site tells me to eat almost 3k cals a day,,,but I eat half that and still dont loose
Options
Replies
-
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
0 -
0 -
If you exercise that much and don't lose weight on 1800 or whatever it was, you have a medical issue somewhere. There is just no way around that.
My routine is 125 miles on a bike per week. Run 5-10 miles per week, and lift heavy 5 days a week. I would drop so fast on 1800 (currently maintaining at 3600.
ok maintaining what ? what is your age,height,weight, sex ? I run on avg 40 plus miles a week,,,and bike 100 or so...my Garmin says ive biked 3100 miles this year so far and ran 890 something....again I dont make this stuff up and I try to be honest about everything
Male - 36 years old - 6'0 tall - 175lbs. I wasn't questioning what you do. I believe you exercise that much which is why I think you have to have something medically wrong. I have ridden 3500 miles this year (granted, it's faster pace than you) and have ran 310 miles this year. So you run more than me. I lift and ride a bit more than you. Too me, it's pretty close to even as far as calorie burns (with you probably being a bit higher on the burn side). I just can't fathom how you would gain weight at such a low number.
My recent blood work was done complete CBC, lipids etc...my HDL=122...LDL=73...Try's are 53...my Dr thinks the numbers are great...hope he knows what he's talking about
Have you had your thyroid tested? Blood panels are often wrong when it comes to testing thyroids.
0 -
lol...I don't want them to delete this thread. It's funny. I have a facebook friend who argues like this (including the ,,,, instead of ....) He likes to be told how hard he works out too & accuses me of not getting the point or understanding his question when it was simple. meh...my man at the time was on gear so nothing was gonna impress me.
OP...your question is why don't you weigh 127 in 5 weeks since MFP told you that you would. I will say what others have said. Food or exercise calories are estimated incorrectly or your metabolism has adjusted to the point that you're outside the curve of what this site can do for you.
Don't delete! I need the entertainment!0 -
They are people that messaged me and warned me about the site "nazi's"...and pointed out a few different pot stirrers....I laugh at the messages im getting off post re; some of YOU posters,,,its funny...3 or 4 different people and they ALL say the same thing about the same posters...lol and they are CORRECT !
Who are these people? What is the fabulous advice they are giving you that is so different from the other people in this thread who have been trying to help you figure out why the numbers are off?
And you trust these people to be reliable sources of information just because they messaged and said certain people are bad?
What advice did they have for you concerning your situation? I'm curious as to what they are telling you, since earlier in this thread you referenced all the fabulous advice you were getting through PMs that you weren't getting here in the forum. So what's their explanation for your dilemma?
well two offered their opinions...they seemed like they were really trying to help figure it out,,,they were NOT just trying to start trouble...I assume thats why they messaged me off post so they didnt get dragged into the little cat fight that it seems some of these "ladies" live for....
They re: a different site then do a comparison to the numbers they report...they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post.....
Ok, you've got an entire thread full of people who were trying to help you figure out where the problem might be, and comparing your numbers to a different site was suggested here as well. So I'm not sure why you're being combative with users in the forum but nice to the people PMing you when both groups are giving you the same suggestions.
And you say "they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post….." - does that mean they messaged you to tell you how mean everyone was, or they were agreeing with something you said?
Because you're presenting this as you getting a massive influx of messages of "mean people everywhere!" from random posters, when it actually sounds like you started complaining on the PM about the responses here. Two very different scenarios.
And as far as the mods, starting trouble and retaliating are both prohibited, and anyone can report a post. If they really felt that certain people are out of line, they have the ability to report them to the mods, and the mods will handle it. A lot of long-time active posters have gotten strikes or bans just in the short time I've been on the forums.
whatever,,and the ENTIRE thread was NOT trying to help...pls give me a break
You know what? I tried to focus on your initial question, and your response to me was rude. I let it go because of all the other drama in the thread and actually tried to help figure out where the problem was. I haven't been rude to you, but you've been rude to me quite a few times, including the above.
So I'm going to leave you with this: I stand by my previous assessment of your situation. You're either not being honest/realistic in your logging, whether it's food or exercise burn; you're not being honest with the information you entered into MFP; or you've got a medical condition.
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.0 -
[/quote]
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.[/quote]
QFT0 -
-
HipsterWhovian wrote: »libbydoodle11 wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »I've read this whole thread, and all I want to do is correct the spelling and grammar in every single one of the OP's posts.
^^this^^
go right ahead...and when these phone co's start making phones for man size fingers and not little girls fingers then you point would be better made !
I'm on my phone, and I'm a person of male persuasion, therefore using 'man size fingers' and I don't seem to have any issues... #justsaying
im happy for you....and your point ? Other than trying to start trouble ?
Nope, no point. Just joining in with the banter on this thread.
0 -
If anyone is messaging OP to say that I am a "site nazi" or whatever, then OP is being sorely misinformed.
As for the numbers, they are what they are. The USDA lists 1 oz of oatmeal to be 120 calories and to yield 6+oz of final product when cooked. As I do not have any oatmeal in my house, I used the USDA numbers. I also am used to only measuring solids by weight (not volume) and used the standard 2 TBS = 1oz. This is where my 14g per TBS comes from. It's the same as to where I got my expansion ratio (177g / 28g = 6.3) for the amount. I also used the calorie ratio between the USDA number and the food diary number (120 calories / 18 calories = 6.7) to confirm the ratio of dry to cooked product. Those numbers both suggest that a tablespoon of dry oatmeal will yield over 6 tablespoons of prepared oatmeal.
The nutrition information on the box (40g = 150 calories) is not dramatically off from the USDA (which says 40g would be around 170 calories... but that's still pretty close).
The fact that OP is actually eating only 6g of oatmeal a day doesn't change much, aside from making me feel pretty sad for his portion size choices. 6g of oatmeal would be 23-26 calories (depending on whether you trust the box or the USDA more). He's logging 9 calories for it. That means the real value is 2.5-2.9 times the amount being logged. While the absolute amount of calories is tiny, the magnitude of the error is pretty massive. The fact that OP still doesn't recognize why logging 9 calories is incorrect (even tries to argue that it is actually the right number), suggests the possibility of systematic under-estimation of calories in other areas as well.
It's not just oatmeal. There are many questionable entries. For example, that 0.025 cups for cheese. As a quarter cup is usually an ounce, this would mean he's logging 2.8g of cheese. Again, a depressingly small amount of food. But, it is also impossible for that amount to be a real measured value unless he's using a scale with less than 1g precision (he's not... as confirmed from his own photo). So what does that 0.025 cups logged have to be? It has to be a guess. Granted, it could be one of the bags that list 30g as 1/4 cup. Which would allow it. But really, 3g of cheese? Who eats only 3g of cheese?
And it goes on and on. OP can be as mad at me as he wants (must be since my name came up several times after I left last night), but I'm not the one who is going through and making him log inaccurately. Frankly, I suspect there's a whole range of disordered behavior/thinking evident in this thread. But, that's not my problem. OP can work it out for himself.0 -
If anyone is messaging OP to say that I am a "site nazi" or whatever, then OP is being sorely misinformed.
As for the numbers, they are what they are. The USDA lists 1 oz of oatmeal to be 120 calories and to yield 6+oz of final product when cooked. As I do not have any oatmeal in my house, I used the USDA numbers. I also am used to only measuring solids by weight (not volume) and used the standard 2 TBS = 1oz. This is where my 14g per TBS comes from. It's the same as to where I got my expansion ratio (177g / 28g = 6.3) for the amount. I also used the calorie ratio between the USDA number and the food diary number (120 calories / 18 calories = 6.7) to confirm the ratio of dry to cooked product. Those numbers both suggest that a tablespoon of dry oatmeal will yield over 6 tablespoons of prepared oatmeal.
The nutrition information on the box (40g = 150 calories) is not dramatically off from the USDA (which says 40g would be around 170 calories... but that's still pretty close).
The fact that OP is actually eating only 6g of oatmeal a day doesn't change much, aside from making me feel pretty sad for his portion size choices. 6g of oatmeal would be 23-26 calories (depending on whether you trust the box or the USDA more). He's logging 9 calories for it. That means the real value is 2.5-2.9 times the amount being logged. While the absolute amount of calories is tiny, the magnitude of the error is pretty massive. The fact that OP still doesn't recognize why logging 9 calories is incorrect (even tries to argue that it is actually the right number), suggests the possibility of systematic under-estimation of calories in other areas as well.
It's not just oatmeal. There are many questionable entries. For example, that 0.025 cups for cheese. As a quarter cup is usually an ounce, this would mean he's logging 2.8g of cheese. Again, a depressingly small amount of food. But, it is also impossible for that amount to be a real measured value unless he's using a scale with less than 1g precision (he's not... as confirmed from his own photo). So what does that 0.025 cups logged have to be? It has to be a guess.
And it goes on and on. OP can be as mad at me as he wants (must be since my name came up several times after I left last night), but I'm not the one who is going through and making him log inaccurately. Frankly, I suspect there's a whole range of disordered behavior/thinking evident in this thread. But, that's not my problem. OP can work it out for himself.
Im NOT mad..you have your opinion and I have proven the comments you made prior as false....them's the facts Frob...now probably best to just leave it alone...nothing more to gain by adding more incorrect info...I even posted pictures showing that the same tablespoon of dry oatmeal after cooking still fit in the tablespoon...it wasnt 7 tablespoons like you said,,,so ive heard your responses...I will consider the source and pls refrain from further reply...because it very plain to see you entirely missed my ? and point
0 -
HipsterWhovian wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »libbydoodle11 wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »I've read this whole thread, and all I want to do is correct the spelling and grammar in every single one of the OP's posts.
^^this^^
go right ahead...and when these phone co's start making phones for man size fingers and not little girls fingers then you point would be better made !
I'm on my phone, and I'm a person of male persuasion, therefore using 'man size fingers' and I don't seem to have any issues... #justsaying
im happy for you....and your point ? Other than trying to start trouble ?
Nope, no point. Just joining in with the banter on this thread.
I figured that0 -
They are people that messaged me and warned me about the site "nazi's"...and pointed out a few different pot stirrers....I laugh at the messages im getting off post re; some of YOU posters,,,its funny...3 or 4 different people and they ALL say the same thing about the same posters...lol and they are CORRECT !
Who are these people? What is the fabulous advice they are giving you that is so different from the other people in this thread who have been trying to help you figure out why the numbers are off?
And you trust these people to be reliable sources of information just because they messaged and said certain people are bad?
What advice did they have for you concerning your situation? I'm curious as to what they are telling you, since earlier in this thread you referenced all the fabulous advice you were getting through PMs that you weren't getting here in the forum. So what's their explanation for your dilemma?
well two offered their opinions...they seemed like they were really trying to help figure it out,,,they were NOT just trying to start trouble...I assume thats why they messaged me off post so they didnt get dragged into the little cat fight that it seems some of these "ladies" live for....
They re: a different site then do a comparison to the numbers they report...they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post.....
Ok, you've got an entire thread full of people who were trying to help you figure out where the problem might be, and comparing your numbers to a different site was suggested here as well. So I'm not sure why you're being combative with users in the forum but nice to the people PMing you when both groups are giving you the same suggestions.
And you say "they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post….." - does that mean they messaged you to tell you how mean everyone was, or they were agreeing with something you said?
Because you're presenting this as you getting a massive influx of messages of "mean people everywhere!" from random posters, when it actually sounds like you started complaining on the PM about the responses here. Two very different scenarios.
And as far as the mods, starting trouble and retaliating are both prohibited, and anyone can report a post. If they really felt that certain people are out of line, they have the ability to report them to the mods, and the mods will handle it. A lot of long-time active posters have gotten strikes or bans just in the short time I've been on the forums.
whatever,,and the ENTIRE thread was NOT trying to help...pls give me a break
You know what? I tried to focus on your initial question, and your response to me was rude. I let it go because of all the other drama in the thread and actually tried to help figure out where the problem was. I haven't been rude to you, but you've been rude to me quite a few times, including the above.
So I'm going to leave you with this: I stand by my previous assessment of your situation. You're either not being honest/realistic in your logging, whether it's food or exercise burn; you're not being honest with the information you entered into MFP; or you've got a medical condition.
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.
Dont be such a cry baby.....I wasnt trying to be rude,,,you really should toughen up a bit-3 -
pscarolina wrote: »lol...I don't want them to delete this thread. It's funny. I have a facebook friend who argues like this (including the ,,,, instead of ....) He likes to be told how hard he works out too & accuses me of not getting the point or understanding his question when it was simple. meh...my man at the time was on gear so nothing was gonna impress me.
OP...your question is why don't you weigh 127 in 5 weeks since MFP told you that you would. I will say what others have said. Food or exercise calories are estimated incorrectly or your metabolism has adjusted to the point that you're outside the curve of what this site can do for you.
Don't delete! I need the entertainment!
You probably should get a life...but it is a great post -1 -
If you exercise that much and don't lose weight on 1800 or whatever it was, you have a medical issue somewhere. There is just no way around that.
My routine is 125 miles on a bike per week. Run 5-10 miles per week, and lift heavy 5 days a week. I would drop so fast on 1800 (currently maintaining at 3600.
ok maintaining what ? what is your age,height,weight, sex ? I run on avg 40 plus miles a week,,,and bike 100 or so...my Garmin says ive biked 3100 miles this year so far and ran 890 something....again I dont make this stuff up and I try to be honest about everything
Male - 36 years old - 6'0 tall - 175lbs. I wasn't questioning what you do. I believe you exercise that much which is why I think you have to have something medically wrong. I have ridden 3500 miles this year (granted, it's faster pace than you) and have ran 310 miles this year. So you run more than me. I lift and ride a bit more than you. Too me, it's pretty close to even as far as calorie burns (with you probably being a bit higher on the burn side). I just can't fathom how you would gain weight at such a low number.
My recent blood work was done complete CBC, lipids etc...my HDL=122...LDL=73...Try's are 53...my Dr thinks the numbers are great...hope he knows what he's talking about
Have you had your thyroid tested? Blood panels are often wrong when it comes to testing thyroids.
I have...its normal...I can post my entire blood panel...pretty boring though0 -
Im NOT mad..you have your opinion and I have proven the comments you made prior as false....them's the facts Frob...now probably best to just leave it alone...nothing more to gain by adding more incorrect info...I even posted pictures showing that the same tablespoon of dry oatmeal after cooking still fit in the tablespoon...it wasnt 7 tablespoons like you said,,,so ive heard your responses...I will consider the source and pls refrain from further reply...because it very plain to see you entirely missed my ? and point
You still don't see it, do you? You still don't understand that you're not logging correctly. You honestly think you are. It's amazing.
You haven't proven anything. Your pictures don't show what you think they show.0 -
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
Or better yet YOU ignore this post and then go to another one to fight0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
ETA: And this assumes (and requires) reasonably accurate and consistent tracking. If you aren't doing that...(and based on a few posts, it seems that may be an issue)...then no amount of math will be able to compensate for that...(unless you're consistently off by the same absolute or relative amount and then you could build a formula around it, but it's probably just easier and more likely accurate to get some good data).0 -
TheStephil wrote: »If you aren't losing weight yet MFP is saying you are then either 1. you have a medical condition 2. you aren't burning as many calories as MFP thinks you are 3. you aren't tracking accurately and are eating more than you are telling MFP.
Either way... why do you care? Obviously you don't want to lose or gain weight so why bother tracking on MFP? Whatever you are doing is allowing you to maintain your current body mass. Leave it to that. MFP doesn't work for everyone and it obviously isn't giving you information that you find helpful. So I suggest you stop fighting with people and just deactivate your account.
Ill file your advise in the trash...thx though,,,one other possible and the same one people have messaged me...the site cal. is off/wrong....have a nice day-1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
I asked and never got a reply,,at least I didnt see it,,,how many cals do YOU think I should be eating after you saw all my stats ??0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
I asked and never got a reply,,at least I didnt see it,,,how many cals do YOU think I should be eating after you saw all my stats ??
Same as for everyone else...which is however many it takes to make satisfactory progress towards your weight goal over a reasonable period of time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions