Why is it harder to lose weight for some people than others?

While I do believe that it is calories in vs. calories out, I truly believe that for some people the number of calories burned is more dependent on the number of calories consumed than it is for other people.  I see plenty of posts from people who steadily lose 1-2 pounds per week because they keep their daily calorie deficit at 500-1000 per day, while I see other posts from people like me who lose weight very unsteadily, are lucky to eek out an average loss of a half pound a week, and plateau regularly despite keeping their daily calorie deficit between 500 and 1000.

I learned a long time ago that trying to lose weight eating 1200 calories doesn't work for me.  I'm 5'1", 146.5 lbs (as of this morning), I excercise every day for upwards of an hour, part of which is weight training, and I eat 1600 calories a day.  I've lost about 13 lbs since I started using CC 20 weeks ago, and I'm thrilled with the loss, and while I occasionally get frustrated wondering how long it's going to take to finally reach my goal or wondering when a plateau will finally break, I'm grateful that I've come this far, as that's more than I can say for any previous attempt I've made at losing weight.

So what is it that makes the difference?  I have 2 hypotheses:

1. It's genetic.  Some people's metabolisms are just quicker to slow down in response to an energy deficit.
2. By dieting since I was 13 years old, I've taught my metabolism to slow down and conserve energy when faced with an energy deficit.

I think it may be a combination of the 2 although I'm leaning heavily toward the 2nd reason.  Both my sisters were reasonably slim growing up.  My oldest sister started putting on weight in college, and it just kept adding up after she got married and had children.  8 years ago she joined WW and lost weight pretty quickly and with very little excercise (yoga once a week).  She reached her goal, but has since gained most of the weight back.  My other sister has never really been overweight.  She's excercised regularly since college, but at various times has been between a size 4 and a size 10.  Last year she had gotten up to a size 10 and wasn't happy about it.  She started eating smaller portions every 3-4 hours and the weight just fell off.  There was no calorie counting.  There was no excluding any foods, just portion control and excercise.  Now she's a size 2 - 4.

Unlike my sisters, I was a chubby kid.  My mother encouraged me to start dieting when I was 13 years old.  I wish she'd encouraged me to play a sport instead, but she didn't know any better.  I've tried Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, and briefly, LA Weight Loss (a scam if I've ever seen one).  I've read so many diet/nutrition/fitness books that at this point I could probably write one.  I'm eye rollingly amused when people offer me diet advice, especially the misguided tips such as, "You have to eat a tub of dry organic lettuce every day."  Calorie counting and excercise is the only thing that seems to work for me, but it is slow going.

So, what do you think?  What are your stories?  Does the weight come off as it's supposed to or do you have to struggle to chip off every pound?

thanks for clarifying fayeonherway.  i get what you mean now.  i spent a few years not knowing what was wrong with me either and it made me feel like crap having physical issues without a proper diagnosis.   im sorry the doctors havent been able to help you more.  ive also read online that pcos is still very misunderstood, so its probably a good idea to get another opinion from a new doctor.  maybe he/she will be more knowledgeable.   also, make sure to go to an endocrinologist and not just a gynecologist.  the gynecologist never really explained anything to me whereas the endocrinologist was much more helpful.

Original Post by sybil878:

Original Post by kylefsu:

But as far as your concerned, and as other people have said, you need to burn more calories. Like someone said they are estimates, but there's no subsitute for exercising. Diet is only part of the battle, you need to increase your energy expenditure. Someone said that they think there's more to the calories in/calories out thing, but when it comes to strictly losing lbs there isn't. 

This is bull ... sorry for the language, but it simply isn't always the case. I've been training for a half ironman for the past 4 months. On average I run/cycle/swim with a heart rate between 130 - 175 depending on the activity (average 130 for swimming, 150 for cycling, 170 for running) for about 9 - 12 hours per week - sometimes more.  I eat on average 1800 calories per day, 2000 if I have a 2+ hr run or cycle that day. I don't have cheat days. I don't drink. I measure and weigh everything that goes into my mouth. I don't eat out ever. According to the math I should be losing weight like crazy. I'm not. I never do. It just isn't that simple for everyone. Even if the 'estimates' for burn and metabolism are off significantly I should be losing substantial weight every week with my level of activity - I don't.

You are right in that individuals do vary, genetics plays a big part of it. I didn't mean to come off so "all or nothing" because nothing is and it's just the most consistent thing based on tons of research. I'm sure part of whats happening with your is replacing fat with more dense muscle, but if your not losing any weight after 4 months of training and eating right, you honestly might want to see a Doctor because it just doesn't add up.

Original Post by jessicasbc:

thanks for clarifying fayeonherway.  i get what you mean now.  i spent a few years not knowing what was wrong with me either and it made me feel like crap having physical issues without a proper diagnosis.   im sorry the doctors havent been able to help you more.  ive also read online that pcos is still very misunderstood, so its probably a good idea to get another opinion from a new doctor.  maybe he/she will be more knowledgeable.   also, make sure to go to an endocrinologist and not just a gynecologist.  the gynecologist never really explained anything to me whereas the endocrinologist was much more helpful.

Yup its an endocrinologist!  I hope its a good one too! 

I've been training for a half ironman for the past 4 months. On average I run/cycle/swim with a heart rate between 130 - 175 depending on the activity (average 130 for swimming, 150 for cycling, 170 for running) for about 9 - 12 hours per week - sometimes more.  I eat on average 1800 calories per day, 2000 if I have a 2+ hr run or cycle that day. I don't have cheat days. I don't drink. I measure and weigh everything that goes into my mouth. I don't eat out ever. According to the math I should be losing weight like crazy. I'm not. I never do. It just isn't that simple for everyone. Even if the 'estimates' for burn and metabolism are off significantly I should be losing substantial weight every week with my level of activity - I don't.

 You are just like me then ... If i exersice i dont lose weight,don't know why,its just the way it is .But if i just eat healthy foods and count calories without any exersice i lose weight fast . So i dont exersice .

Original Post by sondre:

...So i dont exersice .

 so being thin is more important than being healthy?  good choice.

 so being thin is more important than being healthy?  good choice.

 No, being slim & at healthy weight is BETTER than being FAT ! So yes - i think it is a good choice !

Original Post by kylefsu:

Original Post by sybil878:

 

You are right in that individuals do vary, genetics plays a big part of it. I didn't mean to come off so "all or nothing" because nothing is and it's just the most consistent thing based on tons of research. I'm sure part of whats happening with your is replacing fat with more dense muscle, but if your not losing any weight after 4 months of training and eating right, you honestly might want to see a Doctor because it just doesn't add up.

 Thanks, I know that I have built some muscle ... the really odd thing is that prior to the ironman training I was running half marathons and have been 'in significant training' for over a year - prior to that I was power walking 4 - 5 hours often both Saturdays and Sundays.  In the last 6 months I've only lost 9 lbs. I've had tests done on thyroid, etc ... I don't think there is anything wrong with me. I think the reason my body resists weight loss is all of the dieting I've done over the years. I just think that how our bodys work is more complicated than calories in vs calories out and that we don't fully understand how it all works. 

It's all good though, I'm just happy that I can stay active and feel good and if I lose a pound a month, that's fine with me!

Original Post by sondre

 No, being slim & at healthy weight is BETTER than being FAT ! So yes - i think it is a good choice !

 'Healthy weight' is not synonymous with 'being healthy.' An individual who is overweight, eats a maintenence healthy diet, and exercises reguarly is much healthier than someone who has simply dieted there way down to a 'healthy weight.' In fact, some researchers believe that many health risks of obesity are actually health risks of inactivity, and that they are related due to the fact that obese people are more likely to be inactive.

 Yes, there are genetics, yes there are medical conditions, and yes there are effects due to prior yo-yo diets. However, all of these things affect your calorie in/calorie out equation. Metabolism = calories out.

As for me, I need exercise to lose weight, otherwise my metabolism can adjust quickly to a diet and the exercise keeps it running (and gives me more energy in general so it's also quite possible that exercise just overall effects my calories burned). When CC thinks I have a 1000 calorie deficit, I lose about 1 lb per week, meaning I actually have a 500 calorie deficit. A lot of it is just finding the equation that works, trying different calorie levels and seeing what happens. I also lose weight sporadically but predictably. My weight doesn't go down the week before ttom, goes up during ttom, and I lose weight the other 2 weeks, however, since much of this is water and other normal weight fluctuations, who cares. I average out by months.

Also, while I don't know your history with weight loss, the more you lose the harder it gets. You may have to constantly readjust calories. Metabolism isn't always linear, so if the estimation was right when you were 160 lbs, that doesn't mean that it's right at 146 lbs.

I guess overall, being outside the predictable norm for weight loss does indeed make things harder, because it takes more time to find out what works and it can be discouraging to try things that seem fool-proof (like calorie counting), and still struggle, because finding that goldilocks 'not too little or too much' balance by trial and error... well it kind of sucks.

Good luck on continued weight loss : )

Original Post by minda_spk:

Original Post by sondre

 No, being slim & at healthy weight is BETTER than being FAT ! So yes - i think it is a good choice !

 'Healthy weight' is not synonymous with 'being healthy.'

 Read my post again - i wasn't talking about being healthy ! i said that being slim & at healthy weight(not underweight) is better than being fat! thats just how it works for me ! some people are fat and they are happy about it ,they dont want to change and it doesnt bother me at all . If your happy - good for you.but when i was fat,i didnt like myself at all & i wasnt happy about it ! and getting slimmer was 100% a good choice !

Original Post by dolphinclick:

Um, thanks for the biochemistry review, legaleli, but I have a degree in Biology.  I had to sit through a year of biochem, and there was a point in time when I had to memorize the structure of all 20 common amino acids and every step of the citric acid cycle.

I think there are a myriad of factors that influence our metabolic rate.  For example, my normal body temperature is not 98.6 degrees Farenheit.  It tends to hover somewhere between 97 and 98.  If it goes over 99 degrees, it's because I'm sick.  My body is saving energy by not maintaining its temperature a degree higher.

Several years ago I tried to lose weight by eating 1200 calories a day.  I counted diligently for 2 weeks, and I excercised every day.  I didn't lose an ounce.  What did I get for my trouble?  I found myself needing a nap in the middle of the day.  That was my body's way of trying to conserve energy, and apparently it worked.  Like I said, I don't know whether it's genetic or whether I've taught my body that it's going to have times when it needs to conserve energy, but the end result is that I can not lose weight any quicker than I am unless I truly starve myself.  I've been there -- not intentionally, but I was sick and had no appetite.  When the smell of food turns your stomach, there's only so much you can force down.  And let me tell you, the weight fell off fast, but I'd rather not go through that again.  I'm content to lose weight slowly as long as I keep losing. 

On the plus side, should a famine come up, I feel confident that I'll survive it ;)

 

So you're saying "why let all that pesky science get in the way when I can rest easy anthropomorphizing my metabolism"? (Joke)

I was actually TRYING to tell you that your diet IS possible slowing your metabolism but NOT because you are in a deficit - but because of something else going on - possibly because of your deficit - but maybe due to an increase or decrease in a TYPE of food - or because of the times you eat - or the effect of exercise AND food - some other factor affecting your metabolism when you diet. 

I'm just trying to offer a view lady!

Original Post by sondre:

Original Post by minda_spk:

Original Post by sondre

 No, being slim & at healthy weight is BETTER than being FAT ! So yes - i think it is a good choice !

 'Healthy weight' is not synonymous with 'being healthy.'

 Read my post again - i wasn't talking about being healthy

yeah, see, i think this is exactly what minda and i are trying to say: you're not talking about health.  in fact, in none of your posts do you talk about health as a value.  that's worrying.  being thin (or even a "healthy weight") without being healthy isn't likely to improve your quality of life.  hell - one of the quickest and easiest ways to lose weight is to get sick.  i lost 14 pounds in 3 weeks that way.  it wasn't fun. 

my mother didn't exercise much.  she was thin her whole life, so she thought she didn't need to.  then she had a massive stroke.  she's in a wheelchair now, paralyzed on the left side.  and guess what?  she's not thin anymore.

being thin (or even a "healthy weight") without being healthy isn't likely to improve your quality of life. -- >

What sort of powers do you have to say i am not healthy just by looking at my picture or reading my posts ? What makes you think that i have any health problems or i am not healthy ?

Original Post by minda_spk:

I guess overall, being outside the predictable norm for weight loss does indeed make things harder, because it takes more time to find out what works and it can be discouraging to try things that seem fool-proof (like calorie counting), and still struggle, because finding that goldilocks 'not too little or too much' balance by trial and error... well it kind of sucks.

Kind of like life itself, no?  Trying to find balance by trial and error is the price we pay for sentience.

All the interesting people in my life fall outside the norm in some way or another, so I think of it as more of an advantage than not -- once we are past the horror of high school, that is. 

Original Post by sondre:

being thin (or even a "healthy weight") without being healthy isn't likely to improve your quality of life. -- >

What sort of powers do you have to say i am not healthy just by looking at my picture or reading my posts ? What makes you think that i have any health problems or i am not healthy ?

 

i didn't say you're not healthy.  i said that your posts don't contain any mention of health as a value.  in fact, you seem to be arguing against health as a value.  that's your prerogative, but in my experience, it's not very smart.

Original Post by legaleli:

So you're saying "why let all that pesky science get in the way when I can rest easy anthropomorphizing my metabolism"? (Joke)

I was actually TRYING to tell you that your diet IS possible slowing your metabolism but NOT because you are in a deficit - but because of something else going on - possibly because of your deficit - but maybe due to an increase or decrease in a TYPE of food - or because of the times you eat - or the effect of exercise AND food - some other factor affecting your metabolism when you diet. 

I'm just trying to offer a view lady!

I love science.  I've made it a career, actually   Although when I used to teach chemistry, I anthropomorphized atoms all the time.  The chlorine atom wants another electron, it has an octet, so it's happy, etc.  That's not how it works, but it helps high school students learn.

But when you sift through all the different studies, there's a ton of information and different opinions, a number of which are contradictory.  There are so many different factors that can affect a person's metabolism that when it comes down to it, unless you're a test subject of some sort and are being constantly monitored, it's trial and error.  You've got to do what works for you.  And with what I'm doing, I'm losing weight slowly, but I'm losing it, and that's more than I can say for any weight loss program I've tried that I had to pay for.  And maybe there are changes I can make to my diet that would make my lose faster.  I read one study that said that people lose more weight when they eat animal protein rather than soy protein.  I like soy protein, and I don't want to eat more animal protein.  And there are other studies that say eating more meat puts you at a greater risk of cancer.

When it comes right down to it, you've got to eat a diet you're happy with that keeps you satisfied and healthy, and you have to keep up an excercise regimen you can live with.

Based on previous posts from sondre, she's hardly sitting on her butt all day.  She stays active chasing after 2 little ones, and she walks everywhere.  Just because she isn't sweating at the gym every day doesn't mean she's inactive and unhealthy.

so being thin is more important than being healthy?  good choice. -->

I dont think i said that being thin is more important than being healthy. i dont think that wanting to lose weight means that health is not important.

i didn't say you're not healthy -->

Good! Because i am healthy . And thats good enough for me!

you seem to be arguing against health as a value -->

Where did you see me saying that? Anyway,the person who posted this question wanted to know why is it harder to lose weight for some people than others, and NOT why some people are healtier than others.And i dont think this person really cares about me being healthy or not.And why my health would bother you i got no idea.but you being healthy or ill /skinny or fat or whatever doesnt bother me at all .

Based on previous posts from sondre, she's hardly sitting on her butt all day.  She stays active chasing after 2 little ones, and she walks everywhere.  Just because she isn't sweating at the gym every day doesn't mean she's inactive and unhealthy. --->

Thank you! Some people seem to think that if you are not at the gym everyday then you are not healthy or dont value your health.

So sorry for "stealing" your thread .

look, you said in post #24 that you choose not to exercise because when you do, you "don't lose weight" (which is a ridiculous statement.  eating too much makes it impossible to lose weight, not exercise.  but maybe you have a martian metabolism or something).  we know (yes, know) that exercise is critical to good health. 

maybe you are healthy.  maybe your statement was a big fat lie.  i don't particularly care about your health, but i do care about the truth.

you choose not to exercise because when you do, you "don't lose weight" -->

So i didnt say that i dont exersice because i dont value my health? did i ? and i didnt say that being thin is more important than being healthy . did i ?

Original Post by dolphinclick:

Original Post by legaleli:

So you're saying "why let all that pesky science get in the way when I can rest easy anthropomorphizing my metabolism"? (Joke)

I was actually TRYING to tell you that your diet IS possible slowing your metabolism but NOT because you are in a deficit - but because of something else going on - possibly because of your deficit - but maybe due to an increase or decrease in a TYPE of food - or because of the times you eat - or the effect of exercise AND food - some other factor affecting your metabolism when you diet. 

I'm just trying to offer a view lady!

I love science.  I've made it a career, actually   Although when I used to teach chemistry, I anthropomorphized atoms all the time.  The chlorine atom wants another electron, it has an octet, so it's happy, etc.  That's not how it works, but it helps high school students learn.

But when you sift through all the different studies, there's a ton of information and different opinions, a number of which are contradictory.  There are so many different factors that can affect a person's metabolism that when it comes down to it, unless you're a test subject of some sort and are being constantly monitored, it's trial and error.  You've got to do what works for you.  And with what I'm doing, I'm losing weight slowly, but I'm losing it, and that's more than I can say for any weight loss program I've tried that I had to pay for.  And maybe there are changes I can make to my diet that would make my lose faster.  I read one study that said that people lose more weight when they eat animal protein rather than soy protein.  I like soy protein, and I don't want to eat more animal protein.  And there are other studies that say eating more meat puts you at a greater risk of cancer.

When it comes right down to it, you've got to eat a diet you're happy with that keeps you satisfied and healthy, and you have to keep up an excercise regimen you can live with.

Based on previous posts from sondre, she's hardly sitting on her butt all day.  She stays active chasing after 2 little ones, and she walks everywhere.  Just because she isn't sweating at the gym every day doesn't mean she's inactive and unhealthy.

I see what you're saying - but it seems so odd... let me explain where I am coming from:

Right NOW - your diet is working - this is great.  You eat so much and you exercise so much and the balance is perfect to optimise your weight loss.  According to you - if you continue to eat what you are currently - and add more exercise - thereby increasing your deficit - you will cause yourself to lose less.  I am not disbelieving you - I am only questioning the process of your analysis ("it's the deficit").  What in your biology would cause you to lose less weight if you increased your activity level?