weight watchers and mfp
Replies
-
wow, thats a very wide gap in calories!I'm glad you came here too nd I'm not the only one...how is MFP going for you?
[/quote]
Going well. What I've learned from WW helps in terms of balanced meals and portion sizes. I won't forget that. Learning the ins and outs of the food scale and the database (finding reliable entries) takes effort but it's worth it. I don't have a lot left to lose, so what I lose comes off in "wooshes" , like I lose alot then nothing, but at least it comes off. I enjoy the ease of finding calorie and nutrition data on packages and menus, and more flexibility in food choices without feeling punished. I've been back and forth trying to decide which method to go with like you. So far I feel more comfortable counting calories.
What it comes down to is finding what works for you, what's liveable for you, and what can take you through the weight loss journey and into maintenance. Good luck to you!
0 -
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »storyjorie wrote: »yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.
Very well stated, and that is exactly how I feel (at least with my experience of the *old* program).
I totally understand you....i felt that way up until I stopped losing and even gaining a bit. I loved the old programs. I felt it was a way of life for me and it was a great support. but when I ran into my issue of not losing everyone said I was doing i correctly anymore. in reality I was because fruits and veggies were free...but I totally understand ur feelings0 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »The other thing is, you can eat less than your BMR (how much you burn at rest all day) if you want to. I just checked mine, which is sadly 1341. I am eating 1200 calories a day. You won't lose unless you eat less than you burn. (But of course you burn more than your BMR says because of exercise and movement.)
eating below BMR is not healthy. BMR is what your body burns to FUNCTION,eating below that is not only not safe especially with someone with so little to lose,you will also slow your metabolism down doing that.a person who is obese may get away with it for awhile because of their size. The op only has 10lbs to lose. why would you eat less than your BMR and screw with your metabolism?1 -
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.[/quote]storyjorie wrote: »
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.[/quote]
I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.4 -
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.storyjorie wrote: »
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.[/quote]
I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.[/quote]
couldn't have said it better myself!0 -
Eating slightly lower than your BMR won't hurt your metabolism - but BMR is a pretty good rough guideline to the minimum amount of food you need to consume to get all of the nutrients (fat, protein and macronutrients) that your body needs to be healthy. So, as a general rule, I'd say that somebody regularly eating below BMR (more than just a couple of calories below) needs to either (1) set more conservative weight loss goals or (2) become more active.
Now, there are people who simply can't do either of those. Maybe they have a disability that prevents them from taking an extra couple thousand steps each day and their goal is already down to 0.5 pounds/week. In that case, I'd just advise them to watch their nutrition really really carefully. Maybe even talk to a good dietitian.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
cerise_noir wrote: »CafeRacer808 wrote: »i weigh and measure everything down to 4thw tbsp nd oz...ill put all my info on again and see what comes up
What are you using your tablespoons for? Because if it's for anything other than a pure liquid, you should be weighing those things. Also, since there are 28 grams per ounce, grams are more accurate.
So much this.
Use a food scale for everything that you cannot pour. No more cups/spoons for solid/semi solid food.
Weigh and log fruit and vegetables, too.
How do u meaaure peoteon...chicken, turkey, beef...? I do it by oz. I should measure that by grams?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
that is so interesting, I don't see the difference they are both measured, oz or grams?0
-
that is so interesting, I don't see the difference they are both measured, oz or grams?
Because there are 28.35 grams per ounce so, as was mentioned previously, the level of accuracy is greater with grams. It can make a difference in the long run. I always weight in grams and I'm down over 125 lbs.3 -
Ounces can be broken down into .2, .4,
.6, .8 of an ounce. What you think is 4oz could actually be 4.2 oz, and your calories would be off. Grams are in units of 1. That's why grams are more accurate. Set the unit of measurement on your scale to gram (g) and log your food to the gram. Look in the database for entries counted in 1.0 g units. Some entries come in 100 g units. 100g units involves more math. So for example 85 g = .85 of a 100g serving. 125g =1.25 of a 100g serving.
Hope that's clear.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Eating slightly lower than your BMR won't hurt your metabolism - but BMR is a pretty good rough guideline to the minimum amount of food you need to consume to get all of the nutrients (fat, protein and macronutrients) that your body needs to be healthy. So, as a general rule, I'd say that somebody regularly eating below BMR (more than just a couple of calories below) needs to either (1) set more conservative weight loss goals or (2) become more active.
Now, there are people who simply can't do either of those. Maybe they have a disability that prevents them from taking an extra couple thousand steps each day and their goal is already down to 0.5 pounds/week. In that case, I'd just advise them to watch their nutrition really really carefully. Maybe even talk to a good dietitian.
everything I read and have researched states that you shouldnt eat below it because it slows down your metabolism and your BMR will get lower as well(we know it gets lower when you lose weight.). if you are eating less than your body needs to function then how is your body going to function properly if you do it day in and day out for say a year? I know it will slow metabolism down to save energy.if you are obese like I said then you may get away with it for awhile but with so little mass from what I read it is not healthy.why would you eat less than what your body requires to function without exercise? if you were in a coma you would still need that amount of calories. this was also posted on MFP Im borrowing this-https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/21403053/#Comment_214030531 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Ounces can be broken down into .2, .4,
.6, .8 of an ounce. What you think is 4oz could actually be 4.2 oz, and your calories would be off. Grams are in units of 1. That's why grams are more accurate. Set the unit of measurement on your scale to gram (g) and log your food to the gram. Look in the database for entries counted in 1.0 g units. Some entries come in 100 g units. 100g units involves more math. So for example 85 g = .85 of a 100g serving. 125g =1.25 of a 100g serving.
Hope that's clear.
ok I'm looking through the data base and by almonds I'm looking for grams and it says 100. g..i dont get it. a serving os like 3000 calories lol
0 -
Tap the drop down box and see if you get an entry for 1g. If not you'll have to divide it into a decimal. Or keep looking for a similar entry with 1g. Sometimes the same food has multiple entries.0
-
newheavensearth wrote: »Ounces can be broken down into .2, .4,
.6, .8 of an ounce. What you think is 4oz could actually be 4.2 oz, and your calories would be off. Grams are in units of 1. That's why grams are more accurate. Set the unit of measurement on your scale to gram (g) and log your food to the gram. Look in the database for entries counted in 1.0 g units. Some entries come in 100 g units. 100g units involves more math. So for example 85 g = .85 of a 100g serving. 125g =1.25 of a 100g serving.
Hope that's clear.
ok I'm looking through the data base and by almonds I'm looking for grams and it says 100. g..i dont get it. a serving os like 3000 calories lol
you weigh your almonds and divide the grams in weight by 100 if there is no single gram option. so 50g would be 0.5 or half. 25g would be 0.251 -
28g of almonds is like 160-170 calories0
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
........
I know your reference is just an online blog but even for a blog piece the logic of the writers argument is fuzzy at best.
0 -
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Eating slightly lower than your BMR won't hurt your metabolism - but BMR is a pretty good rough guideline to the minimum amount of food you need to consume to get all of the nutrients (fat, protein and macronutrients) that your body needs to be healthy. So, as a general rule, I'd say that somebody regularly eating below BMR (more than just a couple of calories below) needs to either (1) set more conservative weight loss goals or (2) become more active.
Now, there are people who simply can't do either of those. Maybe they have a disability that prevents them from taking an extra couple thousand steps each day and their goal is already down to 0.5 pounds/week. In that case, I'd just advise them to watch their nutrition really really carefully. Maybe even talk to a good dietitian.
everything I read and have researched states that you shouldnt eat below it because it slows down your metabolism and your BMR will get lower as well(we know it gets lower when you lose weight.). if you are eating less than your body needs to function then how is your body going to function properly if you do it day in and day out for say a year? I know it will slow metabolism down to save energy.if you are obese like I said then you may get away with it for awhile but with so little mass from what I read it is not healthy.why would you eat less than what your body requires to function without exercise? if you were in a coma you would still need that amount of calories. this was also posted on MFP Im borrowing this-https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/21403053/#Comment_21403053
I agree that you shouldn't eat below BMR; my reasons are just different from yours (nutrition-based rather than metabolism-based). In terms of affecting calorie burn, your NEAT is going to get hit long before any actual change to the BMR happens. Too little food = too little energy = a drop in NEAT unless you make a *really* concerted effort to prevent that happening. So, where a person might have gotten 5,000 or 6,000 steps before cutting calories, now they only get 2,000-3,000 and they fidget less. That's easily a drop of 250ish "calories out" without directly affecting metabolism.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
I dunno that I am misreading. The medical definition of hypocaloric is:
The author of your cited blog post is applying the data relevant to a hypocaloric state to eating less than a person was before.
What he's saying had kinda half got elements of truth ... which also means half is not.
0 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »The other thing is, you can eat less than your BMR (how much you burn at rest all day) if you want to. I just checked mine, which is sadly 1341. I am eating 1200 calories a day. You won't lose unless you eat less than you burn. (But of course you burn more than your BMR says because of exercise and movement.)
I wouldn't reccomend this. You can lose weight which is not the same as losing fat. The Calculators are all guides, so may not be appropriate for you (generic you). The more muscle you lose, the lower your metabolism will be and one would have to eat even less calories to maintain/lose.0 -
Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.0 -
jjohnstonlni wrote: »Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.
She's never logged here and has never counted vegetables because they're "free" on WW. That's the issue. She's been eating more than she realises. So just the act of logging absolutely everything, including veg, will get the scale moving again.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
10% reduction of a BMR of 1500 is 150 calories a day. That's a fairly significant dent in your deficit. 20% reduction in BMR of 1500 would be 300 calories a day. It's definitely enough to slow your loss, and you need to be aware of that possibility.0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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