The more I exercise, the more my body adapts to calories and I can't slim further.
Options
Replies
-
The anti-fat regulations were followed quite well actually, but not in the way you're thinking. What happened is that food producers took the recommendations and removed fat from everything they could (think yogurt as one item) and replaced the tasty fat with added sugar. All this extra sugar is far from good for our bodies, in fact, many people say it's toxic (Look up author Dr. Robert Lustig)......
^That explains a lot. Lustig is a crackpot who has been widely panned for his pseudoscience/junk science. I put about as much stock in him as I do in Dr. Oz. I suppose Mercola is next as a source?
None of this has anything to do with the OP's question anyway. "Low carb miracle" evangelizing aside, CICO is the correct answer.
Have you seen pictures of Taubes and Lustig? I'm not normally into looking at the person rather than the facts, but when a person is going to be a heritic they should at least look the part of someone who has put their own theories into practise. I saw a YouTube slam of the low carbers and it was typical bad argumentation but when you see all the portly and obese low carb advocates vs their thinner high carb couterparts (vegan/vegitarian doctors as it was a vegan channel) and see the difference in body composition it does have an emotional impact.0 -
op I sincerely hope you listen to the posters who do not appear to have an anti-carb axe to grind
Because the anti-carb posts are full of badly extrapolated science and nutritional misdirects and the calls to authority of people like Lustig are laughable
Calorie defecit, in the way that suits you best, and don't overeat your Zumba calories0 -
Fats are evil! No carbs are the devil! Too much protein will also kill you! How about moderation? A balance? Something that will make you feel energized, healthy, and give you results at the same time? Carbohydrates help me with energy, fats balance my hormones and help with muscle building, protein also a major building block of muscle..I find that I need all of these to feel my healthiest self. And my body recomposition is a testiment to the fact that none of these macros are evil!
Be gone with your crazy logic you!0 -
I had a "slow metabolism" and was "overweight" but cutting out carbs was not the solution for me. I improved my insulin response and body comp while eating more carbs. So no, I wasn't metabolically blessed before and no, carbs did not affect me negatively. Macronutrient balance ftw.0
-
Okay, you don't want to even consider what I'm saying, that's okay.
Continue on. I'm content doing what I do and I feel bad for those who don't wish to expand their knowledge, but I realize there's nothing I can do to help those people out.
Have an amazing day!
You can only expand someone's knowledge if you have knowledge to offer... which quite frankly- you don't.
#sorrynotsorry.0 -
Maybe you just got really good at your present Zumba cardio. Try introducing a 10-minute circuit that can progress with weights (or progress with single-arm/leg).
0 -
*looks around for context*
*sees none*
Yep, another meaningless "debate" on MFP.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
Doesn't this depend on how you set up your diet profile? I mean, you can't set it up selecting "Very Active" and then enter all your workouts on top of that. That's like double-dipping on the calories burned. I have a desk job so I selected "Sedentary" - that gave me a lower calorie goal and so I do enter my workouts and those calories burned vary greatly day to day so I think that's a better way to keep track. For me, anyway.0 -
*looks around for context*
*sees none*
Yep, another meaningless "debate" on MFP.
Well there is always http://www.debate.org/
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
Doesn't this depend on how you set up your diet profile? I mean, you can't set it up selecting "Very Active" and then enter all your workouts on top of that. That's like double-dipping on the calories burned. I have a desk job so I selected "Sedentary" - that gave me a lower calorie goal and so I do enter my workouts and those calories burned vary greatly day to day so I think that's a better way to keep track. For me, anyway.
@wanzik
MFP's activity settings aren't meant to account for exercise. The "very active" setting is meant for people with higher than average daily lives/jobs. So someone like a postman or construction worker would fall under very active and still log their addition intentional exercise.
0 -
You are right. There is much research to show that exercise is great for fitness and so many things but not weight loss. The more you exercise the more you will be hungry. However, the benefits of exercise are many so regardless of weight loss goals it is an important part of one's lifestyle.
For weight loss it's the FOOD. Not just calories (our slim ancestors never counted calories and severe calorie restriction slows metabolism- been there, did that, too many times). I'm not going to tell you how to eat for weight loss except to say that nutritionally dense, unprocessed food is a good place to start. For me, I focus on high quality animal foods and fats for weight loss and ideal health.0 -
Anyway back in the real world where people aren't metabolically challenged.....
OP - Zumba is a horrible one to estimate but yes, as a method eating back exercise calories can work.
TDEE method also works.
Picking a random best guess number as a start point also works.
But you do need to adjust your calorie balance based on actual results over time though.
It might be your food logging that's out, it may be your exercise logging that's out but doesn't really matter as long as you are consistent and make those adjustments.0 -
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.
Oh gosh where to begin.
I am metabolically challenged, just as much as any other human. I put on weight super quick, hence the reason im here counting calories. Again. I maintain on 1750 calories. I'm a triathlete. I add my exercise cals and eat them all. I can eat a certain amount of food then I gain, whether fat, protein or carbs or alcohol.
I personally have an hour glass 36-24-36 figure that I've sculpted from a overfat 40 year old that I was, at 30% plus body fat. There's no room for fat on organs. I purposely stay under 20% body fat for this reason.
Genetically blessed? Perfect metabolism? Are these made up terms?
Some people recover fast, and have big lung capacities. But I believe we all operate under very similar starting metabolisms.
It's up to us what we do with them.
Hey guess what? I low carbed for YEARS. it didn't help, I was terrible at any activity, and couldn't impliment a normal lifestyle at all. Yet I stuck at it. Big regret.
So you can see, I am a few steps ahead of you having tried many ways of doing this, and I disagree with you and would like the OP to hear my arguments.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »@Wheelhouse15 this slim, fit doctor developed insulin resistance first. He challenges the idea that overweight causes insulin resistance.
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_attia_what_if_we_re_wrong_about_diabetes?language=en
I'll look into that, it's not unheard of but it's not the norm. I should have qualified that statement so good catch. Just be aware that you always have that ubiquitous "one Doctor" on any subject that disagrees with the current body of research. The vast majority of the time they are simply wrong and selling something but sometimes they are right and this is how science continually improves.
FIFY0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »@Wheelhouse15 this slim, fit doctor developed insulin resistance first. He challenges the idea that overweight causes insulin resistance.
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_attia_what_if_we_re_wrong_about_diabetes?language=en
I'll look into that, it's not unheard of but it's not the norm. I should have qualified that statement so good catch. Just be aware that you always have that ubiquitous "one Doctor" on any subject that disagrees with the current body of research. The vast majority of the time they are simply wrong and selling something but sometimes they are right and this is how science continually improves.
FIFY
I'm a cynic and I approve of this fix!
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." Westley to Buttercup in Princess Bride0 -
Op- how do you calculate your zumba calories?
I know the MFP zumba burn is way off. By trial and error, I've found that hard zumba workouts for me burns 300 an hour. Most zumba workouts only burn 150-200 an hour the MFP database says something like 600 an hour and thats way off.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Op- how do you calculate your zumba calories?
I know the MFP zumba burn is way off. By trial and error, I've found that hard zumba workouts for me burns 300 an hour. Most zumba workouts only burn 150-200 an hour the MFP database says something like 600 an hour and thats way off.
hell- if i put in 2 hrs of belly dancing- it tells me I burned off 600 calories.
Maybe if I did 2 hrs of drum solos- but come on.
MFP biggest flaw is making people feel good about burning calories by overestimating them. It's a fatal flaw in this process.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
Doesn't this depend on how you set up your diet profile? I mean, you can't set it up selecting "Very Active" and then enter all your workouts on top of that. That's like double-dipping on the calories burned. I have a desk job so I selected "Sedentary" - that gave me a lower calorie goal and so I do enter my workouts and those calories burned vary greatly day to day so I think that's a better way to keep track. For me, anyway.
@wanzik
MFP's activity settings aren't meant to account for exercise. The "very active" setting is meant for people with higher than average daily lives/jobs. So someone like a postman or construction worker would fall under very active and still log their addition intentional exercise.
Ok. So quite possibly, if a person isn't losing they are likely overestimating how active they are and/or overestimating calories burned during exercise and/or underestimating calories eaten.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
Doesn't this depend on how you set up your diet profile? I mean, you can't set it up selecting "Very Active" and then enter all your workouts on top of that. That's like double-dipping on the calories burned. I have a desk job so I selected "Sedentary" - that gave me a lower calorie goal and so I do enter my workouts and those calories burned vary greatly day to day so I think that's a better way to keep track. For me, anyway.
@wanzik
MFP's activity settings aren't meant to account for exercise. The "very active" setting is meant for people with higher than average daily lives/jobs. So someone like a postman or construction worker would fall under very active and still log their addition intentional exercise.
Ok. So quite possibly, if a person isn't losing they are likely overestimating how active they are and/or overestimating calories burned during exercise and/or underestimating calories eaten.
Correct, these are the two most common reasons why someone is not losing weight, which is why the first questions asked are almost always:
1. Are you weighing your food to provide optimal accuracy? (CI)
2. How are you estimating your exercise burns? (CO)0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
Doesn't this depend on how you set up your diet profile? I mean, you can't set it up selecting "Very Active" and then enter all your workouts on top of that. That's like double-dipping on the calories burned. I have a desk job so I selected "Sedentary" - that gave me a lower calorie goal and so I do enter my workouts and those calories burned vary greatly day to day so I think that's a better way to keep track. For me, anyway.
@wanzik
MFP's activity settings aren't meant to account for exercise. The "very active" setting is meant for people with higher than average daily lives/jobs. So someone like a postman or construction worker would fall under very active and still log their addition intentional exercise.
Ok. So quite possibly, if a person isn't losing they are likely overestimating how active they are and/or overestimating calories burned during exercise and/or underestimating calories eaten.
Actually, those are almost always the reasons.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K 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
- 989 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions