Menopause
Hi, everyone, new to this forum. I had wls 2 yrs ago, lost only 80 of the 130 I wanted to lose, and just can't get that last 50 off. Also just turned 50. Been working with a trainer 2X/week since July on circuit training, and 4 times a week cardio on my own at the gym - intervals on the treadmill, eliptical, etc. Burning 300-500 cals, eating about 1400-1600 cals, and my bmr is 1600. I should be in deficit ##, and am not losing. Someone suggested it is all about the hormones, people in menopause can be in deficit and still not lose. I heard if someone eats does their BRM amt minus 500 cals/week still won't ever lose and may gain. Anyone know anything? I am getting to the point of acceptance, that this is where it is at, but thought I would consult the experts. I work about 60 hours a week at a desk job, so the 1 hours of exercise I committed to since July is a tough thing for me to get in, I can't do any more time or will never see my family or get my life tasks done! I track all food so am confident in my numbers. The surgeon's exercise expert says there is research on exercise required after large weight loss, and the numbers were a bit grim - 90 min daily of hard exercise in addn to life activities to just maintain. Was not encouraging. The only thing I see is the hormones unless it is wls related - any suggestions on weight loss here? Know where the research is? How long does the large loss effect last and will your metabolism ever catch up and be normal again?
Thanks for the info!
Joan
Thanks for the info!
Joan
This is what I know.. .people believe the strangest things and pass that on like it's science when it defies the laws of physics. Don't believe them! The laws of physics apply to EVERYONE.
The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can not be created from nothing. Therefore, IF you are operating at a calorie deficit, you will lose body mass. If you aren't losing body mass, you aren't operating at a deficit. You may honestly think you are (and there are many reasons for that) but you aren't.
It's not like Jesus with the loaves and the fishes or the wine at that wedding. If you burn 1500 calories a day, it has to come from somwhere. If it doesn't come from your food, your body has to convert body parts (usually, and hopefully, fat) into energy. Otherwise, it's like you went 30 miles on a 20 miles worth of gas and that can't happen.
The problem is that most of these numbers are estimates and people are bad at keeping track of what they eat and how much they exercise and they believe the numbers they see when they are just estimates.
For example, our BMR. Most people get their BMR by running a formula on a website somewhere or by what their scale says or a 'body fat' measurement at a gym. That doesn't mean that's your BMR.
For those of us who are or used to be obese and have yo-yo dieted, those formulas just don't work. Our BMRs are lower than what the formulas say they are. In one study, they found that a 130 pound woman who used to be 100 pounds heavier could only eat as much as a 120 pound woman who had never been overweight and not a 130 pound woman who was never overweight. (This wasn't a study of WLS patients either. It doesn't matter if you had WLS or not -- if you lose a lot of weight, your metabolism slows down and doesn't fully recover.)
From what I have seen, most people on this site have BMRs that are pretty low. On the VSG site the older women like us often gain if they eat more than 1200 calories a day. Therefore, their BMR can't be 1400-1600 like the formulas say it should be.
Another number that screws people over is exercise. People all the time believe they've burned more calories than they have. The machines at the gym tell them a number and they believe it or they put in what they did into some online database and a number gets spit out and they believe that. But those numbers are hardly ever accurate. They usually are too high. (Some people think the gym machines do that on purpose to motivate people to use them.)
On the site I use to track my food, I see this all the time in my news feed: walked 30 min, burned 200 calories.
Um, no. Walking burns about 50 net calories per mile (give or take a few). That has been studied extensively and we're pretty confident of that number. The only way to burn 300 net calories walking is to walk 6 miles and you can't walk 6 miles in 30 minutes!
Also, any number you get for calories burned by exercise includes the calories you would have burned if you were laying down instead. Those calories are already included in your BMR. So you have to subtract them out. Otherwise you are double counting.
What I do is I have a BodyMedia FIT (aka a BodyBugg). It measure a bunch of things and uses that to estimate how many calories I burn every day. It's fairly accurate. You can't wear it swimming or in the shower and it's not that accurate for biking but for everything else it works pretty well.
An alternative is to get your RMR (a similar number to BMR) tested via a special machine you breath into that measures how much oxygen you consume. Then, you can get a HR monitor and use that to figure out how many calories you burn in exercise. Combining an accurate RMR/BMR with an accurate calorie burn during exercise should get you in the ballpark.
Also, when I track my food, I am VERY conservative. I round up my portion sizes and I put in everything I eat -- even if I just lick a spoon while cooking, I account for it. I weight and measure a lot too.
Don't forget: if you buy packaged food, the calories on the package can be lower than what they really are by law. That's because it's okay to say you are selling someone 1oz of food and give them 1.2 oz. It's not okay to say it's 1 oz when it's really .8 oz. So the food manufacturers all add in a bit extra so they don't accidentally gip you.
I also exercise quite a bit. More than the average 50-something. Because of that, I have a fairly low body fat percentage and that helps a lot. Because I have so much more muscle than an average middle-aged woman, I also have a higher BMR than someone who has yo-yo dieted like me should have. Mine is almost kind of normal!
The thing is, if you are eating 1400-1600 and not losing, then it's got to be some combination of the following
-you are eating more than you think you are
-your BMR is lower than you think
-you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are
There really isn't any other explanation. You just need to examine all your numbers and figure out which ones aren't accurate.
The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can not be created from nothing. Therefore, IF you are operating at a calorie deficit, you will lose body mass. If you aren't losing body mass, you aren't operating at a deficit. You may honestly think you are (and there are many reasons for that) but you aren't.
It's not like Jesus with the loaves and the fishes or the wine at that wedding. If you burn 1500 calories a day, it has to come from somwhere. If it doesn't come from your food, your body has to convert body parts (usually, and hopefully, fat) into energy. Otherwise, it's like you went 30 miles on a 20 miles worth of gas and that can't happen.
The problem is that most of these numbers are estimates and people are bad at keeping track of what they eat and how much they exercise and they believe the numbers they see when they are just estimates.
For example, our BMR. Most people get their BMR by running a formula on a website somewhere or by what their scale says or a 'body fat' measurement at a gym. That doesn't mean that's your BMR.
For those of us who are or used to be obese and have yo-yo dieted, those formulas just don't work. Our BMRs are lower than what the formulas say they are. In one study, they found that a 130 pound woman who used to be 100 pounds heavier could only eat as much as a 120 pound woman who had never been overweight and not a 130 pound woman who was never overweight. (This wasn't a study of WLS patients either. It doesn't matter if you had WLS or not -- if you lose a lot of weight, your metabolism slows down and doesn't fully recover.)
From what I have seen, most people on this site have BMRs that are pretty low. On the VSG site the older women like us often gain if they eat more than 1200 calories a day. Therefore, their BMR can't be 1400-1600 like the formulas say it should be.
Another number that screws people over is exercise. People all the time believe they've burned more calories than they have. The machines at the gym tell them a number and they believe it or they put in what they did into some online database and a number gets spit out and they believe that. But those numbers are hardly ever accurate. They usually are too high. (Some people think the gym machines do that on purpose to motivate people to use them.)
On the site I use to track my food, I see this all the time in my news feed: walked 30 min, burned 200 calories.
Um, no. Walking burns about 50 net calories per mile (give or take a few). That has been studied extensively and we're pretty confident of that number. The only way to burn 300 net calories walking is to walk 6 miles and you can't walk 6 miles in 30 minutes!
Also, any number you get for calories burned by exercise includes the calories you would have burned if you were laying down instead. Those calories are already included in your BMR. So you have to subtract them out. Otherwise you are double counting.
What I do is I have a BodyMedia FIT (aka a BodyBugg). It measure a bunch of things and uses that to estimate how many calories I burn every day. It's fairly accurate. You can't wear it swimming or in the shower and it's not that accurate for biking but for everything else it works pretty well.
An alternative is to get your RMR (a similar number to BMR) tested via a special machine you breath into that measures how much oxygen you consume. Then, you can get a HR monitor and use that to figure out how many calories you burn in exercise. Combining an accurate RMR/BMR with an accurate calorie burn during exercise should get you in the ballpark.
Also, when I track my food, I am VERY conservative. I round up my portion sizes and I put in everything I eat -- even if I just lick a spoon while cooking, I account for it. I weight and measure a lot too.
Don't forget: if you buy packaged food, the calories on the package can be lower than what they really are by law. That's because it's okay to say you are selling someone 1oz of food and give them 1.2 oz. It's not okay to say it's 1 oz when it's really .8 oz. So the food manufacturers all add in a bit extra so they don't accidentally gip you.
I also exercise quite a bit. More than the average 50-something. Because of that, I have a fairly low body fat percentage and that helps a lot. Because I have so much more muscle than an average middle-aged woman, I also have a higher BMR than someone who has yo-yo dieted like me should have. Mine is almost kind of normal!
The thing is, if you are eating 1400-1600 and not losing, then it's got to be some combination of the following
-you are eating more than you think you are
-your BMR is lower than you think
-you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are
There really isn't any other explanation. You just need to examine all your numbers and figure out which ones aren't accurate.
HW - 225 SW - 191 GW - 132 CW - 122
Visit my blog at Fatty Fights Back Become a Fan on Facebook!
Starting BMI 40-ish or less? Join the LightWeights
Thanks, this is very much what I suspected. Depressing to hear, but consistant with my experience. Wish I could get that 50# off, though, so I could be more % muscle and less% fat. Sigh, still working on it. Realy appreciate the insight. The dietician told me to drop to 1200 cals, but on days I work out (6 days/week) I get shakey and starving hungry, so I am not very comfortable dropping. Maybe I ned to start dropping slowly to 1500, then 1400 so I get a bit more used to it. Will keep working on it! Thanks again.
You could drop to 1200 just on days you don't do cardio also.
The other thing is, when I was training for a Sprint Tri on only 900 calories, what I did was to eat what carbs I did eat around my workouts. I made sure to stay really well hydrated too. I also really pushed the protein. I was doing 90 g a day at 900 calories and 120 g a day when I went up to 1200 calories. A lot of programs say to get in 60 g of protein only and I just don't think that's enough, especially if you have malaborption and/or workout a lot.
So, for example, I'd have a snack right before a workout -- maybe veggies or fruit -- and then a recovery snack after -- maybe cheese sticks so I'd get some protein. Both were only about 100 calories but that's 200 calories within a 2-3 hour period.
That was for 60-90 min workouts. If the workout was 2 hours or more, I'd drink a custom mixture that was 1/2 a protein drink like Healthwise fruit flavored drinks (15 g of protein per 8 oz) and 1/2 a sports drink (no protein but electrolytes to go with the carbs). The extra protein seemed to help.
Some other things to check into:
-are you insulin resistant? If you are, you will need to keep your carbs really low to lose because eating carbs lowers your metabolism. Taking metaforin (sp?) can really help with that, btw.
-how's your thyroid? If it's even slightly under-active, that can impact your metabolism as well
Finally, keep up the strength training and cardio! The fitter you are and the more muscles you have, the better your metabolism and the better your calorie burn during exercise. Even if it just increases your calorie burn by 100 calories a day, that can mean the difference between being able to have a treat once in a while and never being able to.
As an example, Lance Armstrong has a Max VO2 of something like 65. Mine is around 40. Most middle-aged women who are just starting to workout have on around 30. If we all exercise for 60 minutes with our HR at 140, we burn the following:
Average Middle-aged Lady: 510.03
Me: 564.52
Lance Armstrong: 630.03
So, you can see that getting into shape has long-term benefits when it comes to calorie burn even if you don't lose more weight in the beginning.
The other thing is, when I was training for a Sprint Tri on only 900 calories, what I did was to eat what carbs I did eat around my workouts. I made sure to stay really well hydrated too. I also really pushed the protein. I was doing 90 g a day at 900 calories and 120 g a day when I went up to 1200 calories. A lot of programs say to get in 60 g of protein only and I just don't think that's enough, especially if you have malaborption and/or workout a lot.
So, for example, I'd have a snack right before a workout -- maybe veggies or fruit -- and then a recovery snack after -- maybe cheese sticks so I'd get some protein. Both were only about 100 calories but that's 200 calories within a 2-3 hour period.
That was for 60-90 min workouts. If the workout was 2 hours or more, I'd drink a custom mixture that was 1/2 a protein drink like Healthwise fruit flavored drinks (15 g of protein per 8 oz) and 1/2 a sports drink (no protein but electrolytes to go with the carbs). The extra protein seemed to help.
Some other things to check into:
-are you insulin resistant? If you are, you will need to keep your carbs really low to lose because eating carbs lowers your metabolism. Taking metaforin (sp?) can really help with that, btw.
-how's your thyroid? If it's even slightly under-active, that can impact your metabolism as well
Finally, keep up the strength training and cardio! The fitter you are and the more muscles you have, the better your metabolism and the better your calorie burn during exercise. Even if it just increases your calorie burn by 100 calories a day, that can mean the difference between being able to have a treat once in a while and never being able to.
As an example, Lance Armstrong has a Max VO2 of something like 65. Mine is around 40. Most middle-aged women who are just starting to workout have on around 30. If we all exercise for 60 minutes with our HR at 140, we burn the following:
Average Middle-aged Lady: 510.03
Me: 564.52
Lance Armstrong: 630.03
So, you can see that getting into shape has long-term benefits when it comes to calorie burn even if you don't lose more weight in the beginning.
HW - 225 SW - 191 GW - 132 CW - 122
Visit my blog at Fatty Fights Back Become a Fan on Facebook!
Starting BMI 40-ish or less? Join the LightWeights
I have chosen to go back on product for a few weeks and get 800-1000 cals/day, including days I work out. Today did 1 hr strength training (trainer established full body workout) and did o****il tonight. Now I am hungry. I had a 23 gm protein nectar after the workout which held me well, otherwise I am trying to have something high protein every 3 hours. Worked before wls, why not now. I told my trainer I worry about being too low to tolerate a full training session, but I could adjust my cardio. We agreed I needed a minimum of 100 gm protein a day on 800-1000, so I think I will do ok. I have been running about 70 without the drop in cals. I drink a ton (4-6 liters/day), hydration is never a problem, although my last Tanita scale reading said I was dehydrated after drinkng a full liter of water within the hour just before I went in to get on the thing. Weird. I could be insulin resistant, I was on metformin before wls, and now don't need it, but I suspect it has some action here. Not sure if I want to back on at this point, could check with my pcp. My thyroid was checked and is ok. I go to the gym pretty much 6 days a week for one or the other - trying for 3 cardios and 3 strengths. I can tell my tolerance for activity is really climbing now - I stayed on the eliptical for a full 30 min at a pretty good clip for me - otherwise I have always just done treadmill. Have you always been in to the high intensity stuff? My trainer mentioned I should have a goal and he thought I should train for a part marathon or something. Did you do that before or did you start this since wls? I hear a lot of women take up exercise after the age of 50 - I was not aware and not any of my friends are doing that, but I am, and 90% of my trainer's clients are my situation. I think part of that is money, but maybe this is more common than I thought. My goal is prepping for panniculectomy which I have not done yet and want to be as low in weight and in as good a shape as I can before I have the surgery. Appt is the end of Dec and I think I will likely have surgery in April 2012. Be good to drop that 20# before then.
I don't know how common it is for people our age to start exercising. But it's not like none of us exist! One of my triathlon role models is Harriet Anderson. She started doing tris at the age of 51 like me and she still does them at the age or 76!
Before WLS I was more of a social exerciser. If people around me were doing things, I would too. But I didn't do anything on my own. So at various times I've done a little mountain biking, tried to jog (in the 80s - everyone was doing it), was in a bowling league and figure skated.
I figured skating the longest. At one point I was skating 6 hours a week! But I sucked and I got tired of working 3x as hard to make 1/2 the progress of everyone else. So I dropped it. My plan was to do ballroom dancing but I didn't want to be the fat gal no one liked to dance with and I never started. This was part of what prompted me to get WLS as I was worried that I'd turn into one of those people riding around in a scooter if I didn't do any physical activity.
But it wasn't until I had the surgery that I started to really get into working out. I signed up for a Sprint triathlon a few months out and then a 5k the month before (as a test) and from there it really took off!
My Tanita scale always says I'm dehydrated too.
It also claims all the muscles I gained in my arms is fat. Except when I tell it I'm a guy. Then it correctly shows that I have skinny legs and arms and most of my fat is in the middle. this really brings home to me that a lot of these numbers are estimates.
There is a gal on OH who is our age who lost weight really, really slowly even though she was very strict with herself. But she did eventually lose it! She did go back on metaforin, I think, and that did help. But she just plugged away losing 1 pound a month at times until it was all gone. If you want, I can hook you guys up.
Before WLS I was more of a social exerciser. If people around me were doing things, I would too. But I didn't do anything on my own. So at various times I've done a little mountain biking, tried to jog (in the 80s - everyone was doing it), was in a bowling league and figure skated.
I figured skating the longest. At one point I was skating 6 hours a week! But I sucked and I got tired of working 3x as hard to make 1/2 the progress of everyone else. So I dropped it. My plan was to do ballroom dancing but I didn't want to be the fat gal no one liked to dance with and I never started. This was part of what prompted me to get WLS as I was worried that I'd turn into one of those people riding around in a scooter if I didn't do any physical activity.
But it wasn't until I had the surgery that I started to really get into working out. I signed up for a Sprint triathlon a few months out and then a 5k the month before (as a test) and from there it really took off!
My Tanita scale always says I'm dehydrated too.
It also claims all the muscles I gained in my arms is fat. Except when I tell it I'm a guy. Then it correctly shows that I have skinny legs and arms and most of my fat is in the middle. this really brings home to me that a lot of these numbers are estimates.
There is a gal on OH who is our age who lost weight really, really slowly even though she was very strict with herself. But she did eventually lose it! She did go back on metaforin, I think, and that did help. But she just plugged away losing 1 pound a month at times until it was all gone. If you want, I can hook you guys up.
HW - 225 SW - 191 GW - 132 CW - 122
Visit my blog at Fatty Fights Back Become a Fan on Facebook!
Starting BMI 40-ish or less? Join the LightWeights
Yeah, the last time I lost significant weight was before I got pregnant with my second kid. At that time, I could lose reasonably well with 1200 calories a day and going to the gym a few times a week. I was rather stunned when my surgeon said my weight loss was too slow at the 3 week check-up.
This time around, it took 800-1200 calories a day and working out 5-7 hours a week.
I'm not even sure I'm in menopause either even though I'm the right age for it. But having a kid at 41 kind of threw things off and my mom didn't go into menopause until much later in life than the average.
One thing I will say about working out though... when I embraced it, it did right by me. I can eat a lot more than a lot of my WLS friends and I don't think that would have happened if I hadn't embraced my inner athlete because it was getting my body fat percentage so low that really did it and working out 3-4 hours a week just wouldn't have given me those results!
This time around, it took 800-1200 calories a day and working out 5-7 hours a week.
I'm not even sure I'm in menopause either even though I'm the right age for it. But having a kid at 41 kind of threw things off and my mom didn't go into menopause until much later in life than the average.
One thing I will say about working out though... when I embraced it, it did right by me. I can eat a lot more than a lot of my WLS friends and I don't think that would have happened if I hadn't embraced my inner athlete because it was getting my body fat percentage so low that really did it and working out 3-4 hours a week just wouldn't have given me those results!
HW - 225 SW - 191 GW - 132 CW - 122
Visit my blog at Fatty Fights Back Become a Fan on Facebook!
Starting BMI 40-ish or less? Join the LightWeights
Most Active
Recent Topics
