After only 3 weeks, I've dropped an entire pound!!! Woo Hoo!!
Options
Replies
-
purelyprimitives wrote: »Didn't realize the video was so long but will make an attempt to get through it over time. Its odd that it only got a 5.6 out of 10 review??
Here is just the most important part of the episode, 3:32 minutes. And the rating really doesn't matter when the information is correct and proves the point that people eat way more than they realise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o0 -
How do you guys get such precise measurements? Mine fluctuates sometimes about a pound every day or so. So I can't really measure unless its a loss of over 2kg0
-
Sorry you're finding this so frustrating. I'd like to add two things ...
1) I've been friends with @rabbitjb for a while ... she knows her stuff, and she's straight-up/no-nonsense with her advice, which comes largely from her own experience, learning and success (both at weight loss, and maintenance).
2) Short version of how I succeeded ... I set my calories in accordance with sedentary levels; I measured (food weight, liquids by volume) carefully, and recorded meticulously; I did not take any calorie credit for strength work, for something like your log shifting, I would have treated that like walking ... and I would have only eaten back half of those calories.
As other posters have said, in effect, there are more calories in our food servings than we realise, and we burn fewer calories in our activities than we think. One adage I've frequently seen is "you can't out-exercise a bad diet". Another is "weight loss is 80% intake, 20% activity". From the advice I've seen, and from my own experience, getting a precise handle on your caloric intake is the top priority when it comes to weight loss.
Best of luck!0 -
So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.0 -
When it comes to exercise everyone's body is so completely different that it's hard to use exercise calories at all. I have a Fitbit with hr monitor and a polar heart rate monitor both show me burning 1,000 calories a run and my Fitbit says I burn 5500-6000 calories a day at work. Even thou I argued with people on this site at first, I've learned neither are even remotely close. If your not losing weight there's only a few explanations why. Improper food logging, your burning less calories than you think, water retention (which would only be short term), weighing incorrectly (if you weigh right after eating or drinking it throws off the scale by allot. I literally went to bed last night at 213 pounds just woke up and am 208), or you have an actual medical condition which in that case you need to see a doctor. It's a hard reality and it took me a long time myself to come to terms with it but your not special, there is no "calorie counting doesn't work for me" it does, it's simple science, there are just variables in cico that may be skewing your results.0
-
OP, you can be in denial as much as you want, but you're only hurting yourself.
All those databases for exercise calorie burns typically overestimate calorie burns by quite a bit. Bottom line, you're not losing, so you need to eat less. People are just trying to give you tools to help you with that.0 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »Didn't realize the video was so long but will make an attempt to get through it over time. Its odd that it only got a 5.6 out of 10 review??
I just meant you to watch the segment on the actress from 18.15 ...it's how she misses loads of calories even when logging what she thinks is accurately ...and having cameras on her
It was just to show how we fool ourselves ...we all do it ...cutting through that is 80% of the battle
Hey @flatlndr thank you for the kind words0 -
So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.
0 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.
Nope, whilst incorrect a kcal is widely accepted as calorie for shorthand
But that doesn't matter
What are YOU going to change in YOUR logging to make this work for you?0 -
1.248kcal is nothing, it's 0.312g of sugar. When we say calories, we are referring to kcal or Cal...purelyprimitives wrote: »So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.0 -
What's the actual status of your getting and using a food scale? A digital one can be had for as low as 10 bucks. Do you have any actual plans to do this?
Yes, you could be under estimating your calories eaten by 800+ bucks. All the reasons posted above, plus don't forget condiments. I used to think some were low cal so I would dip and slather them without second though. Come to find out that recipes vary and two table spoons of some condiments could be 250 cals. Also, Olive oil for example has a reputition of being this super healthy oil. So people use it or other oils at will without much regard for the calories. Especially since you weren't really able to measure what your wife was preparing, you could be way off on that
It also appears you're mixing and matching methods. MFP standard has you plugging your stats into MFP and then logging exercise calories and eating whatever portion of that you want. With your stats, your base MFP calories would be more like 1700 for a sedentary male. If you use an external site such as scooby, your activity is taken into account t up front and then you forget about adding on exercise calories after the fact...
Here's one more link on the how to's of accurate logging:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p10 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.
Nope, whilst incorrect a kcal is widely accepted as calorie for shorthand
I disagree. A kilocalorie is 1000 calories.
http://www.ask.com/math/convert-kcal-cal-a6b1121335ac48e4?ad=semD&an=msn_s&am=broad&ap=yahoo.com&o=11937&qo=boostResultOnSERPBut that doesn't matter
What are YOU going to change in YOUR logging to make this work for you?
As I stated earlier, because the 'calculators' on this site are useless to me, I will keep reducing the calories I eat until I can start seeing weightloss. If I am unknowingly under-reporting, this should cover my sin.
0 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.
Oh, sorry. Some countries use a point, others a coma as decimal separator. 1 1/4kcal (1 and a quarter). If you're talking about 1000 calories, you're in fact are talking about kilocalories. Check the nutritional info in food. It should say kcal; that's the unit for food next to kJ. Thus lifting those 52 boxes up and having them magically vanish into thin air accounts for a tiny part of your 1000kcal, about 1/800 of it Thus if you do the same 52 boxes 800 times more and do the vanishing trick you get your 1000 calories (or more precisely 1000kcal). 0 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »purelyprimitives wrote: »So, lets lift up your boxes then:
E=m*g*h (or energy=weight[kg]*9.81*height[m].
40lbs = 18.14kg
lifting height: 1m?
E = 18.14*9.81*1 = 177.95J = 0.04 kcal
This 25 times = 0.6kcal.
Congratulations! You burned less than 1kcal
Take a bit less than twice this amount to account for putting the wood down again, and add something for transporting it over the distance.
Actually, it was 52 times not 25 so wouldn't the total be 1.248 kcals or 1248 calories? And as you say, it doesn't even account for the carrying distance or placement. So it sounds like I was actually pretty close.
Nope, whilst incorrect a kcal is widely accepted as calorie for shorthand
I disagree. A kilocalorie is 1000 calories.
http://www.ask.com/math/convert-kcal-cal-a6b1121335ac48e4?ad=semD&an=msn_s&am=broad&ap=yahoo.com&o=11937&qo=boostResultOnSERPBut that doesn't matter
What are YOU going to change in YOUR logging to make this work for you?
As I stated earlier, because the 'calculators' on this site are useless to me, I will keep reducing the calories I eat until I can start seeing weightloss. If I am unknowingly under-reporting, this should cover my sin.
I think your problem is you like to be right and can't cope with things not being literally correct
How can you disagree with the fact that people, media, even doctors use calories and kilocalories interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable. It just is what happens
Your approach would be more accurate if you weighed and logged accurately and with care
But good luck with your stab in the dark way
0 -
-
I think your problem is you like to be right and can't cope with things not being literally correct
How can you disagree with the fact that people, media, even doctors use calories and kilocalories interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable. It just is what happens
Your approach would be more accurate if you weighed and logged accurately and with care
But good luck with your stab in the dark way
Actually I stand corrected. Doing a little more digging I see where there is what's called a 'small' calorie and 'large' calorie. Where a small calorie is equal to one calorie and a large calorie is one kilo-calorie.
I don't always like to be right, I just tend to keep pushing until I understand things. Just me.
So we have the physics example above that says that if I lift 40 pounds through a distance of one meter against the gravitational constant and repeat this 52 times, I burn the equivalent of 1.2 food calories. And as Yiara noted, I would have to repeat everything a further 800 times (lifting 40 pounds 41,600 times) to equal 1200 calories. And on the other hand, we have this site and other websites that indicate 1200 for 90 minutes for this activity (this would include all the carrying, etc).
Which makes more sense to you?
0 -
purelyprimitives wrote: »
I think your problem is you like to be right and can't cope with things not being literally correct
How can you disagree with the fact that people, media, even doctors use calories and kilocalories interchangeably even though they are not interchangeable. It just is what happens
Your approach would be more accurate if you weighed and logged accurately and with care
But good luck with your stab in the dark way
Actually I stand corrected. Doing a little more digging I see where there is what's called a 'small' calorie and 'large' calorie. Where a small calorie is equal to one calorie and a large calorie is one kilo-calorie.
I don't always like to be right, I just tend to keep pushing until I understand things. Just me.
So we have the physics example above that says that if I lift 40 pounds through a distance of one meter against the gravitational constant and repeat this 52 times, I burn the equivalent of 1.2 food calories. And as Yiara noted, I would have to repeat everything a further 800 times (lifting 40 pounds 41,600 times) to equal 1200 calories. And on the other hand, we have this site and other websites that indicate 1200 for 90 minutes for this activity (this would include all the carrying, etc).
Which makes more sense to you?
What makes sense to me is halving any estimate of calorie burns from any calculator or machine
Because over the last 15 months, on a rolling 6-8 week analysis of my accurately logged food and exercise data (weighing and logging with care/halving exercise burns) that is what has proved to accurately give me my expected weight loss
Of course I moved to fitbit for tracking step-based activity level and HRM for steady state cardio and take 100% there but I still take half of other burns
56lbs and maintenance since Feb 2015 says it works0 -
Before I did that though I threw away everything I thought I knew and just focused on CI<CO
Appreciating they are estimates but trying to make them as accurate as possible for me
That involves weighing all food and cross-checking new foods against other sources0 -
Here's my favorite sites to check the accuracy of calories by weight. Even things with labels, I often check against what the USDA says:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search
For daily activity, I also recommend a FitBit. Not only does it help motivate me to simply be more active overall, it comes really close to calculating my daily TDEE. I find the only activities I need to add manually are bicycling and swimming. All other activities it does an ok job guesstimating. I find it's accurate to within +/-70 calories per day over the longterm when compared to my actual rate of loss.0 -
Thanks for the links! According to the first site, my TDEE is 2552!! I select the lowest activity level. I'll check the foods I eat against their charts to see any differences.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions