"How am I gaining weight in a deficit?" or: You're not losing fat because you're eating too much.
Options
Replies
-
Just to add, the other component of CICO is the actual CO. Claims of burning 1000 calories in an hour doing something like yoga and logging it as such, can DEFINITELY be a cause of no weight loss.
Yes.
Anytime people claim to eat low calorie and not lose, they should be asked if they are eating or netting the number they're quoting. Many don't know the difference.
I really don't understand what this netting business is all about but it has not stopped me from losing weight.0 -
I have had this problem for about one year. I have done Ketogenic Dieting (15grams or less per day of carbs) for 3 months with a three pound loss. Then I joined weight watchers in August and lost 6 pounds. January I started going to the gym M/T/Th/F with 2 days doing HIIT (one hour per class) and 2 days Pilates (one hour per class). I have gained weight nearly every week so my total weight loss is only 3 pounds
I weigh all my food with a scale and/or measuring cups. Most of what goes into my mouth is nutritious and I don't drink soda, eat fast food or junk food. I drink anywhere from 40-100 ounces of fluid per day. I feel that I have a little definition in my thighs and biceps but my clothing is not any different. I wish someone would help me as I am nearly to the quitting point. Who can afford VO2 testing? I feel like nobody knows what is wrong with me. I also had labs drawn at the recommendation of the head of the Ketogenic group. Anybody have any ideas? 0 -
I am an outlier. If I ate the calories I was meant to according to this app and listened to all advice given here I wouldn't lose much weight at all. Why? My TDEE at sedentary is only about 1350 which means that the standard 500 calorie deficit leaves a tiny amount of calories and this app does not cater for this. The joys of being so short. What made me click that something was off was the fact that my calories stayed at 1200 regardless of which activity level I chose, except the most active one and also stayed the same regardless of how aggressive I wanted to be with my weight loss.
I knew that to get any results I would have to eat back half of my exercise calories only because this is how I can meet nutritional requirements while still losing weight.
While I agree that for the vast majority, their weight is stalling because of over estimating calories and/or underestimating exercise calories we do need to be mindful that a small percentage do have other reasons when we address the issue. Too many automatically assume the weight isn't coming off because of inaccurate logging simply because this is why in the vast majority of cases.6 -
annacole94 wrote: »If someone is an outlier, there's nothing we can do for them, though. The best advice is to see a doctor or nutritionist or actually get BMR tested, which is usually the advice given if someone *truly* seems to be measuring CICO as accurately as is feasable.
We can point out that they may be an outlier, and perhaps even counter some of the "piling on" of sarcastic disbelief and jeering that sometimes happens.
We ought to be able to do something for them about that. MFP members, not just the moderators, help create the culture.
OP on our current thread here wrote (my bolding):ArvinSloane wrote: »Clickbait title, but bear with me. This is a great article at Physiqonomics on why people tend to under-report their calories, and strategies to avoid or minimize the problem: http://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/
I see a lot here that folks will run into issues where they think they should be losing but they aren't, and (barring a few short-term issues like water retention) it's usually because they aren't recording their intake as accurately as they think they are. Questions about their logging strategies are often taken as accusations that they are "lying," when really it's an effort to identify and remove as many barriers as possible in order to get the most accurate logging they can with the tools available. As the article states, literally everyone, even a dietitian, is susceptible to misreporting calorie intake.
So in short: You're not in "starvation mode." Look at your logging first.
What @ArvinSloane says is true; sometimes people are thin-skinned when questioned. But sometimes people are actually accused of lying, explicitly or implicitly, but quite clearly. Or accused of trolling. Or of having secret binges. Or thinking they're special snowflakes. Or of claiming they think they can defy the laws of physics.
When I read some of those threads, imagine being OP . . . if OP were IRL doing things as right as s/he knew how, and telling the truth, though perhaps not in perfect professional prose . . . I don't know what else to call it: There's bullying. Ignorant bullying. Not always, but too often.
Statistics tells us that almost 5% of the people can be 2 standard deviations away from the mean (the number the calculators give us), in either direction . . . that's in the several hundreds of calories away from what the calculators predict.
(How many calories depends on the magnitude of the mean calories for their demographic. The article I linked, uses the example that if the mean is 2000 calories, the range into which 95.45% of the population is predicted to fall is 1680-2320 calories. 4.55% of people, about 1 in 20, would be expected to require fewer than 1680, or more than 2320 calories to maintain. That's quite a spread. Those outlier people will be more likely to post in the forums, even if they're doing everything right . . . maybe especially likely to post if they're doing everything right, and I'd wager that those who can eat less than predicted are the most likely to post looking for help.).
I'm going to drop this line of commentary (well, try
); I've said my piece. It's related to the thread, but not directly on its main point.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with this. Context is very important. I know it's frustrating for a lot of longtime members to get the same question over and over, and to run into the same roadblocks when trying to root out what the issue might be. But it's important to remember that the OP's on threads like these are encountering this situation for the first time. And it's really, really hard to reconcile internally that all the effort you're putting forth into losing weight could somehow be wrong or not enough. I know there are many members who do their best to respond in such cases with patience and empathy (I mostly lurk, so maybe it's up to me to "be the change," I don't know).
All this is in addition to the fact that there is so much bogus weight loss advice out there, and many have read it and tried it before turning to MFP. If this is just another method in a long line of "one weird trick!" strategies that netted no results, there's nothing inherently different about calorie counting from an external point of view that makes any more sense than that other stuff. It's not until you delve deeper into the wealth of peer-reviewed research on the subject that you see it's truly different from a Dr. Oz scam. And many/most people haven't done that before starting (I know I hadn't)!
If people can get logging inconsistencies eliminated to the best of their ability, then they can move on to things like getting tested for thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, and metabolic disorders if the problem continues at that point. And in order to get there, they do have to make the leap of trusting that they might not be "doing it right" and someone else with more experience might know better, which is terribly difficult.
PS - This isn't to say that posters on here should be required to be all sunshine and rainbows. I love reading everyone's snarky *kitten* as much as the next *kitten*. Context is important, that's all.
8 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I am an outlier. If I ate the calories I was meant to according to this app and listened to all advice given here I wouldn't lose much weight at all. Why? My TDEE at sedentary is only about 1350 which means that the standard 500 calorie deficit leaves a tiny amount of calories and this app does not cater for this. The joys of being so short. What made me click that something was off was the fact that my calories stayed at 1200 regardless of which activity level I chose, except the most active one and also stayed the same regardless of how aggressive I wanted to be with my weight loss.
I knew that to get any results I would have to eat back half of my exercise calories only because this is how I can meet nutritional requirements while still losing weight.
While I agree that for the vast majority, their weight is stalling because of over estimating calories and/or underestimating exercise calories we do need to be mindful that a small percentage do have other reasons when we address the issue. Too many automatically assume the weight isn't coming off because of inaccurate logging simply because this is why in the vast majority of cases.
In this case though, this is more about a management of expectations. Generally smaller people cannot sustain the 500 calorie deficit and if that is the case the community will recommend a smaller rate of loss. But, generally speaking, those smaller losses will be as apparent as someone taller/bigger with larger losses.
It's about context.
I also agree and can be guilty of (though I try not to) being a bit hard on those having issues. With that said it does come from a place of frustration when the thread is well into a few pages and I try to always ask pertinent questions because there is a tendency to not gather as much info as possible before dispensing of advice that may not be relevant to the circumstances of the OP.
Forums/all environments develop a culture and it's fluid and ever changing. I have seen this become very apparent recently, a shift in tone and often back away from those threads so as to not enflame a situation.
There is a balance to be found but it can be hard with an ever shifting community.7 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.7 -
There's also a real danger in the outlier posters that act like their situation is common and likely relevant to every post that is not losing as they expect. It seems we have a few people that eat very little, and think that that's entirely normal and helpful experience to share with anyone and everyone.
There's risk in disbelieving someone that is an outlier, but there's also risk in allowing the vocal rarity to convince others to join them on their 1200 calories diets with two hour workouts.13 -
Terminology clarification, because I'm not sure we're all using the term the same way:
In statistical terms, in this context, an "outlier" is not simply one who requires notably fewer (or more) calories than other people.
An "outlier" is someone who requires notably fewer (or more) calories than typical people of their very own same age, sex, height, weight and activity level.
Example (personal): Calculators typically tell me that a 61-year-old woman weighing 120 pounds at 5'5" can expect to have a sedentary TDEE of somewhere around 1500. In real life, even though truly sedentary outside of intentional exercise (which I eat back), I maintain on something in the 2000-2100 net calorie range.
Therefore, I'm open to the possibility that there are a few women of my size and activity who maintain at 1200 and even well below.8 -
I think I'll be sorry I wrote this post, but I'm going to write it anyway.
First: I 100% agree that the stuff on that standard flowchart, especially inaccurate CI logging, hits the crucial reasons people post "I'm eating so little and still can't lose".
But I also think the community as a generality sometimes overlooks the possibility that a very few people have lower calorie requirements than normal, potentially needing quite a few calories fewer daily than the calculators estimate, and that those people are more likely than average to post that they can't lose weight as expected . . . because they can't (as expected). (They can lose, but they'll need to carefully ratchet down their CI.)
I don't really agree.
I know my own advice does focus on logging as well as possible and fixing observed errors with logging and often logging exercise when I give it -- and I often see issues, especially with respect to choosing bad entries or skipping days that are off plan or inflated exercise calories.
BUT I also always explain that the calculator is just an estimate, that (when applicable) the way it works it can overestimate TDEE/NEAT for the obese in many cases, and -- especially -- that the person should fix logging and log as well as possible for a few weeks and if no results on a number that should get results either reduce calories to find their real numbers (if lower than predicted for whatever reason) OR, if it seems way off, go to the doctor.
The point is that accurate logging is valuable even for outliers, whether it's just they are a natural outlier (low TDEE for their size/activity) or it turns out they have a medical issue.
What bothers me, and I think gets some pushback, is that there often seem to be threads where people go on about how they gain if they eat more than 1000 or 1200 (which I don't believe, in the first case, and think is really rare in the second, at least barring medical issues) and this tends to be encouragement to others to eat really low, and often kind of a weird machismo thing: I am never hungry on 1200 and see no need to eat more (with an implicit -- anyone who does isn't working hard enough or is a pig)!
Yes, there are outliers, but it's also easy for people to push each other into thinking that eating crazy low, often when exercising hard, is a good idea. That's what I observe on a lot of such threads and it concerns me.
(When I started I ate 1250, often lower, and think that was a reasonable decision for me, so I'm not anti low calories. If I were sedentary I'd eat 1200 to lose even now, and not lose all that fast. I'm not an outlier -- I think my TDEE is about on par with what the calculators predict, from experience.)8 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Just to add, the other component of CICO is the actual CO. Claims of burning 1000 calories in an hour doing something like yoga and logging it as such, can DEFINITELY be a cause of no weight loss.
Yes.
Anytime people claim to eat low calorie and not lose, they should be asked if they are eating or netting the number they're quoting. Many don't know the difference.
I really don't understand what this netting business is all about but it has not stopped me from losing weight.
Do you mean you don't understand why MFP is set up that way or you don't understand why I'd want to know if the person is eating or netting X calories?
Just in case it is the latter, this is why I would ask:
Person eats 1750 calories
Person walks 3 miles and logs it as 250 calories
MFP shows person net 1500 calories
vs
Person eats 2250 calories
Person walks 3 miles and logs it as 750 calories
MFP shows person net 1500 calories
The first is more likely to be a reasonable estimate of calories burned during exercise, leading to a reasonably accurate net calorie number for the day. The second is almost certainly an exaggerated calorie burn number, leading the person to think that she hit her calorie goal when she actually ate 500 calories more than move her toward her goal.
I like to get as much actual data (numbers rather than feelings) when I try to give advice and I've found that asking the net vs. eat question is a good away to get it. Of course, I also need to ask the "what kind of exercise and how many calories do you log for it" question as well (left that out earlier.)2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
I have logged something that says "cleaning." But when I do it's not everyday housework. It's usually barn chores like mucking out the chicken coop. Very physical stuff that I would get very hungry and overeat if I didn't eat some back.4 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.1 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
I have logged something that says "cleaning." But when I do it's not everyday housework. It's usually barn chores like mucking out the chicken coop. Very physical stuff that I would get very hungry and overeat if I didn't eat some back.
And that's the way it's intended to be used. Otherwise, the typical amount of cleaning a person does in a day should be considered part of their normal daily activity level.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. What other people do impacts you not one iota. I do tend to log things like cleaning - because it's what I spend Saturday doing, rather than sitting on my butt in front of a computer, which is my normal state 5 days a week. Cleaning is more active than my baseline. I also tend to wear pants that don't have pockets, so my steps don't get counted by my phone, and I want to count those minutes I spent off the couch.
That's why I do it, and I never complain about how I'm eating 1200 calories!!! and gaining!!! We need to be aware of how our own lives work, and go with that.3 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
In general, I agree with you. In general, no one needs to log things that are a routine part of daily non-exercise life. It's one of many good ways to over-state exercise calories.
But there's still context. It depends on what's really in a daily activity level that is working for a specific person.
Example: I have a disabled woman in my friend feed. She rarely does housework. If she's having a really good day, she may do some, and she logs it, because it's unusual and especially effortful for her.
Even I might log housework if a did a deep-clean with furniture rearranging for several hours, because I'm normally slovenly and lackadaisical, so that would be unusual for me. Run the vacuum around the living room once in a while for a few minutes . . . nah, I don't log that.
10 -
annacole94 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. What other people do impacts you not one iota. I do tend to log things like cleaning - because it's what I spend Saturday doing, rather than sitting on my butt in front of a computer, which is my normal state 5 days a week. Cleaning is more active than my baseline. I also tend to wear pants that don't have pockets, so my steps don't get counted by my phone, and I want to count those minutes I spent off the couch.
That's why I do it, and I never complain about how I'm eating 1200 calories!!! and gaining!!! We need to be aware of how our own lives work, and go with that.
Yeah except these are the same folks complaining how they can't lose weight. To me, that stuff shouldn't be counted as exercise because it's apart of every day living. You don't log taking a shower as exercise, or cooking as exercise. Now if it's something like deep cleaning or something that really is physical like moving boxes or furniture, that's a different story.2 -
I've seen people count cooking as exercise. Not sure why, since I don't cross-examine. I guess if one is canning/preserving or something like that . . . ?0
-
Colorscheme wrote: »annacole94 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. What other people do impacts you not one iota. I do tend to log things like cleaning - because it's what I spend Saturday doing, rather than sitting on my butt in front of a computer, which is my normal state 5 days a week. Cleaning is more active than my baseline. I also tend to wear pants that don't have pockets, so my steps don't get counted by my phone, and I want to count those minutes I spent off the couch.
That's why I do it, and I never complain about how I'm eating 1200 calories!!! and gaining!!! We need to be aware of how our own lives work, and go with that.
Yeah except these are the same folks complaining how they can't lose weight. To me, that stuff shouldn't be counted as exercise because it's apart of every day living. You don't log taking a shower as exercise, or cooking as exercise. Now if it's something like deep cleaning or something that really is physical like moving boxes or furniture, that's a different story.
i guess i can see it from both sides. if you're truly sedentary then making the effort to get up and clean can reflect in your CO, especially if you're at a weight where those simple things are not so easy and take more effort than they would for a relatively fit person. if someone is being honest and accurate about the intensity level and duration as well as looking at the stated burn with a careful eye then i don't see anything wrong with eating back some of those calories. and logging the activity is always going to give you another data point for consideration and trouble shooting. if i see that every time i ate back 200 calories from light housework my losses were less than expected that's a pretty easy fix.
on the flip side i use my fitbit hr with negative adjustments allowed. mfp may give me 1600 calories to start the day, but if i literally just sit on my *kitten* all day and do nothing fitbit is going to take some of those away. if i was out running for an hour or if i was cleaning house for 4 hours that's still extra CO regardless of whether i would categorize it as "intentional exercise"3 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
In general, I agree with you. In general, no one needs to log things that are a routine part of daily non-exercise life. It's one of many good ways to over-state exercise calories.
But there's still context. It depends on what's really in a daily activity level that is working for a specific person.
Example: I have a disabled woman in my friend feed. She rarely does housework. If she's having a really good day, she may do some, and she logs it, because it's unusual and especially effortful for her.
Even I might log housework if a did a deep-clean with furniture rearranging for several hours, because I'm normally slovenly and lackadaisical, so that would be unusual for me. Run the vacuum around the living room once in a while for a few minutes . . . nah, I don't log that.
Lol... it shocks me to think you might be slovenly & lackadaisical, @AnnPT77 !
It seems like it would be common sense... if *you* do it all the time, it's factored into your daily activity; if not, it makes sense to log it. I don't log when I vacuum at home, but when I volunteer to vacuum the large auditorium of our congregation, I log that. The alternative would be to count yourself as being completely sedentary (and even that has a built in level of assumed activity) and log every single thing, but the problem there would be that the burns for most activities are highly inflated, so the more you log, the more skewed your CO becomes.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions