Eating right & excersing, but gaining weight

Options
1235711

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    ana3067 wrote: »
    cityruss wrote: »
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    All of the advice I offered is backed by strong recent scientific evidence of the effects your insulin is having. If you're already cutting calories and exercising and seeing no weight reduction you need to control the insulin spikes. Insulin is the hormone that saves the food you eat as fat. You're probably insulin resistant and you need to correct that issue first. Carbs are just glucose and effect the insulin to a much larger extent than fat or protein. You might want to read up on the paleo lifestyle. It's sound solid advice and it works in harmony with your bodies natural evolution. If you want further above PM me. There'll be a lot of people on here who'll dispute the above I've given, but 12.5kg since November 23 without hunger pangs and without counting calories is evidence to me it works. I don't even go to the gym or work out.

    As it's a slow Sunday I'd be interested to read some of the evidence, not in terms of the general physiological effects, but specifically in regards to fat loss benefits over other approaches. Can you point me in the right direction please?

    On a general note I don't doubt that the approach mentioned above would work, but for me it's overly restrictive in terms of food, and restriction for me leads to failure. Myself, I eat a varied diet of moderate carb, moderate fat, and high protein, restricting nothing if it fits in to my calorie and macronutrient goals.

    I've burnt through plenty of fat and have clear thought.

    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    And the kool-aid, don't forget to drink the kool-aid.

    While I'm glad this diet works for you, you really didn't address the question. And you threw out some basic blah blah that is just downright wrong or incomplete.

    In the context of a varied diet, exactly how does say a peach-calorie work different than a banana-calorie? After all, the "each work in a different manner metabolically", right?

    or not.

    Obviously, you don't understand the mechanics behind fiber and fruit. Not my problem. I answered her issues - she needs to eliminate any foods that are sucrose-based or processed-based foods altogether. Only then will she isolate the foods that are causing the issue and gear her body metabolically to utilize fat in her weight loss.
    Woops, guess I haven't actually lost 25+ lbs eating sucrose-based foods or "process-based" foods.

    and I guess I did not drop 50 pounds by eating sugar….I must be special...

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    cityruss wrote: »
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    All of the advice I offered is backed by strong recent scientific evidence of the effects your insulin is having. If you're already cutting calories and exercising and seeing no weight reduction you need to control the insulin spikes. Insulin is the hormone that saves the food you eat as fat. You're probably insulin resistant and you need to correct that issue first. Carbs are just glucose and effect the insulin to a much larger extent than fat or protein. You might want to read up on the paleo lifestyle. It's sound solid advice and it works in harmony with your bodies natural evolution. If you want further above PM me. There'll be a lot of people on here who'll dispute the above I've given, but 12.5kg since November 23 without hunger pangs and without counting calories is evidence to me it works. I don't even go to the gym or work out.

    As it's a slow Sunday I'd be interested to read some of the evidence, not in terms of the general physiological effects, but specifically in regards to fat loss benefits over other approaches. Can you point me in the right direction please?

    On a general note I don't doubt that the approach mentioned above would work, but for me it's overly restrictive in terms of food, and restriction for me leads to failure. Myself, I eat a varied diet of moderate carb, moderate fat, and high protein, restricting nothing if it fits in to my calorie and macronutrient goals.

    I've burnt through plenty of fat and have clear thought.

    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    The ONLY reason a way of eating works for weight loss is because of calorie deficit.

    Some people need to tweak their macros because of medical conditions. Barring one of those, everything comes down to personal preference.

    OP, have you been to your doctor?

    Honestly without you opening your diary, without you being willing to get a food scale, there's really not much else to be said.

    Sorry lady, but you are wrong. My basal metabolic rate was 1500 and I was eating 2500 calories a day at the time I was losing the weight. I did not make that up in terms of cardio and I wasn't doing any weight training in the first three months I dumped 15 pounds. It just fell off. My doctor and personal trainer (whom I saw in the past and flat out told me that my diet was bad (last year)) validated what I am discussing. It's not about just calories and calorie deficit. It's about the food you are eating.

    LOL "it just fell off" ….where did it go to the magical universe that you live in that defies the laws of math and physics??????

    you at in a deficit by restricting sugar to a point that put you in a calorie deficit…

    another X-files MFP case closed….

    Honestly... how does he think all the other people on this site who don't eat paleo have ever managed to lose weight?

    I get that for some people, insulin resistance is a genuine medical condition. That should be diagnosed by their doctor, not someone on the internet. Even saying that, I don't even think it's necessary to treat it by eating paleo. Isn't it okay to just WATCH carbs with it?

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    cityruss wrote: »
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    All of the advice I offered is backed by strong recent scientific evidence of the effects your insulin is having. If you're already cutting calories and exercising and seeing no weight reduction you need to control the insulin spikes. Insulin is the hormone that saves the food you eat as fat. You're probably insulin resistant and you need to correct that issue first. Carbs are just glucose and effect the insulin to a much larger extent than fat or protein. You might want to read up on the paleo lifestyle. It's sound solid advice and it works in harmony with your bodies natural evolution. If you want further above PM me. There'll be a lot of people on here who'll dispute the above I've given, but 12.5kg since November 23 without hunger pangs and without counting calories is evidence to me it works. I don't even go to the gym or work out.

    As it's a slow Sunday I'd be interested to read some of the evidence, not in terms of the general physiological effects, but specifically in regards to fat loss benefits over other approaches. Can you point me in the right direction please?

    On a general note I don't doubt that the approach mentioned above would work, but for me it's overly restrictive in terms of food, and restriction for me leads to failure. Myself, I eat a varied diet of moderate carb, moderate fat, and high protein, restricting nothing if it fits in to my calorie and macronutrient goals.

    I've burnt through plenty of fat and have clear thought.

    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    The ONLY reason a way of eating works for weight loss is because of calorie deficit.

    Some people need to tweak their macros because of medical conditions. Barring one of those, everything comes down to personal preference.

    OP, have you been to your doctor?

    Honestly without you opening your diary, without you being willing to get a food scale, there's really not much else to be said.

    Sorry lady, but you are wrong. My basal metabolic rate was 1500 and I was eating 2500 calories a day at the time I was losing the weight. I did not make that up in terms of cardio and I wasn't doing any weight training in the first three months I dumped 15 pounds. It just fell off. My doctor and personal trainer (whom I saw in the past and flat out told me that my diet was bad (last year)) validated what I am discussing. It's not about just calories and calorie deficit. It's about the food you are eating.

    LOL "it just fell off" ….where did it go to the magical universe that you live in that defies the laws of math and physics??????

    you at in a deficit by restricting sugar to a point that put you in a calorie deficit…

    another X-files MFP case closed….

    Honestly... how does he think all the other people on this site who don't eat paleo have ever managed to lose weight?

    I get that for some people, insulin resistance is a genuine medical condition. That should be diagnosed by their doctor, not someone on the internet. Even saying that, I don't even think it's necessary to treat it by eating paleo. Isn't it okay to just WATCH carbs with it?

    who knows….:)
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    OP - back to the point of your post..

    you are not losing due to either inaccurate logging or overestimating calorie burns.

    Based on your comments about not using a food scale, I am assuming that you are overestimating calories….

    get a food scale
    weigh/log/measure everything you eat for two weeks and see what happens..

    it really is easy to overestimate by 200 to 300 a day which would be 2100 extra calories a week which is a half pound gain …or would just erase the deficit that MFP gave you ...
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    cityruss wrote: »
    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    Not really the evidence I was looking for. I'd also love to read the science behind your second paragraph, again, not the physiology, but in the context of weight loss benefits over other methods.

    You are correct, there is absolutely no reason to change what works. For you.

    You lost 50lbs because you ate at a calories deficit. You are no different to any other human being. You chose to do it by eliminating food groups and being restrictive. I lost 50 or so lbs by eating a balanced non-restrictive flexible diet. I also lost weight because I ate at a calorie deficit. It's all the same, just wrapped up in different clothing.

    I'm also not sure what true weight loss is, maybe all non paleo weight loss is make believe?

    I didn't eat a "calorie deficit" per se - I just stopped eating bad foods and ate ALL good foods. I was eating THREE large Haas avocados a day and I was NOT on MFP like y'all are trying to lose weight. I am on it now but already had lost 35 pounds and I was eating 20 oz of salmon a DAY. Eating steamed veggies in BULK. Eating fruit in BULK. I'll bet I was eating up to 2500 cals a day - prior to getting into weight training in July. Not only that, I was actually exercising LESS than I am now - I was burning less calories and not doing as much HIIT in that same time frame.

    3 avocados - 900 cals - add 20 oz of salmon - that's another 1000 cals - that's just two foods. Add in fruit and veggies and nuts. Get it?

    And by eating this way you created a deficit without meaning to.

    Many veggies, even in bulk, are not that high calorie. Some fruit are naturally lower in calories than others.

    You "bet" you were eating that much, but for all you know you weren't. Or you were but your TDEE at the time was high enough due to your excess weight to be able to lose on 2500 calories. 566g (20oz) of salmon is around 1100 calories if you are weighing it cooked, and this would be VERY filling. I eat usually around 150g for a typical salmon serving (cooked weight) and that can easily fill me up for a good while.

    So, you are not a special snowflake, you didn't uncover some magical weight loss secret. You ate at a caloric deficit without meaning to. I did as well when I was 19 and "ate clean."
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    cityruss wrote: »
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    All of the advice I offered is backed by strong recent scientific evidence of the effects your insulin is having. If you're already cutting calories and exercising and seeing no weight reduction you need to control the insulin spikes. Insulin is the hormone that saves the food you eat as fat. You're probably insulin resistant and you need to correct that issue first. Carbs are just glucose and effect the insulin to a much larger extent than fat or protein. You might want to read up on the paleo lifestyle. It's sound solid advice and it works in harmony with your bodies natural evolution. If you want further above PM me. There'll be a lot of people on here who'll dispute the above I've given, but 12.5kg since November 23 without hunger pangs and without counting calories is evidence to me it works. I don't even go to the gym or work out.

    As it's a slow Sunday I'd be interested to read some of the evidence, not in terms of the general physiological effects, but specifically in regards to fat loss benefits over other approaches. Can you point me in the right direction please?

    On a general note I don't doubt that the approach mentioned above would work, but for me it's overly restrictive in terms of food, and restriction for me leads to failure. Myself, I eat a varied diet of moderate carb, moderate fat, and high protein, restricting nothing if it fits in to my calorie and macronutrient goals.

    I've burnt through plenty of fat and have clear thought.

    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    The ONLY reason a way of eating works for weight loss is because of calorie deficit.

    Some people need to tweak their macros because of medical conditions. Barring one of those, everything comes down to personal preference.

    OP, have you been to your doctor?

    Honestly without you opening your diary, without you being willing to get a food scale, there's really not much else to be said.

    Sorry lady, but you are wrong. My basal metabolic rate was 1500 and I was eating 2500 calories a day at the time I was losing the weight. I did not make that up in terms of cardio and I wasn't doing any weight training in the first three months I dumped 15 pounds. It just fell off. My doctor and personal trainer (whom I saw in the past and flat out told me that my diet was bad (last year)) validated what I am discussing. It's not about just calories and calorie deficit. It's about the food you are eating.

    BMR =/= TDEE. Try again.

    For health and body comp and satiety and diet compliance, it's about the food you eat. For weight management, it's about the calories you eat. You also tend to lose more weight initially due to water weight losses, and I'm guessing you ate/are eating low carb, h ence more water weight loss.

    Still not a special snowflake.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Your body can't and doesn't reject losing weight. There is a point at which, however, that your body will slow down to try to survive on the low number of calories you're giving it. You would still lose weight, but more slowly, because you would be doing nothing by lying in bed all day. If you are able to exercise, but you still aren't losing weight, that means you're eating more than you think. Saying it ain't so doesn't change that fact.

    Just because I said I'm a house wife does NOT mean I lay in bed all day. I'm on my feet all day, cleaning meal prepping & chasing children & still find time for at least a half hour workout. I don't always log my workout because I don't like the idea of MFP showing "you still have X amount of calories" because you input an exercise

    My comment had nothing to do with you being a house wife. I didn't even realize you were when I made the comment. What I was saying was that a person who is starving will be incapable of doing much. Don't lose sight of the fact that food is fuel. No fuel equals no activity. But even a person who doesn't eat and lies in bed all day would continue to lose weight. The fact that you are cleaning house and exercising but still not losing weight is just more evidence that you are eating more than you realize.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    cityruss wrote: »
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    All of the advice I offered is backed by strong recent scientific evidence of the effects your insulin is having. If you're already cutting calories and exercising and seeing no weight reduction you need to control the insulin spikes. Insulin is the hormone that saves the food you eat as fat. You're probably insulin resistant and you need to correct that issue first. Carbs are just glucose and effect the insulin to a much larger extent than fat or protein. You might want to read up on the paleo lifestyle. It's sound solid advice and it works in harmony with your bodies natural evolution. If you want further above PM me. There'll be a lot of people on here who'll dispute the above I've given, but 12.5kg since November 23 without hunger pangs and without counting calories is evidence to me it works. I don't even go to the gym or work out.

    As it's a slow Sunday I'd be interested to read some of the evidence, not in terms of the general physiological effects, but specifically in regards to fat loss benefits over other approaches. Can you point me in the right direction please?

    On a general note I don't doubt that the approach mentioned above would work, but for me it's overly restrictive in terms of food, and restriction for me leads to failure. Myself, I eat a varied diet of moderate carb, moderate fat, and high protein, restricting nothing if it fits in to my calorie and macronutrient goals.

    I've burnt through plenty of fat and have clear thought.

    I will give you the empirical evidence, me. I did what this person said to the "T" and lost 50 pounds while exercising. I eat a very nutrient-dense diet and won't turn back ever again to sweets and processed foods. It works - now the weight slowly comes off (since I am just below 170) and I am full of energy and life! Why change what works.

    Not all calories are the same. Each work in a different manner metabolically. Each person is metabolically different. The best adjustment to make is to eliminate marginal foods to the point where the weight comes off, then keep eating those foods that allow for true weight loss.

    Paleo works and it's super healthy. Never heard of a doctor state to me directly that eating veggies, olive oil, nuts, low GI fruits, and lean meats is a bad idea. Actually, that's exactly what they would want you to eat. Lose the processed sugar and you will be free.

    And the kool-aid, don't forget to drink the kool-aid.

    While I'm glad this diet works for you, you really didn't address the question. And you threw out some basic blah blah that is just downright wrong or incomplete.

    In the context of a varied diet, exactly how does say a peach-calorie work different than a banana-calorie? After all, the "each work in a different manner metabolically", right?

    or not.

    Obviously, you don't understand the mechanics behind fiber and fruit. Not my problem. I answered her issues - she needs to eliminate any foods that are sucrose-based or processed-based foods altogether. Only then will she isolate the foods that are causing the issue and gear her body metabolically to utilize fat in her weight loss.
    Woops, guess I haven't actually lost 25+ lbs eating sucrose-based foods or "process-based" foods.
    You actually dreamt that. You're really still overweight in reality. Time to wake up!!

    Is that why people keep staring at me now that I'm wearing clothes about 2 sizes smaller?little_miss_muffin_top_by_bvnny1.png
  • lawlifehanna
    lawlifehanna Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    OP - back to the point of your post..

    it really is easy to overestimate by 200 to 300 a day which would be 2100 extra calories a week which is a half pound gain …or would just erase the deficit that MFP gave you ...

    I agree with this. I admit I don't always have the time, chance or the energy to weigh everything, and usually it bites me in the butt.

    If you keep eating what you're eating and any other reason (constipation? time of month? water retention?) is eliminated, there's nothing left but weighing food.

    Just don't give up, ok? Your thread may or may not get hijacked for the great paleo debate, but that doesn't change the fact that you can figure this out.

    As a side not to the allergy idea somebody mentioned, my best friend had been allergic to wheat all her life without knowing it - until she collapsed. She lost a notable amount of weight (take note, I said weight, not fat) immediately after she stopped eating wheat and other grains with gluten, because her stomach and intestines were so bloated and messed up. She lost inches too, because of the bloating, but obviously that doesn't mean she lost fat. This may or may not apply to you, but if you and your doctor can't figure out any other reason for you to not lose weight while eating a deficit, it might be worth it to see if there are some allergy issues.
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.

    Considering that it is illegal for a store to mislabel a package of chicken, you might want to get your scale recalibrated.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.

    Considering that it is illegal for a store to mislabel a package of chicken, you might want to get your scale recalibrated.

    Blindly taking package stated calories for granted is folly
  • martycon400
    martycon400 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Avoiding carbs? is there a specific reason for that? have u tried increasing ur carbs? if your training daily etc you need carbs plain and simple. removing carbs for a long time isnt good for your thyroid and can actually lead to weight gain
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.

    Considering that it is illegal for a store to mislabel a package of chicken, you might want to get your scale recalibrated.

    Blindly taking package stated calories for granted is folly

    agreed. Weight for packaged stuff is averaged out. Can be way off. I've only had a few things actually be on point consistently out of all the things I eat.
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.

    Considering that it is illegal for a store to mislabel a package of chicken, you might want to get your scale recalibrated.

    In the Uk packets usually state 'typical' weight not necessarily actual weight unless you're buying something by weight, in which case it's not usually 'packaged' any more than wrapped in cling film. In both cases it's illegal to be incorrect but the former is harder to prove and my point about weighing stands in any case, regardless of whether my scales are incorrect (which they are not).

  • Katerina9408
    Katerina9408 Posts: 276 Member
    Options
    zakkiwakki wrote: »
    Give NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS, NO VEGETABLE OILS, NO FRUIT JUICE a try. Cook only in animal derived fats, lard, dripping etc, coconut oil or olive oil. Eat plenty of leafy green veg and a small quantity of fruit just to kill any sugar cravings you might have. Keep the protein and fat high and your carbs low. Limit dairy to only full fat products. Only eat when you're hungry. This means don't stick to breakfast, lunch, dinner. Read labels for added sugar. You need to fat adapt your body so that it burns fat not sugar (carbs). Don't panic if you feel like crap after a few days, that's your body switching over. Within a week you'll start to feel like you have more energy and clearer thoughts. As a result of using this diet, after trying just about every other diet out there and getting frustrated, my doctor has taken me off blood pressure tablets and statins and I've lost 12.5kg in two months without once feeling hungry or lacking energy.

    Pfff....bull....vegan is the way,high carb low fat and lots of exercise
  • Katerina9408
    Katerina9408 Posts: 276 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    For everyone who has posted along the lines of "are you actually eating more than you think" "are you actually creating a caloric deficit" "are you sure you have counted your calories properly" No. yes. yes. I've been counting for 5 years now, took a break when I got pregnant with baby #3 & now my body seems to be rejecting any dieting. I follow the 1410 calories that have been suggested by MFP & push to stay under, since my basal metabolic rate is in the 1500's I stay under anyway. I normally don't track my workouts to ensure I'm creating a deficit, because I don't like how the app automatically gives you "extra" calories. I follow the eat ever 2-3 hours rule & eat small, ie hard boiled egg white, banana etc. Also, I do my best to avoid processed food, more because I enjoy the taste of homemade than for health benefits & since I'm a house wife, there's really no reason for me to opt for processed. Most of the meals I cook do not require any oils, and I avoid carbs & starches. So, now that that's all out of the way, if anyone has any tips or ideas [that aren't just questioning my ability to keep track of what I'm doing] I'd be glad to hear them.

    When I read "I eat eggs" , "I avoid carbs" I undersood what is wrong, your body,your brain runs on glucose,you need it,there is plenty of protein in soy,tofu,grains,beans etc. etc. and everything u need in plant-based food if u eat enough. You might not be using oils but do u know how much cholesterol and saturated fats there is in eggs and meat ? You need more fiber to cleance your body and drink at least 2L of water a day. You might not be losing weight because of stress or if you don't get enough sleep. So my suggestion is : eat more veggies,fruits and grains,try to substitute white bread,pasta and rice with brown,make smoothies,cut the salt,drink more geen tea. For example: For breakfast you can have rolled oat flakes (prepared with water) they have lots of fiber and protein if you want you can add a banana ( this is around 450cal for 130 g of oatmeal +100 cal from the banana) for lunch : some salad (green cabbage keeps u full u can add carrots and cucumber to it) and for dinner you can have gluten free pasta with tomato sause or beans.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    I spent all summer thinking my exercise was putting me at a calorie deficit, but it wasn't because I was eating more than I realized. Logging calories helps keep you honest. If you aren't good at eyeballing your portion sizes, weighing and measuring your food helps. (Just don't expect it to give you a more accurate calorie count than what's on the package.) But one of the easiest things to do is to simply eat less. You have a concept of what you are eating, so if you're gaining, reduce it.

    Just how much packaged food do you eat? Please, enough with the "weighing not being as accurate" stuff. Since a good part of most people's diets comes from produce and meats, and you know... fresh food... it should be weighed. Liquids should be measured.
    Agreed. Also, I have weighed some foods with weights on the packet. A "150 g" chicken breast can be anything from 125 to 225 g, with varying %of water. "80 g" bananas usually weigh 100 - 125 g, "150 g" apples are often more like 180 g.

    Considering that it is illegal for a store to mislabel a package of chicken, you might want to get your scale recalibrated.

    Blindly taking package stated calories for granted is folly

    I don't actually take the package stated calories for granted. What I actually do is use my weight loss results to determine accuracy. As long as I'm losing weight at the pace I expect, then it doesn't matter if the package was correct or I didn't estimate my calorie burn correctly because it all balanced out. If my weigh loss isn't what I expect, then I adjust my intake and calorie expenditure accordingly.