I wish I could say I know what was going on. I have theories as I spent months of my life trying to turn the tables. I eventually gave up and just continued to lift weights and eat normal. Now 4 years later I still have that fat I couldn't lose but I'm a lot bigger (muscle). That fat hasn't gone anywhere and in the 4 years I've yo-yo'd with different attempts to get rid of it. The fat I have is not normal.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article...
Most advice I've heard suggests that going way below your basal metabolic rate calorie consumption isn't that great of an idea, because your body adapts to that reduced calorie range (some people call this "starvation mode"). I would hazard a guess (though this is just a postulate without any data I could find) that this especially applies when you are at a more "normal" weight already.
There's a reason why weight loss is often described as a "lifestyle change".
My theory from my research is that the fat in question is the oldest (fat I've had since youth) and do to it's age has poor vascularity which inhibits the bodies ability to mobilize it. I've read somewhere that your body will over time reduce blood flow to fat (the veins will over time diminish in size and density those areas) which reduces the flow of hormones into that fat and subsequently your bodies ability to break it down and expel it when needed.
I'm no anatomy expert and this is something I read many years ago so I can't argue it's accurate.
Calorie in vs. calorie out is a simplistic way of looking at it. It is certainly true for a first-order approach, though. There is much more to it, such as timing, consumption of fiber with sugar, metabolism, etc. etc. However, the most important factor which should be taken on first for the largest immediate changes is calorie in/out.
I'm curious how much fat you have now? In my experience: With effort I was able to get to about 90% of my goals, but the last 10% is extremely stubborn and I haven't been able to get past it. From what I understand, it would require extreme tactics, such as 10 hours of sleep nightly, eliminating all stress and amino acid accounting to eliminate.
I might suggest reducing the cardio greatly and replacing it with briefer, higher-intensity cardio, btw. The body seems to adjust intake demands very well in response to cardio. Also, what supplements do you use? Finally, I'm a little concerned when you say the fat you have is not normal - you may be straying into the unrealistic psychological zone, but obviously I can't tell much from here. I just don't want you to be obsessing over a physique that is already quite acceptable. Congrats again, your discipline should be inspiring to lots of people... hope you comment doesn't stay gray long.
Can't say how much I have at the moment. Definitely in an upswing since I've been trying to bulk a little. I has this incredible ability to store water (most likely do to fat deposits) and look fluffy. If I zero out my carbs I will piss 20x that day and at 180 lbs the fat will look exactly the same as it did when I was at 148 lbs. Once I look at some bread my body will hold onto everything I drink and I'll fluff right up.
I've read that the last 10% will take all the effort of the first 90% and then some. I tried as I could to power through it and I can honestly say whatever is keep that last 10% is stronger than I am. When you starve for several weeks straight and lose nothing it's hard not to be defeated. I've considered for several years now going under the knife to win it but the prohibitive cost has kept me away from that and the desire to not be defeated by my body.
As I mentioned I've cycled weight lifting / cardio / diet dozens of times over the last few years to keep my body guessing without success.
Supplements: fish oil, multi-vit, whey, creatine, and sometimes fiber.
By not normal I mean old brown adipose or subcutaneous fat with very poor circulation which inhibits the bodies ability to flush hormones through it. This is the fat I've had for 20sh years (was overweight as a child) and I believe the body has practically forgotten about it so to speak.
The calorie in / calorie out has a lot of variables that need adjustment. It's very important not to go on an aggressive diet but requires working down from what you consume right now where the weight is stable (maintenance calories). Unfortunately, what most people don't talk about is the effect of LBM loss and its effect on the RMR/BMR [1]. Your energy expenditure decreases further as you lose the LBM. It will be further worsened if you went for a very aggressive weight loss strategy with very low calories as your body will adjust to that and your hormones might be temporarily imbalanced [2].
Weight lifting and a full strategy for fat loss is essential for long-term success.
I personally do believe metabolic damage (or the better term metabolic slowdown) does happen, but it can be fixed by gradually going back to the correct maintenance calories with a solid weight lifting program (3x per week works) to back it up for a few months. This will result in some gains in the short-term (hopefully more of it being LBM). And you can go back to the fat loss phase again from there.
To add to it, the course the calorie in / calorie out model isn't as simple since macros still need some thought. You definitely need about 0.6-0.8g of protein / lb of bodyweight to gain muscle or about 0.8-0.9g / lb to maintain it at times of calorie deficit. [3]
[1]: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-mai... [2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816/ [3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425
I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months.
You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet can be wildly successful. The former quote seems provably false using the latter.
Honestly, this is what I just read from your post.
I can't lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. Here is an example of how I lost a huge amount of weight on a restricted calorie diet.
You'll never find a diet/exercise/plan that allows one to achieve indefinite weight lose.
Weight loss is hard because you need to figure out some motivator which can outweigh the drive to eat, or you need to figure out a way to satisfy the drive to eat without actually eating lots of calories. It seems to me that fancy advice like "more protein, less sugar" or "avoid processed food" just boils down to this second one; these are foods which fill you up more for any given number of calories.
second, and more importantly, this advise is nearly useless. this is like telling an alcoholic to just drink less, or a heroin addict to just stop using. yes, great. eat less, thanks bro. what a revelation.
obese people are addicted to food. they are killing themselves and it's a psychosomatic issue, not a math problem. it requires education, a real desire to change, sometimes special diets to break mental barriers, and a lot more work than just a simple statement like "eat less calories". i guess you must think everyone else is just stupid, right? so simple! just eat less calories. silly addicts, if they only knew about physics...
It's like telling poor people the way to escape poverty is to make more money than they spend.
Of course that is true, but they would be more interested in how to do it, not what to do.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
"ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly re-fined grain products) contributed 9.5 percentage points; added fats and oils, 9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7 percentage points; fruits and vegetables together, 1.5 percentage points; meats and nuts together, 1 percentage point; and dairy products and eggs together,-1.5 percentage point.)"
I do think going light on highly processed food (including refined sugar and refined grains), and going light on calorie dense oils and fats is pretty good advice for any diet. But that's entirely due to the impact on calorie consumption, not due to any other health bogeyman.
I neither track calories, nor have "a mindful sense" when eating. My trick is to have no limitations in regards to the kind of food I eat with one rule: eat no more than one meal a day.
You can't outrun your fork. Even if you want to create a caloric deficit through increased activity level, you'll need to hold intake constant, therefore you most likely have to track it to begin with. These days with things like MyFitnessPal there is no excuse. And while it's possible to lose weight without tracking (I've done it), it's not nearly as straightforward.
If people are truly lazy, they'd put down the fork, as that's all that's needed, no time "wasted" at the gym necessary. But hunger is a hard thing to beat, and willpower can be used up, not to mention a lot of other factors (mindless eating, eating for comfort or to self-medicate, etc).
People have this misconception that "addiction" can only be to something that you can live without (such as drugs, alcohol, gambling, the Internet or gaming), when in truth you can be addicted to anything. If there's anything I'd demonize refined sugar for, it would be that it's easy to get addicted to, especially as it's put into far too many foodstuffs. Otherwise, it's just calories, and if you want it, fit it into your daily caloric budget.
Sure, calories in and out matter, but it's very clear to me that the human body is complex, and if someone else has a body that reacts similar to mine, only with a significantly higher normal, I feel very sorry for them.
Well there are ways that make hitting a calorie deficit easier for some people. For me that tends to come from low carbs and lots of fat. I'm still losing weight because I'm at a deficit but I'm able to maintain that because I don't feel hungry like I do when I eat carbs.