Logging accuracy, consistency, and you're probably eating more than you think.
SideSteel
Posts: 11,068 Member
For most of my online clients, when fat loss stalls the first thing I will tend to examine are logging habits for consistency and accuracy. It's pretty common for people to under-report food intake and there's multiple pieces of research demonstrating that.
Speaking from my experiences dieting, back when I was tracking intake any time I would hit a plateau the first thing I would examine would be tracking accuracy and most often this would solve the problem. I was simply eating more than I thought I was and I realize this happens and I make efforts to correct this. Now of course sometimes you also have to make adjustments to intake/activity, but over long periods of dieting it's very easy for additional inaccuracies to start popping up. Taking a nibble of this or that, not using the food scale, eyeballing certain portions, completely neglecting to log a certain item, not logging various supplements or beverages or condiments -- all of these things can stack up to a substantial difference in what is logged vs what is actually consumed.
Logging consistency is another often neglected component to this. You may be logging 1500 calories per day for 11 days followed by missing a weekend here or there, or missing entire meals on certain days, etc.
I'd like to make an important point about this that typically gets missed in the forums when this is brought up. I don't believe that logging inaccuracies are necessarily a function of honesty. They CAN be, but what I mean by this is that you are not necessarily being accused of being dishonest or lacking integrity if it is pointed out to you that you're not actually eating 900 calories and not losing weight. There are a variety of reasons that logging can be inaccurate but this happens to well intentioned and honest people.
Here are some good pieces of info:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=379
https://gokaleo.com/2014/09/05/the-real-issue
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160
The dietitians underreported their energy intake obtained from the food records by an average of 223 +/- 116 kcal/day, which was not different from their energy expenditure. Participants in the control group, as hypothesized, significantly underreported their energy intake (429 +/- 142 kcal/day, P < .05).
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis. (N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1893–8.)
40
Replies
-
It is very easy to understate intake, even when you are being as diligent as possible. I know I do it and when I log, I am pretty careful with trying to be accurate.10
-
Awesome info, thanks SS!3
-
Great!
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
I know I'm inaccurate, even with good diligence. One reason I set my own caloric limit and not use MFP's automated one. I set mine at what I know is already at a deficit for the day. Not crazy kind of cut, just enough. It works for me. As I get closer to actually being closer to that caloric need- I cut my baseline back down again. Not winning any speed records for how fast i'm losing, but it's been a continual downward number with no plateaus just yet! It's always good to be reminded of these basics... and like you said- to not take offense when they are pointed out.17
-
Another great post0
-
Sticky?
This needs to be read by every person -- there are several daily -- who claim that they can't lose weight despite eating at some low calorie level and "measuring and weighing everything." Inaccurate logging is a much more likely cause of these problems than hormonal or other medical issues. (Not that these problems don't exist.)13 -
Sticky?
This needs to be read by every person -- there are several daily -- who claim that they can't lose weight despite eating at some low calorie level and "measuring and weighing everything." Inaccurate logging is a much more likely cause of these problems than hormonal or other medical issues. (Not that these problems don't exist.)
Agreed. And as an aside it's another reason why you can't necessarily assume someone is eating a given number of calories just because they claim they eat a given number of calories.
So for example if someone says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I can't lose" you can't necessarily assume that they are actually eating 1200 calories.
6 -
In for another awesome post.0
-
Sticky?
This needs to be read by every person -- there are several daily -- who claim that they can't lose weight despite eating at some low calorie level and "measuring and weighing everything." Inaccurate logging is a much more likely cause of these problems than hormonal or other medical issues. (Not that these problems don't exist.)
Agreed. And as an aside it's another reason why you can't necessarily assume someone is eating a given number of calories just because they claim they eat a given number of calories.
So for example if someone says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I can't lose" you can't necessarily assume that they are actually eating 1200 calories.
This is usually what I come across when helping people when they say they can't lose. Either their diary is very inconsistent or they later admit that they aren't logging everything.
3 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160
The dietitians underreported their energy intake obtained from the food records by an average of 223 +/- 116 kcal/day, which was not different from their energy expenditure. Participants in the control group, as hypothesized, significantly underreported their energy intake (429 +/- 142 kcal/day, P < .05).
Amen to this. In my first few weeks on MFP I was missing about 200 calories a day, between overestimating exercise and underestimating food. I had a 750 calorie deficit set, so I was still losing weight at a reasonable rate, but it did open my eyes to how easy it was to make a mistake. That now serves me in good stead, as I approach my goal weight and have a much smaller daily deficit planned.5 -
Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.... completely neglecting to log a certain item, not logging various supplements or beverages or condiments -- all of these things can stack up to a substantial difference in what is logged vs what is actually consumed.
Logging consistency is another often neglected component to this. You may be logging 1500 calories per day for 11 days followed by missing a weekend here or there, or missing entire meals on certain days, etc..
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
3 -
Too bad our tongues aren't scanners linked to mfp! Bump for sticky status.13
-
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
16 -
I am not eating more than I think.1
-
Also a good point.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
That's not an issue, because I do it too. It's the people who are ALWAYS logging perfectly even amounts (1/2 cup, 100 grams, 1 egg, etc.) because they aren't weighing and assume that's what they're eating.0 -
I used to do that. Pain in the rear! Grams into ounces, ounces into the serving size. Ugh.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
If you manually enter the cottage cheese into "My Foods" with the grams, not only can you enter grams, but the option for One Gram will magically appear, so then you can just enter the 89 or whatever it is. And it will always be in My Foods.
I mention this only because I found it so helpful and not to criticize you!
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Oh.LiveLaughLoveEat1 wrote: »
I used to do that. Pain in the rear! Grams into ounces, ounces into the serving size. Ugh.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
If you manually enter the cottage cheese into "My Foods" with the grams, not only can you enter grams, but the option for One Gram will magically appear, so then you can just enter the 89 or whatever it is. And it will always be in My Foods.
I mention this only because I found it so helpful and not to criticize you!
I would love to do my food in grams but my digital scale doesn't use grams...it only uses ounces...
In my best Emily Litella voice, "Nevermind."
(And if you don't know who she was, you should! https://screen.yahoo.com/weekend-emily-litella-violins-tv-000000080.html )
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
There's nothing wrong with logging 1 egg. Eggs are weighed at packaging. Log it as 'large' or 'jumbo' or whatever grade it is and you're fine.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
That's not an issue, because I do it too. It's the people who are ALWAYS logging perfectly even amounts (1/2 cup, 100 grams, 1 egg, etc.) because they aren't weighing and assume that's what they're eating.
That's my point-- not everything has to be weighed for logging to be accurate enough.
3 -
I used to do that. Pain in the rear! Grams into ounces, ounces into the serving size. Ugh.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
If you manually enter the cottage cheese into "My Foods" with the grams, not only can you enter grams, but the option for One Gram will magically appear, so then you can just enter the 89 or whatever it is. And it will always be in My Foods.
I mention this only because I found it so helpful and not to criticize you!
OK - I'm not taking it as criticism, but just explaining that I'm not converting grams to ounces. I put my bowl on the scale, tare the bowl, add as much cottage cheese as I want (120 grams tonight), divide (120/113 = 1.06), and enter 1.06 servings, even though the serving is listed as a half cup.
I like your suggestion, and I think it would be helpful for things I eat regularly, but given the problems I've been having lately finding previously logged foods, I don't think this is the time I'm going to start creating a lot of new entries. For example, I've been having a hard time finding the no-asterisk entries drawn from the USDA database in the past month or two -- I assume it's because of some of the "improvements" MFP has been making to the website. First a lot of the no-asterisk USDA entries started showing up labeled "generic," then they just seemed to disappear altogether. Since "coffee, brewed from grounds," "milk, 2% milkfat," and "garlic, raw" have all disappeared from my frequent foods list in the past week or two (and they were at the top -- they didn't suddenly become less frequent than 20 other foods), I don't have a lot of faith that new entries I create will stick around in the My Foods list. Also, very often when I go to the My Foods tab, and click to go to page 2 of the six or seven pages of foods that I've added in the past year, it tells me I haven't created any new foods. I guess what I'm saying is that this site is so buggy that I'm not interested in spending time creating new entries that might disappear or be unfindable, if a correct entry already exists.
Anyway, my original point was more or less just adding to the reasons why you really can't assume you know whether someone is weighing and logging accurately by looking at their diary.
And while, like Malibu927, I would find it suspicious if someone always logs exactly one serving of things like cereal, ice cream, etc., I get the impression from some people's posts that this may actually be what they do -- that they view the serving size as some kind of prescription that they don't have permission to ignore, and so they pour out their cereal or spoon out their ice cream and put some back if it's more than "one serving," adding and subtracting until it weighs exactly what one serving is supposed to weigh.
I do appreciate the suggestion; I wish I weren't losing my faith in the database aspect of this site so that I could try it. Thanks.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There is an interesting British show called Secret Eaters that explores this topic in rather dramatic fashion and shows that people can be amazingly far off on how much they think they are eating and how much they really are. The show is sensationalized but does show that people will often forget, or perhaps even intentionally not record, large amounts of calories because they don't understand what they are really eating.
Anyone who is interested in watching it can find it on YouTube and it runs about 3 seasons.5 -
Hmm, thanks for your tips for accurate intake of food and stay fit and healthy. Visited your link that you had provided and find it very effective. You had nicely mentioned all the information about what and how balanced food is accurate.0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I used to do that. Pain in the rear! Grams into ounces, ounces into the serving size. Ugh.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You also can't assume that because an entry in someone's diary lists the measurement in cups that the person doesn't weigh their food. I use many entries from the database that are accurate (i.e., match the package label), but the person who created them used the volume measurement rather than the weight measurement when both are given on the package, e.g., 1/2 cup (113 g) for cottage cheese. I can weigh my cottage cheese and divide by the grams in a serving size to determine how much I'm serving myself, and still use that entry, and it doesn't mean I'm being inaccurate.Good point, especially these above. People often think they can look at someone's diary and tell how well they're logging based on the units of measure and such, but a reader has no way of knowing what they didn't log, which is probably a bigger source of error than using a cup measurement vs. a scale.
I just hate to say people think that using a food scale automatically means good logging, and that not using one automatically means bad.
If you manually enter the cottage cheese into "My Foods" with the grams, not only can you enter grams, but the option for One Gram will magically appear, so then you can just enter the 89 or whatever it is. And it will always be in My Foods.
I mention this only because I found it so helpful and not to criticize you!
OK - I'm not taking it as criticism, but just explaining that I'm not converting grams to ounces. I put my bowl on the scale, tare the bowl, add as much cottage cheese as I want (120 grams tonight), divide (120/113 = 1.06), and enter 1.06 servings, even though the serving is listed as a half cup.
Exactly. And as stated by a previous poster, the perfectly round number of "1/2 cup" every single time is one clue that the person might not be weighing. I did have a user come back and say she actually cuts the chicken each time down to four ounces exactly, but most people I've encountered who logged the perfect serving size each time and were asked about it were not weighing. To be clear, when we review diaries, that's what many of us are looking for - clues. We still have to ask the user to verify what process they actually follow
You can also get clues as to whether items are being skipped. Missing meals, missing days, chicken with no oil butter, or condiments etc. Yeah they could be boiling the chicken in water and eating it plain, but we would just quickly ask to verify
That's why a single day copy and paste is not really the same thing as an open diary when performing this review for the user2 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Yes this is true - if one's weight is losing/maintaining/gaining at desired pace ,then one is eating at correct level - whether it is accurately logged or not.
I readily admit I just log every banana as a small banana ( I only buy small ones so they fit in my lunch box) I dont weigh eggs, I accept the muesil bar as being the size the package says it is, every cup of coffee has same amount of milk etc etc - this is not hindering my weight goal ,which has stayed within 1.5 kg of maitenance (as I want it to) for nearly a year.
However I'm not one of the posters saying I log accurately and why isnt it working.
4 -
This is great0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions