"How am I gaining weight in a deficit?" or: You're not losing fat because you're eating too much.

Options
123457»

Replies

  • cmtigger
    cmtigger Posts: 1,450 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Colorscheme wrote: »
    lizery wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    lizery 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.

    Calories don't know if they are being burned in the yard or in the gym.

    They don't know the difference but if you're counting calories on here, the ones from the yard are already counted in your daily calories while the gym ones need to be added separately. If you properly chose your calories at the beginning you're doubling up on those yard calories if you put them in your diary.

    If your baseline doesn't include the yardwork calories log them as exercise. Not everyone logs activity the same way. Some set their activity as sedentary, and when they do something like a heavy afternoon of yardwork they log it. Others set their activity level as more active and don't log it as extra. And others only log the really heavy yardwork that you do a few times a year but leave the other as their normal activity levels.
  • cmtigger
    cmtigger Posts: 1,450 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Colorscheme wrote: »
    'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'

    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.

    Calories don't know if they are being burned in the yard or in the gym.

    They don't know the difference but if you're counting calories on here, the ones from the yard are already counted in your daily calories while the gym ones need to be added separately. If you properly chose your calories at the beginning you're doubling up on those yard calories if you put them in your diary.

    If you're starting with a baseline of "sedentary", then, no, yard work and house work are generally NOT included in your daily calories. Because sedentary is actually sedentary. It corresponds to <5000 daily steps. This is especially true if doing extensive cleaning or yard work that are NOT daily activities but still counting yourself as sedentary.

    I did this for a very long time because I have an autoimmune disease, and the amount of activity I get on any given day can vary wildly depending how well I'm feeling. It worked very well, as long as I recognized that the calorie counts given by the default database entry were way off (rather like the calorie counts for many exercise machines).

    This. I have hips issues. Some days I have lots of "spoons" and other days, not so many. I set my activity to sedentary, and use my Fitbit and sometimes logging activities on it if they are more activity than just walking. (Mine doesn't do HR.) It has worked fine for me.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,639 Member
    Options
    filbo132 wrote: »
    I suggest people to read this article that talks about people who eat at very low calories, it's pretty interesting aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

    I find that people often concentrate on the first part of the article, and ignore the, I would eyeball, 33% of the article that discusses what the author calls the "starvation response".
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    Options
    I feel like there are a few people who could benefit from reading this, this week.
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    Options
    Might be time for another bump? :)

Categories