Help! No weight loss after 3 years trying.
Options
Replies
-
jennifershoo wrote: »jennifershoo wrote: »You are not logging properly. You need to use a food scale for everything even the liquids. I do not believe you eat exactly 200g, 400g or 100mL of something.
I need to quote myself, so you see my post.
Log properly.
You are eating more than you think.
sorry jennifershoo, didn't miss you on purpose. I agree I need to revise how I weigh everything. A question though, how do you weigh and then log liquid items that are not water?
All liquids are measured in a measuring cup (fl. oz. or cups) unless the package also provides the servings in grams or ounces. Then you have a choice to weigh or measure.
All non-liquids should be weighed.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »How is MSG going to interfere with weight loss?
And I'm not sure how -- widely speaking -- nutrients are lost when I pay someone else to fry potatoes for me. Are there some places where a fried potato may have fewer nutrients than one I fry myself? Absolutely. But I don't get how this makes sense as a blanket statement.
You aren't talking to me but I wanted to add something. When you pay someone to cook for you they want it to taste good....so they are probably more likely to add more oil/butter/sugar/whatever to make it taste better. And they aren't going to tell you "I used X grams of butter" so you're really guessing at the calories you're eating. It's much safer to cook your own food (in terms of knowing what you're actually eating).
That's totally true. But it would be attributable to the ingredients that are in the food. Home-cooking -- other than letting you know exactly what is in the food -- isn't going to create a calorie deficit. And it has nothing to do with nutrient loss.
True, I wasn't trying to back up the MSG or lack of nutrients argument.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How is MSG going to interfere with weight loss?
And I'm not sure how -- widely speaking -- nutrients are lost when I pay someone else to fry potatoes for me. Are there some places where a fried potato may have fewer nutrients than one I fry myself? Absolutely. But I don't get how this makes sense as a blanket statement.
I've had friends who have lost weight when the only thing they've done differently is avoid MSG. It prompted them to make better food choices, they didn't get headaches anymore, and they didn't eat because they were feeling blah. Purely anecdotal I know, but I'm not a scientist, and if I checked Google I'm sure I could find claims for either argument.
As for the fries made at home, I would assume they'd have more nutrients per gram, because if I were to do them in the oven they'd be thicker wedges, without a crispy batter coating to soak up lots of oil, and I'd put way less salt on them.
Not to mention the money saved from not buying take out (a bag of potatoes costs as much as a medium fry from McDonalds where I live), that could be spent on higher quality food that might be normally considered 'too expensive' to buy (grapes, feta cheese, and containers of baby arugula are my grocery store splurges). These are all changes that have worked for me, and I've lost 19 lbs since December, so while what I've said may be 'blanket statements' they worked for me, and they might just work for OP, so I felt they were useful to mention.0 -
I agree that you need to see your doctor. I was eating at a BIG deficit and not losing weight. I had a bunch of bloodwork done and found out it WAS my thyroid. They figure it became an issue when I went through puberty, which incidentally, is when I got fat. I have spent a year regulating my medications, so my levels would be where they should be...and for the first time in 24 years, I am losing weight...(and my hair has stopped falling out, so that is a nice treat as well!)0
-
I was curious about the skimmed milk issue, so I looked it up. Based on what I found, semi-skimmed milk has 155 calories for 300 mls. (For those of us in the US, semi-skimmed milk is equal to 2% milk.) I looked in the MFP database and I think the entry you are using is just simply wrong. AND, this means that you are consuming more than double the calories you think you are in just this one item each time you consume it.
0 -
annavalente wrote: »I had a little look at your diary...
I think you might be misjudging your calories!
My 180mls of semi-skimmed milk is 90 calories...how is your 300mls 70?
I honestly think you just need to be a bit more conscious of what your eating. If you have *honestly* been eating 1200 for the last year and havent lost any weight at all theres obviously something adding wrong or the scales need new batteries!
At a tiny 5ft 1inches Ive lost 55lbs in the last 2 years..by accurately logging EVERYTHING that went near my mouth!
I usually search for a food from the database and check it against the package, then choose the closest match.
Clearly I need to improve measuring and weighing. Thanks for the advice0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »I only use the MFP database half the time because it's WRONG A LOT.
I calculate in my head from the package/tin/box and double check things.
It makes everything that gets thrown into my cake hole valuable and accounted for.
Interesting info, I only use mfp database, although I regularly check the packet details against my database search and pick the closest match0 -
jennifershoo wrote: »jennifershoo wrote: »You are not logging properly. You need to use a food scale for everything even the liquids. I do not believe you eat exactly 200g, 400g or 100mL of something.
I need to quote myself, so you see my post.
Log properly.
You are eating more than you think.
sorry jennifershoo, didn't miss you on purpose. I agree I need to revise how I weigh everything. A question though, how do you weigh and then log liquid items that are not water?
All liquids are measured in a measuring cup (fl. oz. or cups) unless the package also provides the servings in grams or ounces. Then you have a choice to weigh or measure.
All non-liquids should be weighed.
Thanks for clarifying0 -
ladybuggnorris wrote: »I agree that you need to see your doctor. I was eating at a BIG defiideit and not losing weight. I had a bunch of bloodwork done and found out it WAS my thyroid. They figure it became an issue when I went through puberty, which incidentally, is when I got fat. I have spent a year regulating my medications, so my levels would be where they should be...and for the first time in 24 years, I am losing weight...(and my hair has stopped falling out, so that is a nice treat as well!)
I have had a full set of blood tests and two thyroid tests, both fasting, nothing abnormal, they did Identify that my bmi was too high, which is why I went to the doctors in the first place.
Pleased to hear you are losing weight and not hair. Best wishes0 -
brookesdsu wrote: »I was curious about the skimmed milk issue, so I looked it up. Based on what I found, semi-skimmed milk has 155 calories for 300 mls. (For those of us in the US, semi-skimmed milk is equal to 2% milk.) I looked in the MFP database and I think the entry you are using is just simply wrong. AND, this means that you are consuming more than double the calories you think you are in just this one item each time you consume it.
So which is correct, the database entry for semi-skimmed milk or the matching bottle details?
Should I assume that they are both wrong and make allowance in my head?0 -
You're just eating at maintenance. You're underestimating your calories... I promise you, an apple is not 47 calories... and it's only the first thing I saw.
Weigh your food, log everything, don't use entries like '1 slice' for lunch meat because slices can be any size, etc.
This is an excellent point. And, it would be a rare apple that weighs out at 100 calories.
The MFP database has a medium banana at 110 calories. However, if you weigh them in grams they can be anywhere from 90 to 145 calories, even if they "look" like they're medium bananas.
Weigh all food possible and take the extra step to make sure you are using accurate entries. Sometimes is takes research, but it can be done.0 -
Even if that made sense, how would "running inefficiently" cause someone to not lose weight? Wouldn't it mean they waste a bunch of fuel and thus need even more food than if they ate "good" fuel?KrunchyMama wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KrunchyMama wrote: »You have a lot of processed foods in your diary. I bet if you started making more stuff from scratch you would see better results. I know I feel a lot better overall if I eat homemade fries versus store-bought fries. You'll find that you won't have to eat as much of the whole food to feel full either, because you'll be giving your body better nutrients. Try to eat more leafy greens and vegetables, and less breads. Keep sugary foods out of the house, for a couple weeks to start just to see if that makes a difference. If you need carby foods try having oats, potatoes or rice. High-sodium meats also make me super bloated, which can mask any progress I've made because of the water retention. And if you can afford it, get a FitBit. Maybe you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are in a day, so what you are eating is keeping you at maintenance instead of weight loss.
What would the difference be between homemade fried potatoes and fried potatoes that I paid someone else to prepare for me?
MSG for one. And less nutrients. It's like putting sub-par fuel in a sports car. It'll run, but not efficiently.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »KrunchyMama wrote: »You have a lot of processed foods in your diary. I bet if you started making more stuff from scratch you would see better results. I know I feel a lot better overall if I eat homemade fries versus store-bought fries. You'll find that you won't have to eat as much of the whole food to feel full either, because you'll be giving your body better nutrients. Try to eat more leafy greens and vegetables, and less breads. Keep sugary foods out of the house, for a couple weeks to start just to see if that makes a difference. If you need carby foods try having oats, potatoes or rice. High-sodium meats also make me super bloated, which can mask any progress I've made because of the water retention. And if you can afford it, get a FitBit. Maybe you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are in a day, so what you are eating is keeping you at maintenance instead of weight loss.
What would the difference be between homemade fried potatoes and fried potatoes that I paid someone else to prepare for me?
When you make it yourself, you know exactly what you put in it. And I'm guessing most people who use processed foods don't weigh it, so first there's the margin of error from the manufacturer... then the extra 10 or 20% calories because a serving is often less than the amount of food you actually have per portion.0 -
brookesdsu wrote: »I was curious about the skimmed milk issue, so I looked it up. Based on what I found, semi-skimmed milk has 155 calories for 300 mls. (For those of us in the US, semi-skimmed milk is equal to 2% milk.) I looked in the MFP database and I think the entry you are using is just simply wrong. AND, this means that you are consuming more than double the calories you think you are in just this one item each time you consume it.
So which is correct, the database entry for semi-skimmed milk or the matching bottle details?
Should I assume that they are both wrong and make allowance in my head?
Many of the entries in the MFP database are user entered, which means some of them will have typos or just be flat wrong. Go by the details on your package and be sure that you're double-checking that they match the entry you use on MFP.
Personally, I like these two posts to help tighten up your logging:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1290491/how-and-why-to-use-a-digital-food-scale
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
0 -
How consistent have you been and are you now? If there's one thing I've noticed with some of the people I work with who have this issue it is that they'll do pretty good say Monday through Thursday...and decent on Friday...and pretty much blow it up on the weekend and they aren't losing weight.
They aren't gaining weight, but they aren't losing weight either...and in many instanced I have noticed that it comes down to this consistency factor. Usually if I can get them and keep them on track consistently for a few weeks, voila...and that's usually when they see the light.
It's easy to tell ourselves, "hey...I've been pretty good all week, I'm just going to let it all hang out on the weekend." But often, this is the difference between steadily losing weight and just maintaining or losing/gaining those same 5 Lbs or whatever.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »brookesdsu wrote: »I was curious about the skimmed milk issue, so I looked it up. Based on what I found, semi-skimmed milk has 155 calories for 300 mls. (For those of us in the US, semi-skimmed milk is equal to 2% milk.) I looked in the MFP database and I think the entry you are using is just simply wrong. AND, this means that you are consuming more than double the calories you think you are in just this one item each time you consume it.
So which is correct, the database entry for semi-skimmed milk or the matching bottle details?
Should I assume that they are both wrong and make allowance in my head?
Many of the entries in the MFP database are user entered, which means some of them will have typos or just be flat wrong. Go by the details on your package and be sure that you're double-checking that they match the entry you use on MFP.
Personally, I like these two posts to help tighten up your logging:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1290491/how-and-why-to-use-a-digital-food-scale
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
I do try to cross reference every time and will always use the highest figures. Thanks for the links, I will check them out tomorrow.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »How consistent have you been and are you now? If there's one thing I've noticed with some of the people I work with who have this issue it is that they'll do pretty good say Monday through Thursday...and decent on Friday...and pretty much blow it up on the weekend and they aren't losing weight.
They aren't gaining weight, but they aren't losing weight either...and in many instanced I have noticed that it comes down to this consistency factor. Usually if I can get them and keep them on track consistently for a few weeks, voila...and that's usually when they see the light.
It's easy to tell ourselves, "hey...I've been pretty good all week, I'm just going to let it all hang out on the weekend." But often, this is the difference between steadily losing weight and just maintaining or losing/gaining those same 5 Lbs or whatever.
I'm kinda the opposite, being what I thought was good and then not eating enough at the weekend. I work 11 hour days, five days a week, so when the weekend comes around I want to be out and about and end up missing meals.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Even if that made sense, how would "running inefficiently" cause someone to not lose weight? Wouldn't it mean they waste a bunch of fuel and thus need even more food than if they ate "good" fuel?KrunchyMama wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KrunchyMama wrote: »You have a lot of processed foods in your diary. I bet if you started making more stuff from scratch you would see better results. I know I feel a lot better overall if I eat homemade fries versus store-bought fries. You'll find that you won't have to eat as much of the whole food to feel full either, because you'll be giving your body better nutrients. Try to eat more leafy greens and vegetables, and less breads. Keep sugary foods out of the house, for a couple weeks to start just to see if that makes a difference. If you need carby foods try having oats, potatoes or rice. High-sodium meats also make me super bloated, which can mask any progress I've made because of the water retention. And if you can afford it, get a FitBit. Maybe you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are in a day, so what you are eating is keeping you at maintenance instead of weight loss.
What would the difference be between homemade fried potatoes and fried potatoes that I paid someone else to prepare for me?
MSG for one. And less nutrients. It's like putting sub-par fuel in a sports car. It'll run, but not efficiently.
If someone feels gross from eating poor food choices they may be too tired or weak to really push themselves in a workout, or they might have a more sedentary day and therefore not have the deficit they think they do.0 -
brookesdsu wrote: »I was curious about the skimmed milk issue, so I looked it up. Based on what I found, semi-skimmed milk has 155 calories for 300 mls. (For those of us in the US, semi-skimmed milk is equal to 2% milk.) I looked in the MFP database and I think the entry you are using is just simply wrong. AND, this means that you are consuming more than double the calories you think you are in just this one item each time you consume it.
So which is correct, the database entry for semi-skimmed milk or the matching bottle details?
Should I assume that they are both wrong and make allowance in my head?
If the details on the product and the database entry match you must be correct (I'm being serious, not sarcastic).
Must be a different product than what I was reading about. 0 -
KrunchyMama wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
How is MSG going to interfere with weight loss?
And I'm not sure how -- widely speaking -- nutrients are lost when I pay someone else to fry potatoes for me. Are there some places where a fried potato may have fewer nutrients than one I fry myself? Absolutely. But I don't get how this makes sense as a blanket statement.
I've had friends who have lost weight when the only thing they've done differently is avoid MSG. It prompted them to make better food choices, they didn't get headaches anymore, and they didn't eat because they were feeling blah. Purely anecdotal I know, but I'm not a scientist, and if I checked Google I'm sure I could find claims for either argument.
As for the fries made at home, I would assume they'd have more nutrients per gram, because if I were to do them in the oven they'd be thicker wedges, without a crispy batter coating to soak up lots of oil, and I'd put way less salt on them.
Not to mention the money saved from not buying take out (a bag of potatoes costs as much as a medium fry from McDonalds where I live), that could be spent on higher quality food that might be normally considered 'too expensive' to buy (grapes, feta cheese, and containers of baby arugula are my grocery store splurges). These are all changes that have worked for me, and I've lost 19 lbs since December, so while what I've said may be 'blanket statements' they worked for me, and they might just work for OP, so I felt they were useful to mention.
First you say the only thing they did differently was avoid MSG, but then you said it prompted them to make better food choices and they weren't eating because they were feeling blah. So was the only thing they did differently avoiding MSG? Or did they begin making better food choices and avoid eating when they felt "blah"?
I am not sure why fries made at home would have more nutrients per gram than fries made outside of the home. Sure, some of them could -- but not everyone at home makes their fries the same way. And not every place where you can purchase fries makes them the same way.
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
- 401 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
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions