Irritated!
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »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).
She is NOT using the MFP method of eating back exercise caloriesalyciamoyer5 wrote: »I don't know my calories burned honestly. I stick to a strict 1700 or less.
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.
Or we could just tell her to use a scale that works. Why would anyone keep a scale that doesn't reset itself when you step off of it?TimothyFish wrote: »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).
She is NOT using the MFP method of eating back exercise caloriesalyciamoyer5 wrote: »I don't know my calories burned honestly. I stick to a strict 1700 or less.
There's nothing that says she has to eat those calories, if she doesn't want to. But she did tell us that the 1710 came from MFP.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Well, yeah, that's the way MFP works.
You are correct in that many people in this thread have moved beyond the introductory use of MFP (set activity=sedentary, set weight loss=x lbs, eat back y% of exercise calories), and are discussing using MFP based on your own goals and TDEE calculations.
However, I do think that this was in part prompted by the OP's comment that she eats 1700 calories regardless of exercise.
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.
That would hold for MORBID obesity. You are telling a woman who wants to lose 20 pounds to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week?????
Just stop. You have NEVER been more off the mark than when you are giving advice to women.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Or we could just tell her to use a scale that works. Why would anyone keep a scale that doesn't reset itself when you step off of it?
Because the majority of digital scales currently being sold exhibit fake repeatability by showing you the same weight unless they detect a change greater than a pre-set determined by the manufacturer.
If you luck out, or do a considerable amount of research, you might run into a scale that is really showing you the actual measurement it calculates every time you ask it to calculate one.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Or we could just tell her to use a scale that works. Why would anyone keep a scale that doesn't reset itself when you step off of it?
Because the majority of digital scales currently being sold exhibit fake repeatability by showing you the same weight unless they detect a change greater than a pre-set determined by the manufacturer.
If you luck out, or do a considerable amount of research, you might run into a scale that is really showing you the actual measurement it calculates every time you ask it to calculate one.
Wait WHAT. How have I never heard this before? It's so evil and explains so much.
0 -
Not sure if it explains much of anything or not; but, I looked into it after my first scale seemed to be consistently unwilling to show changes <0.8lbs and then I got a second one that would not show changes <1.6lbs
Even my current one (the Fitbit Aria) is PROBABLY really showing you what it measures the first 2 times you weigh yourself in a row. But when you proceed to attempts 3+ it starts to "calibrate" itself into showing you a consistent number.
The manufacturers, in a way, have no choice because people are not willing to understand that our scales are based on a stream of electrical pulses from one or two or at most four load cell sensors that are used to calculate the weight the scale shows.
A small variation in that input, even related to your shaking a bit, or to the linoleum floor you're on giving in a smidge more when you get on/off the second time, means a different calculated weight, which means that a 0.4lb swing between measurements on a 0.2lb "accurate" scale is perfectly normal!
But if people see a scale that shows 0.4lb swings for consecutive measurements they freak, so the manufacturers "calibrate" their measurements to avoid consumer panic.0 -
Wait WHAT. How have I never heard this before? It's so evil and explains so much.
You can easily figure out if your scale is showing fake repeatability using variations of the following experiment:
Required: pen, paper, plastic bottle, graduated measuring cup, water, some time.
Weigh yourself, write the number down
Weigh yourself holding a plastic bottle with about HALF a cup of water, write the number down
repeat with one, two, or however many cups it takes to see a change
Weight yourself as initially.
Are your two waterless weight-ins exactly the same?
Did your (0.2lb accurate scale) show you the first half cup water weight increase? A half a cup of water is 237g, a bit more than half an lb.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »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).
She eats the same every day, she exercises every day, it seems likely that she didn't put herself in as sedentary.
Anyway, using a calculator and her stats with even just 3-5 hours of moderate exercise I get about 2500 for her TDEE, so 1700 should plenty low. (I lose easily on 1700 and I'm 5'3, 125, and 25 years older than her.)
Also, she just had a baby--she's bound to be sleep-deprived and doesn't need to be on a super aggressive deficit, and is to a certain extent waiting for her hormones to go back to normal and probably simply to return to pre-pregnancy weight.
The food scale to help her understand her portions and what she is actually eating is a good idea, and also just some patience.0 -
AmyRhubarb wrote: »Don't knock @Helloitsdan - he knows his stuff, and offers great advice. BEST move I ever made was following his info about three years ago. Since then I have lost the fat, reached my goals and am striving for new goals all the time - and have maintained my success for 3+ years.
If he offers to help - take it! :drinker:
^^Agreed. If I had stuck with it back when he first gave me advice, I would have been at my goal weight by now (I lost my old job and got stressed out and gained). Now I'm back at it but still using the advice/tools he gave me and I'm doing even better than I was before.
Dan-I didn't know you were still around. Good to know you are still around.
Also, I agree, you need a food scale.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
OP, you need to be concentrating on your new bundle of joy, not losing weight. Losing weight will come naturally as long as you eat less calories than you burn.0 -
OP, your baby is very, very wee. It took your body 9 months to change as much as it did, give yourself at least that long to get to your new normal. (no, you won't ever get your old body back. Some changes are permanent. But, moms can and do look smoking hot again.)
Keep your moderate deficit, measure better for accuracy, and stay active. BE PATIENT.0 -
Helloitsdan wrote: »AmyRhubarb wrote: »Don't knock @Helloitsdan - he knows his stuff, and offers great advice. BEST move I ever made was following his info about three years ago. Since then I have lost the fat, reached my goals and am striving for new goals all the time - and have maintained my success for 3+ years.
If he offers to help - take it! :drinker:
Thanks Amy!
You should see the new stuff I'm offering now.
Really stoked at the results!
Are you selling something?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
That would hold for MORBID obesity. You are telling a woman who wants to lose 20 pounds to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week?????
Just stop. You have NEVER been more off the mark than when you are giving advice to women.
Regardless of how much she wants to lose, she is 40lbs from a normal BMI. I'm just saying that if I had 40lbs to lose, I would want to lose it quickly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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).
She eats the same every day, she exercises every day, it seems likely that she didn't put herself in as sedentary.
Anyway, using a calculator and her stats with even just 3-5 hours of moderate exercise I get about 2500 for her TDEE, so 1700 should plenty low. (I lose easily on 1700 and I'm 5'3, 125, and 25 years older than her.)
Also, she just had a baby--she's bound to be sleep-deprived and doesn't need to be on a super aggressive deficit, and is to a certain extent waiting for her hormones to go back to normal and probably simply to return to pre-pregnancy weight.
The food scale to help her understand her portions and what she is actually eating is a good idea, and also just some patience.
I'm beginning to lose track. Do we want to help this woman lose weight or do we want to tell her that she shouldn't bother because she had a baby?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
That would hold for MORBID obesity. You are telling a woman who wants to lose 20 pounds to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week?????
Just stop. You have NEVER been more off the mark than when you are giving advice to women.
Regardless of how much she wants to lose, she is 40lbs from a normal BMI. I'm just saying that if I had 40lbs to lose, I would want to lose it quickly.
I am not sure why your choice would give us any insight into OP's motivation. I am sure there are many ways that your lives -- and decision making process -- differ.
0 -
Helloitsdan wrote: »AmyRhubarb wrote: »Don't knock @Helloitsdan - he knows his stuff, and offers great advice. BEST move I ever made was following his info about three years ago. Since then I have lost the fat, reached my goals and am striving for new goals all the time - and have maintained my success for 3+ years.
If he offers to help - take it! :drinker:
Thanks Amy!
You should see the new stuff I'm offering now.
Really stoked at the results!
Are you selling something?
No. I cannot sell my services on the open forums on MFP.
Amy was a former client.
0 -
OP needs to talk to her doctor since she's still within 6 months from giving birth. Its advised to eat higher calories if breastfeeding but I believe she said she isn't doing that.
1) Pelvic floor muscles will hinder progress. Get assessed by a doc then a PT.
2) Hormones may still be out of balance. Get assessed by a doc.
3) OP stated she wants to look sexy naked. I bet hubby thinks she's amazing naked. She, and 99% of the ppl on here, would have better results if they would adopt a performamce goal as opposed to an achievement goal.0 -
Helloitsdan wrote: »OP needs to talk to her doctor since she's still within 6 months from giving birth. Its advised to eat higher calories if breastfeeding but I believe she said she isn't doing that.
1) Pelvic floor muscles will hinder progress. Get assessed by a doc then a PT.
2) Hormones may still be out of balance. Get assessed by a doc.
3) OP stated she wants to look sexy naked. I bet hubby thinks she's amazing naked. She, and 99% of the ppl on here, would have better results if they would adopt a performamce goal as opposed to an achievement goal.
Wouldn't you be working to achieve that performance goal? What's the difference between a performance goal and an achievement goal?Helloitsdan wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »AmyRhubarb wrote: »Don't knock @Helloitsdan - he knows his stuff, and offers great advice. BEST move I ever made was following his info about three years ago. Since then I have lost the fat, reached my goals and am striving for new goals all the time - and have maintained my success for 3+ years.
If he offers to help - take it! :drinker:
Thanks Amy!
You should see the new stuff I'm offering now.
Really stoked at the results!
Are you selling something?
No. I cannot sell my services on the open forums on MFP.
Amy was a former client.
Ah, very clever of you.
0 -
Wouldn't you be working to achieve that performance goal? What's the difference between a performance goal and an achievement goal?
Not entirely the same so I'm sure Dan will chime in with his own reasons but I find process focus vs outcome focus to benefit many people.
Getting someone to focus on habit and process based goals, getting someone focused on gym performance as a metric, puts them in control and gives them things to put their energy into that they can have an immediate impact on and get positive feedback/reward for that effort.
I also find that with some people it gets them a bit less focused on their imperfections with their body.
0 -
Wouldn't you be working to achieve that performance goal? What's the difference between a performance goal and an achievement goal?
Not entirely the same so I'm sure Dan will chime in with his own reasons but I find process focus vs outcome focus to benefit many people.
Getting someone to focus on habit and process based goals, getting someone focused on gym performance as a metric, puts them in control and gives them things to put their energy into that they can have an immediate impact on and get positive feedback/reward for that effort.
I also find that with some people it gets them a bit less focused on their imperfections with their body.
Okay, that makes sense.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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).
She eats the same every day, she exercises every day, it seems likely that she didn't put herself in as sedentary.
Anyway, using a calculator and her stats with even just 3-5 hours of moderate exercise I get about 2500 for her TDEE, so 1700 should plenty low. (I lose easily on 1700 and I'm 5'3, 125, and 25 years older than her.)
Also, she just had a baby--she's bound to be sleep-deprived and doesn't need to be on a super aggressive deficit, and is to a certain extent waiting for her hormones to go back to normal and probably simply to return to pre-pregnancy weight.
The food scale to help her understand her portions and what she is actually eating is a good idea, and also just some patience.
I'm beginning to lose track. Do we want to help this woman lose weight or do we want to tell her that she shouldn't bother because she had a baby?
I'm starting to become pretty indifferent to this question but I definitely want to tell her not to listen to anything you've said in this thread. She's getting a lot of sound advice about BMR, calorie intake, and her motivation for losing weight, and the fact that she had a baby two months ago is necessarily going to be a factor in giving her good advice. It's not about whether she should bother or not, but how to approach weight loss given what we know about her situation. Getting healthy is not a LOSE TWO OR MORE POUNDS A WEEK OR YOU'RE A FAILURE sort of thing, and that mindset is exactly why a lot of people give up early on.
And FWIW, a lot of OB-GYNs will tell women to lose pregnancy weight at the same rate they put it on. 40 lbs over 10 months = 1 lb a week. Please stop telling her to go into a huge calorie deficit. There are more important things in life than the number on the scale.
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.
First of all I think you're trivializing the importance of building portion awareness. It's very important because many people aren't going to track for the rest of their lives. So building that awareness is a valuable tool that people can and should do for the learning experience because it's something that can have a long term impact.
Second, there's a few things distinctly different between removing additional calories to create the deficit and improving logging accuracy to create the deficit.
If you only react by removing calories you can't guarantee that you are actually eating less. We know with pretty good reliability that people eat more than they think, and sometimes the difference between what's consumed and what's logged can be ridiculous (40-50%). I've seen it plenty of times where people come in with an assumed 1200 calorie intake and they aren't losing weight, then they get the food scale out and lose weight reliably because the food scale closes the gap between what's consumed and what's logged.
There's also a big difference in perception that shouldn't be missed. If for example, you have to bring someone down to 1400 calories because their poor logging habits mean that 1400 calories is actually 2100 calories, they're going to very likely develop the idea that they have metabolic derangements and that everyone else is lucky. That's not a good spot to be in from an accountability standpoint and for some people it can derail efforts.
0 -
Getting someone to focus on habit and process based goals, getting someone focused on gym performance as a metric, puts them in control and gives them things to put their energy into that they can have an immediate impact on and get positive feedback/reward for that effort.
I also find that with some people it gets them a bit less focused on their imperfections with their body.
Just speaking for myself, this is why it worked for me when I started and didn't really have any confidence in my ability to lose weight. It also meant that I felt really good about my progress and my body (because of what it could do) well before I got to goal and at a weight I'd felt horrible at when gaining.
And for the record, no, I didn't end up with a mistaken idea that I didn't need to lose more as a result--feeling good about my body and what it could do just make me excited to improve and keep working at it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Getting someone to focus on habit and process based goals, getting someone focused on gym performance as a metric, puts them in control and gives them things to put their energy into that they can have an immediate impact on and get positive feedback/reward for that effort.
I also find that with some people it gets them a bit less focused on their imperfections with their body.
Just speaking for myself, this is why it worked for me when I started and didn't really have any confidence in my ability to lose weight. It also meant that I felt really good about my progress and my body (because of what it could do) well before I got to goal and at a weight I'd felt horrible at when gaining.
And for the record, no, I didn't end up with a mistaken idea that I didn't need to lose more as a result--feeling good about my body and what it could do just make me excited to improve and keep working at it.
Sounds very reasonable to me.
0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »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.
Ouch!
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
That would hold for MORBID obesity. You are telling a woman who wants to lose 20 pounds to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week?????
Just stop. You have NEVER been more off the mark than when you are giving advice to women.
Regardless of how much she wants to lose, she is 40lbs from a normal BMI. I'm just saying that if I had 40lbs to lose, I would want to lose it quickly.
And people are telling you that it's a terrible advice.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Getting someone to focus on habit and process based goals, getting someone focused on gym performance as a metric, puts them in control and gives them things to put their energy into that they can have an immediate impact on and get positive feedback/reward for that effort.
I also find that with some people it gets them a bit less focused on their imperfections with their body.
Just speaking for myself, this is why it worked for me when I started and didn't really have any confidence in my ability to lose weight. It also meant that I felt really good about my progress and my body (because of what it could do) well before I got to goal and at a weight I'd felt horrible at when gaining.
And for the record, no, I didn't end up with a mistaken idea that I didn't need to lose more as a result--feeling good about my body and what it could do just make me excited to improve and keep working at it.
When my migraines were acting up and I was missing a lot of gym time, I missed having performance goals quite a bit.
They are far easier to achieve more quickly than weight loss goals for me (since I have so much weight to lose and since my performance goals are small and incremental).
I am so happy to be back on track and getting back to making progress with working out again.
OP, definitely follow this advice.
0 -
SS hit the nail on the head.
Certain personality types are okay with outcome goals. They can accept the idea that fat loss or muscle gain won't be linear and they are okay with it. For the others who stress about every ounce fluctuating on the scale, I'd rather them improve their lifts by 10% every 6 weeks.
Its something they can see and win at every week.
Every time someone wins, its positive feedback that builds confidence.
On the other hand every time the Type A but unable to cope personality steps on the scale and perceives their failure in terms of ounces....that's a negative feedback the destroys confidence
So in habit change we look to create many small wins from day to day,week to week, month to month.
Building 10% a month on the big 3-5 lifts will naturally help the dieting person Kean out naturally. Even at higher calories.
0 -
You're are eating too much. That's the issue. Lots of advise on these 5 pages about how to correct that.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