories is created. 

Do you need to do a slow reverse diet? Probably not. Almost always it's not only fine to go straight up to 'ideal weight maintenance Calories', but it's also going to help up-regulate any suppressed factors of metabolism the fastest. 

Summary

To recap, if you’re having trouble with fat loss reflect on the following?

Are you sure you aren’t progressing?

Are you sure you’re adhering to a deficit?

Are you miscalculating your energy requirements?

Finally, are you perhaps in a state of increased energy efficiency?

If you currently aren’t seeing that fat loss results you’re after, it might be time to reach out to us for some more guidance, education and support to help you move towards that goal.

For more information on our 1 on 1 service, contact us today.

Eat fat to burn fat?

Reading Time

Many of the common diet trends, myths and ideas are derived from an element of truth that gets misinterpreted by the time it trickles down through to the general population. Companies will often twist the message of research to promote and sell their product.

A classic example is the concept of 'eat fat to burn fat', which in the past and still continues to form the promotion basis of products or diets that align with the high fat, low carb, keto trend.

It's true. If you increase the proportion of fats within your diet your body will indeed increase its propensity to utilise fats as a greater predominance of fuel. 'You burn what you eat'! [1]

But! Fat loss and fat utilisation/burning are not the same thing. Fat utilisation, commonly termed 'burning' just refers to fuel source predominance. For fat loss, or getting leaner a Calorie deficit still needs to be present over time with the ratio and amounts of carbs and fats after Calories, and protein being matched doesn't really matter.

In addition to the above. Predominately utilising fats is not 'better' for sports performance and/or fat loss.

So whilst the idea of 'eat fat to burn fat' is true, and being able to use fats are a fuel source in the absence of glucose (carbohydrates) is a good thing, it's not necessarily better and isn't an outcome that should be specifically sought after.

It's briefly worth noting that training in states of low glucose (carbohydrate) availability may be a good idea for optimising endurance training adaptations, but not in instances where best performance is required such as race day. Most often for most sporting, training endeavors and/or optimisation of the appearance of ones physique the question is 'what is the quantity of CARBOHYDRATES, required to fuel the activity?' Very rarely is that question asked with fats.

If you’re like more clarification on common nutritional trends and terms along with the individual guidance on how you can implement certain strategies to improve your training, recovery, overall health and body composition; reach out to us by clicking the button below and telling us more about yourself, current nutrition and your goals.

[1] Diet, Muscle Glycogen and Physical Performance

Non-tracking diet methods

Reading Time

A DIETING METHOD THAT WORKS FOR THOSE WHO PREFER NOT TO WORK WITH NUMBERS AND DATA. 

If you're someone who just doesn't mesh well with numbers and data, tracking Calories and macros probably isn't a viable option as a longer than short term dieting strategy. Not everyone can get away without tracking anything, but looking into a non-tracking method of dieting might be a good idea if the aforementioned sounds like you. 

There are many non-tracking dieting methods out there that can be used in combination. Using food selection to manipulate automatic Calorie intake is easily one of the most prominent methods. 

So what is it, and how does it work?
Focusing your food selection mostly on 'low-Calorie-per-bite', voluminous or filling foods allows you to eat a filling portion of physical food for not a lot of Calories. The high food volume, surface area or mass you're able to ingest will stimulate greater appetite satisfaction for fewer Calories than more Calorie dense options. The result being an automatic reduction in Calorie consumption with very little to no impact on meal hunger satisfaction. This automatic reduction in Calorie consumption will often place a dieter in a Calorie deficit leading to weight loss outcomes. 

Typically these filling foods present themselves in the form of plant matter being fibrous fruits and vegetables. But the idea of low Calorie per bite food swaps extends further to meats, dairy and grains. 

Practical examples that reduce Calories per bite and encourage a lower consumption of Calories include the following:
Fatty steak ➡️ lean steak

Full fat yogurt ➡️ nonfat yogurt 

Pasta ➡️ potato 

White rice ➡️ kidney beans 

Olive oil ➡️ avocado 

Noodles ➡️ ‘zoodles’

Coke ➡️ Diet Coke 

You can also change the ratios of ingredients within single meals to reduce the Calorie density. An example would be increasing the fruit to oat ratio in your morning protein oats.

Typically speaking edging towards a lower fat, higher plant, higher fibre approach to food selection will result in reductions in the Calorie content of your food without really changing the physical amount of food you can actually eat. 

It’s worth considering if you want to diet but don’t prefer the idea of tracking numbers and data and/or are suffering from heightened hunger levels during a period of intended Calorie restriction. 

To learn how to use non tracking methods to help you move towards and maintain your goals, click the button below