check out my food diary and explain to me
Options
Replies
-
weightlossme wrote: »a salad that consists of lettuce, cucumber, tomatoes, celery, and mung beans - cut up on my benchtop and placed in a bowl - no matter what size the bowl - with nothing added to it - contains zilch calories - in fact its almost calorie deficit - it takes a body more energy to process then what the food contains - I don't use a recipe for salad - it grows in my yard and that's it!
You know that this is not correct right? Cucumbers tomatoes they DO have calories. The salad itself HAS CALORIES. I think that maybe you should revamp your whole system here... and your thought process while you're at it. If you think that POW's and people in the third world are losing fat and are ripped muscular individuals, there is something seriously wrong with this picture here. Are you trying to look like them? In which case, feel free to not eat at all, for days and weeks at a time.
If however, you are trying to lose weight and get healthy, you need to stop comparing their unhealthy (and circumstantial OUTSIDE of their control) weight loss to your own first of all, and second of all, take the advice of the people on this thread alone who are actually making sense and seriously consider a change in your diet. In fact, maybe go through posts in other forums that talk about eating to maintain an exercise regimen, or just your body itself to maintain it.
I'm sorry, but you're being very stubborn, and that could very well be the reason.
Lastly, if you are seeing changes in your body measurements (inches lost, body fat decreasing), you have changes. Stop bothering yourself with the scale. There could be any number of reasons why the numbers on the scale don't move, but if your body is indeed MEASURING in differently, and you don't see that its a (positive) change, again, there's something wrong with this picture...
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »weightlossme wrote: »Kendall2006 wrote: »I took a look at your diary. It just seems your skimming off to much. Breakfast should consist of a meal and not just coffee. One should be able to 3 meals a day between 400-500 calories and 2 snacks in between at 100 calories or less. You may need more vegetables/fruits incorporated into your day.
Thank you - so does this mean that adding MORE food will do what? increase metabolism? obviously when you eat very little but do not drop anything on the scales, the thought of eating More scares you - as I think - well I am eating so little and NOT losing actual scale weight, doesn't that mean eating more will put on weight?. This is my problem, and this is the area I need to have explained to me.
This isn't well supported, but I've definitely worked with people who could not lose eating 1100 cals/day and who started to lose when we bumped them to 1200+. I have a theory about this but won't go into it. The truth is that unless you are underestimating or have a major medical issue, you definitely will not gain in that range.
Sometimes that little bump up in calories is enough energy to help motivate more movement. That's the way i've always seen it. A couple extra drops of fuel can move you farther than fumes.0 -
SwankyTomato wrote: »
But the benefit is that you are being as accurate as possible, which will help you be better able to a) see results, and b) tweak things if NOT seeing results. So it may be a bit tedious initially for some but it's worth taking time to learn how to do!0 -
I've read through the thread so far and I'm surprised more people haven't said anything about this. If you're shrinking in size, but not losing weight, I'm guessing it's because you are gaining muscle as you lose fat (as you are exercising). If your body fat percentage is going down and you're losing cm everywhere, who cares what the scale says? Don't forget, weight is only part of the equation and doesn't mean everything. Think FITNESS not just weight.weightlossme wrote: »...maintaining my exercise routine - but the scales are NOT changing. I have reduced cm's from hips and thighs and stomach - but no change in scales, body fat also coming down...
A few years ago, I was training for a 150 mile bike rally. I rode my bike 200 miles/wk and lost all sorts of weight. Now, ideal weight for my height is somewhere between 110lbs and 120lbs, yet I couldn't get below 130lbs. But I was in the BEST SHAPE I've ever been in. I could hop on a bike and ride 60 miles on a whim! All of my clothes got baggy! So, use the scale along with all of the other information you know about your body. WEIGHT ALONE IS NOT A MEASURE OF HEALTH.0 -
I've read through the thread so far and I'm surprised more people haven't said anything about this. If you're shrinking in size, but not losing weight, I'm guessing it's because you are gaining muscle as you lose fat (as you are exercising). If your body fat percentage is going down and you're losing cm everywhere, who cares what the scale says? Don't forget, weight is only part of the equation and doesn't mean everything. Think FITNESS not just weight.weightlossme wrote: »...maintaining my exercise routine - but the scales are NOT changing. I have reduced cm's from hips and thighs and stomach - but no change in scales, body fat also coming down...
A few years ago, I was training for a 150 mile bike rally. I rode my bike 200 miles/wk and ate at about maintenance. Now, ideal weight for my height is somewhere between 110lbs and 120lbs, yet I couldn't get below 130lbs. But I was in the BEST SHAPE I've ever been in. I could hop on a bike and ride 60 miles on a whim! All of my clothes got baggy! So, use the scale along with all of the other information you know about your body. WEIGHT ALONE IS NOT A MEASURE OF HEALTH.
No. She is NOT gaining muscle. Unless she has just started on a heavy lifting weight training program and is benefiting from some minor newbie gains, she is simply losing some water weight and body fat which is enabling the existing musculature to show through. And regarding no scale weight changes she may be holding onto extra water for muscle recovery, which is likely what was happening in your case as well. No one gains appreciable muscle mass while actively eating at a deficit.0 -
I've read through the thread so far and I'm surprised more people haven't said anything about this. If you're shrinking in size, but not losing weight, I'm guessing it's because you are gaining muscle as you lose fat (as you are exercising). If your body fat percentage is going down and you're losing cm everywhere, who cares what the scale says? Don't forget, weight is only part of the equation and doesn't mean everything. Think FITNESS not just weight.weightlossme wrote: »...maintaining my exercise routine - but the scales are NOT changing. I have reduced cm's from hips and thighs and stomach - but no change in scales, body fat also coming down...
A few years ago, I was training for a 150 mile bike rally. I rode my bike 200 miles/wk and lost all sorts of weight. Now, ideal weight for my height is somewhere between 110lbs and 120lbs, yet I couldn't get below 130lbs. But I was in the BEST SHAPE I've ever been in. I could hop on a bike and ride 60 miles on a whim! All of my clothes got baggy! So, use the scale along with all of the other information you know about your body. WEIGHT ALONE IS NOT A MEASURE OF HEALTH.
THIS!!!!!!0 -
Wow, okay, this discussion thread is really aggressive! The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller, you don't have a lot to lose, which also seems to be a time when the body makes things more difficult, and the one thing I've learned from trying to get and keep weight off a lot in my life is that weight loss isn't a straight downward path on the scales, even if you do everything right. Three months is a long time to stall on the scales, but I've had friends that have dealt with that. I've gone several weeks myself, no love on the scales, keep on doing the same thing, and then suddenly as a friend put it WHOOSH. Several pounds will come off in a week. Was it water retention (which has always been a big issue for me)? Who knows. All I know is that finally the scale showed some love. But since you are seeing NSVs (non-scale victories) in the form of smaller measurements and your your body toning up, then you know you're doing things right. So frustrating in one sense, I know, but at least you have validation with the measuring tape and the mirror!
0 -
Sorry, I don't quite follow - being short does not make losing weight harder. Neither does it make losing weight easy if you were tall. I am 5'11" and would say I struggle with weight loss just as much as the next person, regardless of their height.The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller,
0 -
Before you write something off as "crap", do some actual research into the topic. Prisoners of war and people in third countries are able to survive for the exact reason that their body gets accustomed to maintaining basic life functions on a very low intake by slowing down the metabolism.
And they come out looking like this....if you don't look like that, you're not having a meaningful "slowing down" of "the metabolism".
0 -
^^^^^^ that is upsetting. But it certainly make a point.0
-
Sorry, I don't quite follow - being short does not make losing weight harder. Neither does it make losing weight easy if you were tall. I am 5'11" and would say I struggle with weight loss just as much as the next person, regardless of their height.The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller,
In terms of percentages, you're right. But X pounds on a short person is a bigger percentage than X pounds on a tall person, so it will typically take the smaller person longer to lose those X pounds.
0 -
Before you write something off as "crap", do some actual research into the topic. Prisoners of war and people in third countries are able to survive for the exact reason that their body gets accustomed to maintaining basic life functions on a very low intake by slowing down the metabolism.
The reduction in metabolism is the byproduct of reduced muscle mass as the body uses it's own musculature for fuel. Take a few minutes, read up on the experiments at the University of Minnesota, and learn about the science of it. The way the phrase "starvation mode" is tossed around on MFP has nothing to do with the science of how the body actually responds to real starvation nor what it does when properly fed and exercised after prolonged malnutrition.
OMG ... you ate below X calories ... UR gonna hold onto fat ... that isn't how it works.0 -
OP, a few factors are probably at work here, but my guess is the later.
1) you may not be logging as accurately as you could be. It is a good place to start looking at and determining if there are ways to improve.
2) you are eating a low amount of calories and maintaining your exercise regime. This could be creating too much stress for your body and raising your cortisol levels (the hormone related to stress). An increase in cortisol has been linked to increased water retention. Starting a weight lifting routine can also increase water retention as the muscles fill with water and glycogen during repair. Water retention can mask fat/weight loss for a few weeks while the weight loss catches up to the water retention weight. If you are seeing a decrease in measurements, then there has been some loss, just not translated onto the scale. So....this all plays into the "eat more to lose" mentality in the way that eating more will reduce the stress on your body from being in a large calorie deficit, you reduce the cortisol levels and this reduces the water retention and helps show the weight loss. If a person didn't want to increase calories to reduce the stress being put on the body, they could just wait until the water weight gain becomes less than the actual fat/weight loss and they see the scale move again.
Yes, the math part of the eat more to lose equation wouldn't seem to work, but there are other factors that contribute to what is shown on a scale so going lower and lower becomes more and more detrimental to seeing actual loss on a scale for what could be a considerable amount of time (since eventually the loss would start showing again).
Things are changing for you, even if the scale isn't. If you feel that the only progress is shown on a scale (and not in how your body performs in the gym or looks in the mirror), then hold on for a wild ride.
Here are the articles I base my opinion on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
and a more casual follow-up
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/#more-9313
0 -
Laurend224 wrote: »^^^^^^ that is upsetting. But it certainly make a point.
That's from the Minnesota starvation experiment a subsequent poster referenced.
0 -
Watch Discovery Channel's "Naked and Afraid". Why is it that every contestant loses a sizable chunk of weight during the 21 day challenge? Telling her to eat more to lose weight is just wrong.0
-
Sorry, I don't quite follow - being short does not make losing weight harder. Neither does it make losing weight easy if you were tall. I am 5'11" and would say I struggle with weight loss just as much as the next person, regardless of their height.The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller,
Saying that weight loss is harder for short people does not equate to it being easy for tall people. No one said that. I feel it's tough for me as a short person because I can't eat as much. This does not mean I think it's easy for my taller friends, just that I am jealous that they can eat more.
0 -
Sorry, I don't quite follow - being short does not make losing weight harder. Neither does it make losing weight easy if you were tall. I am 5'11" and would say I struggle with weight loss just as much as the next person, regardless of their height.The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller,
Saying that weight loss is harder for short people does not equate to it being easy for tall people. No one said that. I feel it's tough for me as a short person because I can't eat as much. This does not mean I think it's easy for my taller friends, just that I am jealous that they can eat more.
Actually as a tall person (5'8) I think I agree
I feel I can carry more weight before it is noticeable to others plus when I go to lose weight I get to eat more calories both because of my activity level and musculature but also because of my height
5 or 10lbs more on me makes very little difference whereas it would to my sister who is 5 inches shorter
0 -
It seems like you did try to log more accurately today, as you have logged all of the ingredients of your salad for example, that is ready the right step forward, you cant go wrong by logging everything.
However I just have a few small observations about your diary today, some of your amounts do seems to be a bit off, for example 1g of margarine, that is an incredibly small amount, one fifth of teaspoon, it would not be enough to spread on bread. Then when it comes to your salad you for example have, 7g of tomato, and 6g of avocado, once again these amounts are really very low for a salad. But of course I do not know what was actually on your plate, perhaps those amounts are actually correct.
But from personal experience those types of amounts, just seem to be a bit too low.0 -
Wow, okay, this discussion thread is really aggressive! The things that strike me, OP, is that you are short, which I'm sure you know well, makes losing weight a slower journey than if you were taller, you don't have a lot to lose, which also seems to be a time when the body makes things more difficult, and the one thing I've learned from trying to get and keep weight off a lot in my life is that weight loss isn't a straight downward path on the scales, even if you do everything right. Three months is a long time to stall on the scales, but I've had friends that have dealt with that. I've gone several weeks myself, no love on the scales, keep on doing the same thing, and then suddenly as a friend put it WHOOSH. Several pounds will come off in a week. Was it water retention (which has always been a big issue for me)? Who knows. All I know is that finally the scale showed some love. But since you are seeing NSVs (non-scale victories) in the form of smaller measurements and your your body toning up, then you know you're doing things right. So frustrating in one sense, I know, but at least you have validation with the measuring tape and the mirror!
Thank you - I never expected the barrage of messages on this site, OMG. Its like opening up an avalanche, and most people only read a tiny but and then go to town on it. Thank you for your positive and helpful advice.0 -
It seems like you did try to log more accurately today, as you have logged all of the ingredients of your salad for example, that is ready the right step forward, you cant go wrong by logging everything.
However I just have a few small observations about your diary today, some of your amounts do seems to be a bit off, for example 1g of margarine, that is an incredibly small amount, one fifth of teaspoon, it would not be enough to spread on bread. Then when it comes to your salad you for example have, 7g of tomato, and 6g of avocado, once again these amounts are really very low for a salad. But of course I do not know what was actually on your plate, perhaps those amounts are actually correct.
But from personal experience those types of amounts, just seem to be a bit too low.
Nah man, 7g tomato would legit be like.. one GRAPE tomato. Unless OP's salad is a single lettuce leaf with a single tomato and a single sliver of avocado, it definitely would be an issue of logging properly. Unless it's a bun-less burger of sorts, which is still a tiny am ount for the veggies. And definitely unlikely to get 1g of marge or vegemite.
However, I will also say that it's a good tiny step forward to learning proper logging. Now all that's required is to weigh the actual items, or at least measure them, and use those number when making a salad or any other food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions