UGH! why?!
Replies
-
Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
0 -
Have you just started working out? if so its very likely to be your muscles retaining water to heal/repair...actually I'm just seeing your answer to my question, you have upped your workout - it could well be that.0
-
How long since you last lost weight? if its been more than 3 weeks then its time to tighten up the logging, it usually means we're eating too much, unfortunately
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Have you just started working out? if so its very likely to be your muscles retaining water to heal/repair...actually I'm just seeing your answer to my question, you have upped your workout - it could well be that.
You may want to consider reading a thread before giving redundant and repetitive answers.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »Have you just started working out? if so its very likely to be your muscles retaining water to heal/repair...actually I'm just seeing your answer to my question, you have upped your workout - it could well be that.
You may want to consider reading a thread before giving redundant and repetitive answers.
Indubitably, Tosh!0 -
srslybritt wrote: »Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
Reading the last 5 pages has sent me a bit perculiar. For a second I actually thought a kitten was climbing out of my screen 0 -
trinatrina1984 wrote: »srslybritt wrote: »Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
Reading the last 5 pages has sent me a bit perculiar. For a second I actually thought a kitten was climbing out of my screen
You need to watch The Ring more often.
0 -
It's a real cat! I just petted him, and he purred! What a sweet kitty.trinatrina1984 wrote: »srslybritt wrote: »Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
Reading the last 5 pages has sent me a bit perculiar. For a second I actually thought a kitten was climbing out of my screen
0 -
robbackatya wrote: »Without getting into the B.S of the thread.
All calories do not impact your weight in the same way. Everything is relative to your weight.
Test it out.
Go on a high fat high, high sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
How much did it translate into weight loss for you?
Go on a low fat low sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
Extrapolate the number. Do it for several weeks if you are not satisfied with the results.
How much did that translate into weight loss for you?
Again you can lose weight eating anything, but everything is relative to you weight if that is what you are trying to lose. Which was the OP question.
All calories are not = when it comes to weight loss. Hope that helps.
The wrongness of these post are hilarious.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »Without getting into the B.S of the thread.
All calories do not impact your weight in the same way. Everything is relative to your weight.
Test it out.
Go on a high fat high, high sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
How much did it translate into weight loss for you?
Go on a low fat low sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
Extrapolate the number. Do it for several weeks if you are not satisfied with the results.
How much did that translate into weight loss for you?
Again you can lose weight eating anything, but everything is relative to you weight if that is what you are trying to lose. Which was the OP question.
All calories are not = when it comes to weight loss. Hope that helps.
The wrongness of these post are hilarious.
I'm still waiting for quantifiable evidence.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
robbackatya wrote: »A couple of more things to chew on. (By the way I am not advocating eating a certain way. It is better to eat a way that you like and you can stick with rather than someone else's diet)
All calories aren't = when it comes to weight loss. Certain calories will impact your body differently. Other subconscious variables will come into play as well. Remember everything is relative to weight as I mentioned in my first post. A couple of other things for you guys to chew on:
1. The Harris benedict is off up to 14-17% on average. Read the original study plus The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/40/1/168.short
Most will say well 14-17% isn't bad, but on a 2,000 calorie BMR that is of (14%) 280 calories per day. Which is the difference between gaining an losing weight.
3. 3500 calories does not = 1 lb (is it 1lb of fat 1lb of muscle or 1 lb of?) You will find this to be true when you really start to track it scientifically. Go back and look at it your self. Look at the deficit you created. Did 3500=1lb
If I reduce my calories by 3500 calories over 3 days do I lose more weight then If I reduce it by 3500 calories over 3 months? It is less for some people and more for others.
People that use a static equation to try and figure out their allowable calories are falling for an idea that says "every woman in the WORLD, 40 years of age, weighs 140lb and is 5 foot 5 inches tall and marks they live a sedentary lifestyle all get the same exact calories. NOT True
Out of the original Harris Benedict study:
(2) As we have repeatedly emphasized in the foregoing pages, every
individual metabolism measm-ement considered as a basis for generalization
concerning the peculiarities of the individual upon which it is
based {e.g. physical characteristics, pathological state, etc.) has a large
probable error. Thus one can not compare the metabolism of a single
individual of any specified ty-pe with the standard constant and use
it as a basis of generalization. It is only when a series of individuals
of the specified type are considered that generalizations may be drawn.
while the probable error is
0.67449 (r,Vl -7-,;,=^
V n
where h^ is the mean heat-production of individuals of a specific
grade, p, of character x, for example body-weight, body-surface, pulserate,
or any other character.
Thus it is clear that when a physical character of an individual is
known—for example, stature or body-weight—the values of metabolism
predicted from it will show certain deviations from the actual
values of the individual subjects, but the statistician can even predict
with fair accuracy what the amount of this deviation will be. The
failure to attain exact prediction merely illustrates the fact that physiology,
like biology in general, is not as yet a science in which certainty
as to the individual instance is attainable.
Hope this helps!
P.S tracking food and trying to fit it into a static equation is backward as well if you are trying to lose weight.
Okay, yeah.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
robbackatya wrote: »People that use a static equation to try and figure out their allowable calories are falling for an idea that says "every woman in the WORLD, 40 years of age, weighs 140lb and is 5 foot 5 inches tall and marks they live a sedentary lifestyle all get the same exact calories. NOT True
Good thing nobody ever said that then.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
robbackatya wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »People that use a static equation to try and figure out their allowable calories are falling for an idea that says "every woman in the WORLD, 40 years of age, weighs 140lb and is 5 foot 5 inches tall and marks they live a sedentary lifestyle all get the same exact calories. NOT True
Good thing nobody ever said that then.
The harris benedict is a static equation. Certainly you can change the multiplier TDEE, but it isn't an algorithm that is auto adjusting.
Even though you don't say it that is was you use if you use MFP.
You can manually change the amount of calories to eat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The error rate of a formula has nothing to do with the caloric properties of certain foods. If you are going to thrown formulas around, as least make sure they are relevant.0
-
Because it clearly says it's a recommendation, not the be-all-end-all.robbackatya wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »People that use a static equation to try and figure out their allowable calories are falling for an idea that says "every woman in the WORLD, 40 years of age, weighs 140lb and is 5 foot 5 inches tall and marks they live a sedentary lifestyle all get the same exact calories. NOT True
Good thing nobody ever said that then.
The harris benedict is a static equation. Certainly you can change the multiplier TDEE, but it isn't an algorithm that is auto adjusting.
Even though you don't say it that is was you use if you use MFP.
You can manually change the amount of calories to eat.
Yep you can change it manually, but why do it manually when you can have a computer do it automatically.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »trinatrina1984 wrote: »srslybritt wrote: »Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
Reading the last 5 pages has sent me a bit perculiar. For a second I actually thought a kitten was climbing out of my screen
You need to watch The Ring more often.
Great... I know I won't be sleeping when I get home in the morning. Thanks *grumble*0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Because it clearly says it's a recommendation, not the be-all-end-all.robbackatya wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robbackatya wrote: »People that use a static equation to try and figure out their allowable calories are falling for an idea that says "every woman in the WORLD, 40 years of age, weighs 140lb and is 5 foot 5 inches tall and marks they live a sedentary lifestyle all get the same exact calories. NOT True
Good thing nobody ever said that then.
The harris benedict is a static equation. Certainly you can change the multiplier TDEE, but it isn't an algorithm that is auto adjusting.
Even though you don't say it that is was you use if you use MFP.
You can manually change the amount of calories to eat.
Yep you can change it manually, but why do it manually when you can have a computer do it automatically.
Should we introduce him and Pu? They can science together.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »trinatrina1984 wrote: »srslybritt wrote: »Is it safe now?
Obligatory cat gif:
Reading the last 5 pages has sent me a bit perculiar. For a second I actually thought a kitten was climbing out of my screen
You need to watch The Ring more often.
Great... I know I won't be sleeping when I get home in the morning. Thanks *grumble*
Haha as soon as I realised what it was I turned away and quickly scrolled!!
Someone posted one the other day where the face in the mirror changed to some demon looking thing! That night, I was in bed busting for a wee, and couldn't get that thing out of my head.. after I could procrastinate no longer I sprinted to that loo and back in record time!!!
0 -
This thread gave me shingles.0
-
-
Mmk. Not sure why I read that whole thread. I feel like people should not create threads when they are hangry.0
-
-
robbackatya wrote: »Without getting into the B.S of the thread.
All calories do not impact your weight in the same way. Everything is relative to your weight.
Test it out.
Go on a high fat high, high sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
How much did it translate into weight loss for you?
Go on a low fat low sugar diet and eat 2,000 calories for 2 weeks.
Extrapolate the number. Do it for several weeks if you are not satisfied with the results.
How much did that translate into weight loss for you?
Again you can lose weight eating anything, but everything is relative to you weight if that is what you are trying to lose. Which was the OP question.
All calories are not = when it comes to weight loss. Hope that helps.
Stop it.
0 -
0
-
Hi0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions