Please help before I give up
Options
Replies
-
you're doing well...but if you are burning more than you are eating you will lose weight...GET A SCALE. it will keep on track...I promise it won't bite and it will help you keep your promise to yourself...just consider it a tool, not a judge of who you are.. all the best to you!0
-
Perhaps, if you do not want to know what the scale says, you can go to a friend/family member and ask them to look for you and put the number into any one of hundreds of online calculators to figure out how much you should really be eating. Or, you could go to a Dietitian/Certified Nutritionist and ask them for help.0
-
No need to know your current weight if you are certain you are obese, do the TDEE method. It works as well or better than any of the online calculators.0
-
It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Wha????? Or should I say..wtf? Do you have back up to support 7000 calories is a pound while at a loss?
0 -
sunandmoons wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Wha????? Or should I say..wtf? Do you have back up to support 7000 calories is a pound while at a loss?
Yes, I do.
1. Martin, C.K., et al., Effect of calorie restriction on resting metabolic rate and spontaneous physical activity. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2007. 15(12): p. 2964-73.
2. Thomas, D.M., et al., Why do individuals not lose more weight from an exercise intervention at a defined dose? An energy balance analysis. Obes Rev, 2012.
3. Dr Kevin D Hall, et al, of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight, Aug 2011
(And, I also have the reference for the old 1950's study suggesting 3,500/lb.)0 -
ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Funny that, the 3500 calorie per 1lb rule has worked for me so far.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Funny that, the 3500 calorie per 1lb rule has worked for me so far.
Right. but, that will change with time. The slope is not a straight line, it's a curve.
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Funny that, the 3500 calorie per 1lb rule has worked for me so far.
Right. but, that will change with time. The slope is not a straight line, it's a curve.
Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealisticScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »It's time to chuck the 3,500 per pound rule. It doesn't work and only serves to create unrealistic expectations.
The 3,500 value is based on science from the 1950's when a researcher calculated the amount of energy gained by burning a pound of fat.* Not really an accurate representation of the real world. New research supports roughly 7,000 deficit per pound of weight loss (on an actual living, breathing human), but this amount is not static, it changes.
*this is how calories from food are derived: very simply you put the food in what's basically an insulated oven, light it on fire, and calculate how "hot" it gets (i.e. how much energy it releases). Calories are a unit of measure (of energy).
If you are losing weight, good job. You are doing it right.
Funny that, the 3500 calorie per 1lb rule has worked for me so far.
Right. but, that will change with time. The slope is not a straight line, it's a curve.
Curve. Never. Not according to my chart or many of the others I have seen.0 -
Can I just encourage you and say that you are actually doing really well! I would LOVE to lose 18lbs in 3 months!! I would like to suggest you have a friend, professional (dietitian or trainer) or loved one (someone you trust that will not judge you) read the scale if you feel that you are not emotionally ready. They can assist you in calculating your TDEE and caloric deficit goal. I also suggest a food scale and a heart rate monitor (Garmin, Polar, etc.) to calculate your burn. These are just suggestions and tools to assist.
BE ENCOURAGED AND DON'T GIVE UP!! There is lots of support here. You are doing really well!0 -
ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.
Ok A link with a calculator that doesn't work properly. That shows a inset circle with a trend. Not all trends are this way. Is that what your trying prove? Where is the link that shows 7,000 calories is a pound at a loss. Im curious.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.
It told me with an 800 cal deficit I would get to goal in 12 months. But I've lost 18 lbs in 2.25 months on here, exactly two pounds a week, as predicted, and that puts my goal on 3rd April 2016... so 7 months...0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.
It told me with an 800 cal deficit I would get to goal in 12 months. But I've lost 18 lbs in 2.25 months on here, exactly two pounds a week, as predicted, and that puts my goal on 3rd April 2016... so 7 months...
"Current intake is 2396 calories."
it also says this, but I don't understand why. I'm netting 1200 cal/day, and my TDEE is like 1880 something....0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.
Sorry it confuses you, but I can't tell you when/if your rate of loss will change because there are too many variables. That's part of the message. If I were to burn 1 lb of human fat in a vacuum, it would produce 3,500 calories of energy. However, none of us live in a vacuum--well, at least I don't and don't know anyone who does. Here's an explanation that may help from the FAQ page:
Q: The current calorie intake at the bottom of the calculator seems a lot higher than what I think it should be. Why?
A: The current intake formula was fit to data from a large group of individuals that varied in age, gender, height, and weight. However, despite the quality of the database, the formula still only explains about 60% of the variation in intake between individuals. What this means is that remaining 40% of the variation in calorie intake between individuals is due to factors other than age, height, gender, and weight. For example, variation may be due to how much routine physical activity you conduct on a daily basis or fluctuations in your weight that deviate from weight stability. With a physical examination and more direct clinical measurements, we could provide improved estimates than the one provided here with only knowledge of your age, height, weight, and gender.
After reading the study, I came to my own hypothesis that diet alone is more likely to match the 3,500/day rule. But, once you factor in exercise, might as well throw the math out the window due to changes in FFM, FM, and metabolism. And, the closer you are to a goal weight, the less you'll lose under the same caloric deficit, but again, this is just my assumption based on reading the study. The best thing to do is read it and make your own judgement.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
I may be stupid but I can't get the calculator to do anything, I don't know what that last value is supposed to be.
Aside from that, you could just explain to me why my rate of loss hasn't changed and when it will change, as I asked, given you're the one insisting this as fact.
Sorry it confuses you, but I can't tell you when/if your rate of loss will change because there are too many variables. That's part of the message. If I were to burn 1 lb of human fat in a vacuum, it would produce 3,500 calories of energy. However, none of us live in a vacuum--well, at least I don't and don't know anyone who does. Here's an explanation that may help from the FAQ page:
Q: The current calorie intake at the bottom of the calculator seems a lot higher than what I think it should be. Why?
A: The current intake formula was fit to data from a large group of individuals that varied in age, gender, height, and weight. However, despite the quality of the database, the formula still only explains about 60% of the variation in intake between individuals. What this means is that remaining 40% of the variation in calorie intake between individuals is due to factors other than age, height, gender, and weight. For example, variation may be due to how much routine physical activity you conduct on a daily basis or fluctuations in your weight that deviate from weight stability. With a physical examination and more direct clinical measurements, we could provide improved estimates than the one provided here with only knowledge of your age, height, weight, and gender.
After reading the study, I came to my own hypothesis that diet alone is more likely to match the 3,500/day rule. But, once you factor in exercise, might as well throw the math out the window due to changes in FFM, FM, and metabolism. And, the closer you are to a goal weight, the less you'll lose under the same caloric deficit, but again, this is just my assumption based on reading the study. The best thing to do is read it and make your own judgement.
I figured it out. I used my start weight and my current deficit. It's way off, I've lost double what it thinks I would.
I exercise. I still fit the 3500 calorie rule.
And after this post I'm not sure what you, or the inaccurate by their own admission website calculator you linked to, are trying to say.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Okay, how long? Because I'm 37lbs down with that rule of thumb so far and nothing has changed, my rate of loss has been stable the entire time.
The researchers created a calculator here:
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
But, there are a lot of variables. Read the study.
Totally useless calculator because you can't change the number of calories that you eat... I exercise every day and my TDEE is nowhere as high as what it tells me.
I've seen the 'new' calculators though and they make no sense whatsoever either - it claims that if you want to lose the weight slower or faster, it won't be the same amount of calories to lose a pound, which just makes no sense... I can't imagine why you'd need to burn 3000 calories to lose one pound if you want to lose one pound in 1 week, but 3500 if you want to lose one pound in 2 weeks.
So I'm not quite convinced...0 -
sunandmoons wrote: »
Ok A link with a calculator that doesn't work properly. That shows a inset circle with a trend. Not all trends are this way. Is that what your trying prove? Where is the link that shows 7,000 calories is a pound at a loss. Im curious.
I provided the source articles. See my first reply to you above. The #2 source is a very good read. I am more interested in the research than the calculator--it's interesting to see how everyone skipped the research and went straight to the calculator.
I guess "what I'm trying to prove", or rather in my own words, my message to the OP is: not to worry, you're doing nothing wrong. Everyone loses weight at a different rate. We shouldn't beat ourselves up over mathematical formulas invented on spherical cows that live in vacuums.
She's doing a great job, no reason to be down about it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions