Irritated!
Replies
-
I would purchase a digital food scale and use it for one week without making any changes to your intake.
Weigh and log every bite that goes into your mouth and for one week prepare as many of your own meals as possible (reduce restaurant frequency).
The purpose of this is to get a full week of being as accurate as you possibly can with regards to intake tracking.
See what happens in that time.
Note that this doesn't mean that your CURRENT calorie and macronutrient intake is ideal, but this is a good starting point to get an accurate assessment of what calories are coming in.
OP: I would listen SideSteel.
Also, when did you start exercising?0 -
Way of topic but DAN, have not seen you in a long time! or am I just blind?0
-
TimothyFish: How will she know that she is eating less if she continues eye-balling portions? Being a cup off on your broccoli eye-ball will not wipe your deficit. Consuming double the peanut butter you thought you were eating on bread that weights twice as much as you though... just might.
Re: weight loss goal. So with 20lbs to lose, a 20 year old, in your opinion, should be aiming for a 2lbs a week deficit? So she can lose it toote-suite and head out to the beach, or is it that she needs to get into that prom dress?
Unlike Tim, I think that with a new baby and your decision to shed some pounds you now have a great opportunity to get yourself into some long term sustainable eating and exercise habits that will perhaps help you not to have to live the rest of your life in need of tools like MFP.
You have ZERO reasons to do anything more aggressive than eating at your goal weight TDEE till you are very close to it, perhaps dipping a little bit below it to get there, and then going back to continuing to eat at what will effectively be your long term maintenance goal.
Going on a DIET will help you temporarily. Changing how you relate to food and exercise (and sticking to the changes) will help you long term.
Selah722: your calorie deficit seems a bit on the aggressive side. How much do you exercise? To be at 1200 you must be set as sedentary. Do you eat your exercise calories back?
DEFINITION ISSUE: Most of the people who have said she should eat more than 1700 calories are talking about the total calories she should be eating in a day including exercise calorie eat back. They are NOT talking about setting up MFP to 1200 or 1700 and then eating back the exercise calories (which is the way MFP is by default setup to be used).0 -
TimothyFish: How will she know that she is eating less if she continues eye-balling portions? Being a cup off on your broccoli eye-ball will not wipe your deficit. Consuming double the peanut butter you thought you were eating on bread that weights twice as much as you though... just might.
Selah722: your calorie deficit seems a bit on the aggressive side. How much do you exercise? To be at 1200 you must be set as sedentary. Do you eat your exercise calories back?
DEFINITION ISSUE: Most of the people who have said she should eat more than 1700 calories are talking about the total calories she should be eating in a day including exercise. They are NOT talking about setting up MFP to 1200 or 1700 and adding back the exercise calories (which is the way MFP is by default setup to be used)
No, I'm not. I think 1700 is fine for sedentary and ZERO exercise. I eat 1800 on a sedentary day (5'6" 205#), plus around 300-400 calories on days I exercise.0 -
alyciamoyer5 wrote: »Everything is entered accurately. VERDICT: BUY A FOOD SCALE!
Yep, that is it. I used to eyeball cups and tablespoons. Started weighing stuff in grams and it was a lot more than I thought!0 -
TimothyFish: How will she know that she is eating less if she continues eye-balling portions? Being a cup off on your broccoli eye-ball will not wipe your deficit. Consuming double the peanut butter you thought you were eating on bread that weights twice as much as you though... just might.
Selah722: your calorie deficit seems a bit on the aggressive side. How much do you exercise? To be at 1200 you must be set as sedentary. Do you eat your exercise calories back?
DEFINITION ISSUE: Most of the people who have said she should eat more than 1700 calories are talking about the total calories she should be eating in a day including exercise. They are NOT talking about setting up MFP to 1200 or 1700 and adding back the exercise calories (which is the way MFP is by default setup to be used)
No, I'm not. I think 1700 is fine for sedentary and ZERO exercise. I eat 1800 on a sedentary day (5'6" 205#), plus around 300-400 calories on days I exercise.
Why eat so little if you could lose the sane or more by eating more?
Why sedentary?
0 -
-
I just started but I'm 5'7 330 and have 1800 a day sedentary0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »It actually states that I should be eating 1710. I thought I was doing it right..
I suppose, if you're only aiming for half a pound loss per week, it might give you that number. But considering the amount of weight you need to lose, I would expect you to be aiming for at least a pound per week and maybe two. At two pounds per week, it would give you a number of 1200, since that's the lower limit.
Without factoring in her exercise, you are telling her how little to eat? Really?
It's funny that MFP calculates something very different than what you're spouting.0 -
jigglyjessica wrote: »I just started but I'm 5'7 330 and have 1800 a day sedentary
Are you sedentary?
Listen!
If you pit sedentary then join a crossfit box for daily training, you're doing it wrong.
Right?
0 -
A-freakin-MEN! My goal is to eat as MANY calories as I can while still losing weight! And once I started doing that, I had my best success and got off the cycle of trying to do too much too fast, eating too little, crashing and burning and starting over again and again and again.Helloitsdan wrote: »
Why eat so little if you could lose the same or more by eating more?
Sustainable fat loss for the win! :drinker:
Why try to do the extremes of eating too little and exercising too much, setting goals inaccurately (such as choosing sedentary while working out 5 days a week??)??
Do it right, do it for life. Life is so much better.
By the way, I'm 5'8", 46 years old, exercise is strength 3 days a week, running 2-3 days a week, averaging 60 minutes a day or less, and I lose on 1800-2000 calories a day. I go over my goal by a few hundred cals at least once a week - has not undone any of my progress. Most days I do weigh and measure everything, aim for hitting my macro & calorie goals.
0 -
It's a myth: eat less do more.
You should eat less, do less.
Or eat more, do more.
The latter is the better solution.0 -
Helloitsdan wrote: »jigglyjessica wrote: »I just started but I'm 5'7 330 and have 1800 a day sedentary
Are you sedentary?
yes0 -
Editing because I posted this in the wrong thread! Sorry : - (0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »It actually states that I should be eating 1710. I thought I was doing it right..
I suppose, if you're only aiming for half a pound loss per week, it might give you that number. But considering the amount of weight you need to lose, I would expect you to be aiming for at least a pound per week and maybe two. At two pounds per week, it would give you a number of 1200, since that's the lower limit.
Why would you expect that?
Her estimated TDEE is about 1900, so subtracting 250 puts us at 1650, which is somewhat close to 1710. If she were trying to lose two pounds per week, MFP would see that that would put her at 900 calories per day and would set her goal at 1200 calories instead.
Or are you asking why I would expect her to want to lose more than half a pound per week? I think it is safe to say that most people who fall within what is considered obesity would like to move out of that category fairly quickly.
0 -
Yes, I was asking why you had pre-set expectations about how quickly she would want to lose weight.
While it can be great to lose weight quickly, some people also want to eat more food while losing weight (even though this may result in a slower rate of loss). Someone who is dealing with a major life stressor (say, becoming a parent) may not want to put that much focus on weight loss right now. There are lots of reasons why someone would choose .5-1 a week for their weight loss instead of 2 pounds.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »It actually states that I should be eating 1710. I thought I was doing it right..
I suppose, if you're only aiming for half a pound loss per week, it might give you that number. But considering the amount of weight you need to lose, I would expect you to be aiming for at least a pound per week and maybe two. At two pounds per week, it would give you a number of 1200, since that's the lower limit.
Urg. No. There is nothing wrong with losing slower. It's actually better because you don't get "hangry" . She just had a baby. She must be tired and need to eat well and enough calories to take care of her baby.0 -
1 - give it more time. 2) use a food scale for all meats, cheese, potato, starchy veggies, nuts, fruit. Ideally weigh everything to get an accurate count for serving size/calories. At 1700, if you are making a 200-300 worth of calorie errors in your serving sizes that would totally erase your calorie deficit. For example my bananas over the past six months are anywhere from 103 grams - 172 grams which is over a 50 calorie swing. Calorie dense foods like cheese, nuts, meats, etc. can completely erase your deficit if they are not accurate.
When I was on weightwatchers, they had tricks for "eye-balling" serving sizes, such as meat the size of a deck of cards about 4 ounces. Well, when I try it out, the swing can be anywhere from 2.8oz to 5oz depending on the cut and type of meat.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »Everything is entered accurately. VERDICT: BUY A FOOD SCALE!
Whether you buy a food scale or not, you'll have to eat less than you're eating now, if you want to lose weight. All a food scale does for you is make you more aware of your portion sizes.
the food scale is going to allow her to know how many calories she is actually consuming. So if she is underestimating portions and really eating 2000 instead of 1700, which would be why no gain. So yes, she will be eating less than right now, but she won't have to follow your advise to just blindly cut 25% additional calories with no other information ...
the food scale will allow her to know that she is eating to the right number of calories...
No, a food scale will only tell you what the weight of the food you are eating is. It won't tell you how much of that weight is water, how much is fat, or protein and carbs. For that information, people generally rely on what the package says.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »Everything is entered accurately. VERDICT: BUY A FOOD SCALE!
Whether you buy a food scale or not, you'll have to eat less than you're eating now, if you want to lose weight. All a food scale does for you is make you more aware of your portion sizes.
the food scale is going to allow her to know how many calories she is actually consuming. So if she is underestimating portions and really eating 2000 instead of 1700, which would be why no gain. So yes, she will be eating less than right now, but she won't have to follow your advise to just blindly cut 25% additional calories with no other information ...
the food scale will allow her to know that she is eating to the right number of calories...
No, a food scale will only tell you what the weight of the food you are eating is. It won't tell you how much of that weight is water, how much is fat, or protein and carbs. For that information, people generally rely on what the package says.
Timothy ... science disagrees with you.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »Everything is entered accurately. VERDICT: BUY A FOOD SCALE!
Whether you buy a food scale or not, you'll have to eat less than you're eating now, if you want to lose weight. All a food scale does for you is make you more aware of your portion sizes.
the food scale is going to allow her to know how many calories she is actually consuming. So if she is underestimating portions and really eating 2000 instead of 1700, which would be why no gain. So yes, she will be eating less than right now, but she won't have to follow your advise to just blindly cut 25% additional calories with no other information ...
the food scale will allow her to know that she is eating to the right number of calories...
No, a food scale will only tell you what the weight of the food you are eating is. It won't tell you how much of that weight is water, how much is fat, or protein and carbs. For that information, people generally rely on what the package says.
/smh
We have a term for this in French, but it would probably get me banned.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »It actually states that I should be eating 1710. I thought I was doing it right..
I suppose, if you're only aiming for half a pound loss per week, it might give you that number. But considering the amount of weight you need to lose, I would expect you to be aiming for at least a pound per week and maybe two. At two pounds per week, it would give you a number of 1200, since that's the lower limit.
Why would you expect that?
Her estimated TDEE is about 1900, so subtracting 250 puts us at 1650, which is somewhat close to 1710. If she were trying to lose two pounds per week, MFP would see that that would put her at 900 calories per day and would set her goal at 1200 calories instead.
Or are you asking why I would expect her to want to lose more than half a pound per week? I think it is safe to say that most people who fall within what is considered obesity would like to move out of that category fairly quickly.
I estimated her TDEE from weight and activity. This was something that was taught to me in my nutrition courses.
AYFKM???
No offense but leave the calculations to the ones who know how to use the tools.
1) Anyone can adapt to a given calorie.
It's homeostasis.
2) if Tim adapts to 1700, do you cut more? Or would Tim do better by adjusting calories up so he can lose weight more efficiently at higher calories?
3) if eating too little and exercising too much draws from the energy needed to complete other tasks during the day, most people find themselves too tired to function thus closing the deficit gap with more inactivity.
Hire a coach and you learn these things.
Go to school and you can teach these things.
0 -
jennifershoo wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »It actually states that I should be eating 1710. I thought I was doing it right..
I suppose, if you're only aiming for half a pound loss per week, it might give you that number. But considering the amount of weight you need to lose, I would expect you to be aiming for at least a pound per week and maybe two. At two pounds per week, it would give you a number of 1200, since that's the lower limit.
Urg. No. There is nothing wrong with losing slower. It's actually better because you don't get "hangry" . She just had a baby. She must be tired and need to eat well and enough calories to take care of her baby.
Perhaps, but she's that one that used the word "irritated." If you set your goal to half a pound, you may not become "hangry," but you most certainly will become irritated because the scale isn't going to move very fast. I don't know about yours, but mine has to move 0.2 pounds before it shows me a different number. With fluctuations, it would be very easy to go several weeks without that half pound goal resulting in scale movement. I would find that very irritating.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Her estimated TDEE is about 1900, so subtracting 250 puts us at 1650, which is somewhat close to 1710. If she were trying to lose two pounds per week, MFP would see that that would put her at 900 calories per day and would set her goal at 1200 calories instead.
Her estimated TDEE IF SEDENTARY is about 1900, only if you do not count her daily exercise and/or breastfeeding.
How fast you get off the "obese category" is a heck of a lot less important than not returning back to it a few months later.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »alyciamoyer5 wrote: »Everything is entered accurately. VERDICT: BUY A FOOD SCALE!
Whether you buy a food scale or not, you'll have to eat less than you're eating now, if you want to lose weight. All a food scale does for you is make you more aware of your portion sizes.
the food scale is going to allow her to know how many calories she is actually consuming. So if she is underestimating portions and really eating 2000 instead of 1700, which would be why no gain. So yes, she will be eating less than right now, but she won't have to follow your advise to just blindly cut 25% additional calories with no other information ...
the food scale will allow her to know that she is eating to the right number of calories...
No, a food scale will only tell you what the weight of the food you are eating is. It won't tell you how much of that weight is water, how much is fat, or protein and carbs. For that information, people generally rely on what the package says.
if I know I have 10 ounces of chicken breast and the package says it is 50 calories an ounce, I then know I am consuming 500 calories of chicken breasts.
as opposed to thinking I have five ounces and logging it as 250 when I really consumed 500...0 -
alyciamoyer5 wrote: »
It's important because I want to look sexy naked. What of it? I'm 5"4, 181.8, 20 years old, and I don't know bfp..Helloitsdan wrote: »Why is weight loss important?
Can you give some info?
Age
Height
Weight
Appx body fat%
Maybe I can help you understand.
Losing weight doesn't necessarily mean you'll look good naked.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Her estimated TDEE is about 1900, so subtracting 250 puts us at 1650, which is somewhat close to 1710. If she were trying to lose two pounds per week, MFP would see that that would put her at 900 calories per day and would set her goal at 1200 calories instead.
Her estimated TDEE IF SEDENTARY is about 1900, only if you do not count her daily exercise and/or breastfeeding.
How fast you get off the "obese category" is a heck of a lot less important than not returning back to it a few months later.
Well, yeah, that's the way MFP works. She said she's doing what MFP told her to do, so we have to assume that she using MFP to calculate her goal, not one of their competitors (which we aren't supposed to be talking about anyway).0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Perhaps, but she's that one that used the word "irritated." If you set your goal to half a pound, you may not become "hangry," but you most certainly will become irritated because the scale isn't going to move very fast. I don't know about yours, but mine has to move 0.2 pounds before it shows me a different number. With fluctuations, it would be very easy to go several weeks without that half pound goal resulting in scale movement. I would find that very irritating.
So maybe we should also tell the OP that:
a) she should be measuring herself with a tape measure in addition to weighing herself because yes, she could be losing inches while not losing weight.
b) if she just started new exercise routines, or has been eating too much salt, etc, she could be retaining water
c) scales suck and lie and sometimes require more than a full lb to register a change.
Grab something that weights 2lbs and weigh yourself.
Then re-weigh yourself without the 2lb addition.
This will trick your scale into truly showing your what it is measuring.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Perhaps, but she's that one that used the word "irritated." If you set your goal to half a pound, you may not become "hangry," but you most certainly will become irritated because the scale isn't going to move very fast. I don't know about yours, but mine has to move 0.2 pounds before it shows me a different number. With fluctuations, it would be very easy to go several weeks without that half pound goal resulting in scale movement. I would find that very irritating.
So maybe we should also tell the OP that:
a) she should be measuring herself with a tape measure in addition to weighing herself because yes, she could be losing inches while not losing weight.
b) if she just started new exercise routines, or has been eating too much salt, etc, she could be retaining water
c) scales suck and lie and sometimes require more than a full lb to register a change.
Grab something that weights 2lbs and weigh yourself.
Then re-weigh yourself without the 2lb addition.
This will trick your scale into truly showing your what it is measuring.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions