Is running making me fat?
Replies
-
srslybritt wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »So you're getting Rungry, and overeating and not logging.
Copy all.
Track your intake and you'll go right back down.
I feel like this post was directed at me :laugh:
Runger is real.
So real.
2 half marathons this year have proved that the runger is real!
not as real as swimger...just saying!
That alone I think would keep me from a tri. Holy cow. I would eat my own limbs.
Think of that as free weight loss!
How to drop 20lbs before Christmas!2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »I'm losing my mind. I feel like it's obviously a vicious cycle of too intense of cardio somehow exacerbating body fat increases,
Simply eating too much is the most obvious cause.
You'd think right. But I was eating more when I was skinnier than I wanted to be. My overall suspicion is that my blood-sugar is a little on the volatile side (I might be borderline diabetic as I had gestational diabetes with one of my three pregnancies)
I've read that intense cardio burns up all your blood sugar causing insulin spikes that block bodyfat metabolism and trigger your body to store fat as much as possible.
"High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain. It is impossible to have high levels of insulin in your system while burning fat at the same time"
This last isn't valid. I'm a diabetic and I check my blood glucose frequently. Intense cardio is great for glucose control and increases insulin sensitivity for about a day afterwards. The idea that insulin blocks body fat metabolism and forces fat storage is pure grade A baloney. In fact, some bodybuilders abuse insulin because it facilitates muscle growth.
It is true that for some people, intense exercise of any kind temporarily raises stress hormones, which blocks the action of insulin and causes a temporary rise in glucose levels. (Edit: I just read one of those people posted above.) This effect is very short term and the long term improvement in glucose control outweighs it.
That second paragraph is exactly my issue (increased cortisol et. al. causes temporary insulin resistance). I only mentioned it because I do have wonky blood sugar when running and it doesn’t impact my weight loss (or gain) at all.
Do you mind if I ask a couple of questions to educate myself? 300 sounds really high, do you have symptoms when you get that high? I have vision blurring when I have swings over 200, so a temporary spike as high as you get would be problematic for me.
300 is REALLY high. That was on one 4+ hour run. It was routinely in the 2-300 range (went higher the longer I ran). I would have symptoms starting about 200-250 (my on the go testing probably has a wide error range). Nausea, narrowed vision, incredible thirst, wobbly, heavy limbs, shaky. I felt just horribly spent, almost woozy and about to pass out, but like I’d just eaten a can of frosting with an espresso chaser. Long runs aren’t always pleasant, but these felt awful.
The symptoms were why I went to my doc in the first place about it. I’ve never had BS issues, my A1C is normal. So I would never have given it another thought. I had no issues for fasting or the oral glucose tests. We assumed it was a low blood sugar issue (because I have a hard time stomaching carbs during a run), but it turned out to the opposite.
Yikes! Now that you know what the issue is, what are you supposed to do for it?
Well my doc jokingly told me if I want to run longer distances, I’m just going to have to run faster lol.
But really, we’ve done tons of experimenting with things to attempt to limit the “liver dump” and help maximize glucose uptake before the worst hits. So lots of carb experiments, lots of experiments with varying levels of activity the days prior, and testing during Activity with lowering intensity and/or resting if things got too high (there was a lot of that happening early on).
I am mostly able to manage (keep things under 200 mostly) by upping my carb intake for a couple of days prior (my diet is a bit lower in carbs usually-not low carb, but on the lower side), and several timed out doses of complex carbs prior to the run with a target starting BS around 120-130 (which somehow ended up with lower numbers at the end). But that’s what worked for me after months of experiments. I have no idea why any of it works, just that it does (which is what matters to me).
It actually was kind of a relief to know what it was and when I felt awful, it wasn’t just that that’s how a long run feels.
1 -
When I first started my journey, July 2015 on MFP I was logging calories and walking, where I lost the majority of my weight. I gradually started running again which I had done years ago, but fell by the way side. Last year 2016 I ran my first 10k, then on to my first Half Marathon, so last summer during my training I continued to log my calories religiously which I still do to this day. I had reached my lowest weight of 132, I actually kind of freaked out because I felt I had lost to much. So this year I had set a goal to run a full marathon and 5 half marathons, I still continue to log my calories trying to gross anywhere between 2000-2500 depending on how much running I do for the day. I have my net calories set at 1600,most days I net below that and the end of the day completion says I should weigh below 135 most days. I have maintained my weight between 134-138 during this time. I really concentrate more on my calorie intake then my calorie out which I think is the key. It really is all about finding that balance that will work for you. I agree some days the scale is not so friendly, like this week I am carb loading for my last half of the year so yes it is up & my mind is set & ready. So next week I will back off and everything will be back to normal. You might want to find a way to relax your stress level which might be the cause of eating more than you need. When I eat I look at it as fueling my body for my long runs. This fall/winter I will be running just because I Love to Run!!1
-
OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
0 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
I can't help but notice your goal was 1600 and your intake 2100. How is this a mystery? If you eat 500 calories per day over goal, you will gain a pound a week.8 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
The issue of relying exclusively on labels is that you can't be sure how much of it you are eating. Packaged food can have a variance from the amount that is listed on the label and it can sometimes be enough to be significant when it comes to your weight loss results.
This is why when people stall or gain when they don't expect to, it's recommended that they begin weighing solid food -- so you can be sure of how much you're eating. At the end of the day, .5 of a cup, 1 muffin, and 28 chips isn't the most accurate way to determine how much you're eating and over time it can impact your results.4 -
That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.5 -
Though admittedly the downside of relying on labels is, processed foods have labels. Produce and meat don't.
Still I'll just punch in chicken breast in here and accept the values it puts out
2 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.
Well, I've been weighing food for a couple of years now and I really don't find it that big of a deal. It takes no extra time -- I'd be measuring things anyway, I'm just using a different tool and one that actually saves me the trouble of washing extra dishes. (Note: many people who weigh during weight loss don't even continue weighing to maintain, it's just what I have chosen to do because it works best for me).
I think it's unnecessarily pejorative to call it "obsessive" and "borderline neurotic" when it's just everyday behavior for a bunch of people here, most of who identify as well-adjusted (or if they don't, it's not related to how they accurately track their food consumption).
At the end of the day, the level of accuracy you bring to your logging is up to you. If you're not seeing the results you want, you can either make adjustments to be more accurate or you can stick with what you're currently doing and hope that it begins working at some point in the future.
6 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »Though admittedly the downside of relying on labels is, processed foods have labels. Produce and meat don't.
Still I'll just punch in chicken breast in here and accept the values it puts out
When this method of calculating fails to produce results, just know you have the option to get the food scale and weigh and log it properly. After a week or two it get easier, and lets say necessary after you get frustrated for weeks or months on end.
This is a calorie counting app, it involves numbers, when the numbers are off so will your weight loss, or gain in your case.
4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »I'm losing my mind. I feel like it's obviously a vicious cycle of too intense of cardio somehow exacerbating body fat increases,
Simply eating too much is the most obvious cause.
You'd think right. But I was eating more when I was skinnier than I wanted to be. My overall suspicion is that my blood-sugar is a little on the volatile side (I might be borderline diabetic as I had gestational diabetes with one of my three pregnancies)
I've read that intense cardio burns up all your blood sugar causing insulin spikes that block bodyfat metabolism and trigger your body to store fat as much as possible.
"High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain. It is impossible to have high levels of insulin in your system while burning fat at the same time"
This last isn't valid. I'm a diabetic and I check my blood glucose frequently. Intense cardio is great for glucose control and increases insulin sensitivity for about a day afterwards. The idea that insulin blocks body fat metabolism and forces fat storage is pure grade A baloney. In fact, some bodybuilders abuse insulin because it facilitates muscle growth.
It is true that for some people, intense exercise of any kind temporarily raises stress hormones, which blocks the action of insulin and causes a temporary rise in glucose levels. (Edit: I just read one of those people posted above.) This effect is very short term and the long term improvement in glucose control outweighs it.
That second paragraph is exactly my issue (increased cortisol et. al. causes temporary insulin resistance). I only mentioned it because I do have wonky blood sugar when running and it doesn’t impact my weight loss (or gain) at all.
Do you mind if I ask a couple of questions to educate myself? 300 sounds really high, do you have symptoms when you get that high? I have vision blurring when I have swings over 200, so a temporary spike as high as you get would be problematic for me.
I get those kind of spikes post-workout. I'm type 1, and see those spikes with some level of reguarlity, though, so maybe it's different. My endo says it's perfectly normal -- we always err on the side of running me high, since running low during exercise (and, I guess, quite literally running low) is a huge safety issue. The 300s+ is a safety issue in the long-term, of course, but less of the sort of "I'm going to pass out in the park" sort of thing that a 40 or 50 would bring. I just treat it after and move on.1 -
Weighing / logging food, and logging the particulars of exercise, are tasks that improve the precision and accuracy of your information about your body's energy balance.
There are people who weigh and log everything with a high degree of accuracy, and who run with a heart rate monitor to get the closest possible measurement of their caloric burn. They're admittedly doing more than most people are willing to, but they are also the people whose weight management outcomes are going to be most predictable.
That's really all there is to it. If you want to omit some of the most labour-intensive tasks (and I'd argue that they're still relatively easy) you'll lose out on the fine-grained details of why you are or aren't managing weight as you're expecting to.
The good news is that once you've been doing all this for a good while you will develop a more useful intuitive sense of how much energy you're taking in. That will, however always be second-best to rigorous measurement.5 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?5 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »Though admittedly the downside of relying on labels is, processed foods have labels. Produce and meat don't.
Still I'll just punch in chicken breast in here and accept the values it puts out
USDA database has everything. So look it up here: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
and then use the number in the MFP database to enter. Sure, it's an extra step, but at least you know you're working with accurate data.2 -
You don't have to weigh in grams and measure all liquids in fluid ounces if you don't want to, but as a result, your diary calculations will be much less accurate than those of people who do. It is particularly important if you don't have much weight to lose, because your room for error is a much lower % of your overall intake than someone is more overweight. I personally find it worth it, at least when I am home, because I know the results are as accurate as I can possibly make them. It also allows me to truly analyze my history when the scale doesn't cooperate. If I have sloppy data, then any analysis to clarify scale results won't be very effective. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
If you insist on not measuring, I will suggest the following hacks to help bit a deficit back into your life: you can always track 1.1 servings of packaged foods to help counteract the variation in their published weights; for things where you are selecting something "close" from the database, pick the option with the highest calories per serving instead of lowest or middle, and if eating back exercise calories, only try to eat back 30-50% of them. Try that for a couple of weeks and see if it helps. If the scale doesn't start moving again, then you might want to rethink using a digital scale set to grams. Good luck.2 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.
Based on the laws of science, if you are gaining weight you are eating too much. If you don't want to use a scale, then find another way to eat less. You would only have to use it for a few weeks to see exactly how much you are eating and see where you are missing calories.
When I switched to a food scale, I found I had been eating @ 300 cals more than I thought. Also found my protein and fat were much lower than I thought do to crappy entries being used.
And please don't call the way most of us successfully lost the weight and many of us continue to keep it off "obsessive and neurotic". Once you get the hang of it, it takes no extra time and my head is in a good place, thanks.8 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.
If you're not going to log accurately then you have only one choice really. Rely on weight gain as an indicator. If you're gaining weight you're not doing enough exercise or you're eating too much. You really only have those two things to adjust. Eat less or exercise more. As far as the 'eat less' part you can switch to things like low fat, or reduced calorie items in place of what you normally eat (salad dressings and condiments come to mind), along with eating lower calorie breads, etc. Watch portion sizes and make a conscious effort to eat less as a whole. Things like full fat butter, oils, fully loaded dressings, dense breads, all can be calorie bombs. As far as the exercise, that's easy to adjust, do more or do it more often. The logging really isn't going to help all that much if you aren't accurate with it, and if you don't want to weigh everything and be at least 95% accurate or better then those numbers at the end of the day aren't going to help much. It takes very little effort and very little food to make the difference between gaining or losing weight. As people mention 500 calories a day = 1lb a week gain or loss. 500 calories is nothing, that's a pack of mini doughnuts or a handful of peanuts/almonds/cashews. Heck most people make a peanut butter sandwich with 3-4 tbsp of peanut butter which is well over 300 cals, then they use higher fat/sugar/processed bread which is another 200ish calories. So a simple peanut butter sandwich, which doesn't satiate most people very long is easily 500 cals. Then there's the inaccuracies in labels. Be careful of the serving size and the 'number of servings' on each label. A good example are the protein cookies I like. Lenny & Larry's cookies are typically labeled as 210 calories.. PER SERVING, and each cookie is 2 servings. So 420 cals per cookie. I wish I hated them but I don't lol. For 32g of protein it's a lot of calories.
Also, this year I became a runner. I started walking my first year with MFP, and once I hit my goal I started running. I ran my first 5k (ever in my life) this year in the early summer. I've tried to run a 5k every Saturday ever since, and I run 3 other times a week up to 2 miles. You'd think I'd have lost more weight but I have not. All I've done is maintain or gain. I also do body weight training so I know some of it is muscle. I do meticulously log and weigh my food as well. But I don't believe running has made me fat, it does however increase my appetite. Some days it's a struggle not to go overboard because of the increased demand for food. I've also been told that running is a 'muscle wasting' form of cardio and that if I wanted to gain a ton of muscle I won't do it running. I honestly, beyond a basic amount, don't care about muscle and I do enjoy running so I keep it up. Some of my friends blame running on my lower ability to build muscle as fast as them though. More muscle = more calories burned just by living so maybe if you're losing muscle by running, your TDEE is lower. Might be the cause for the weight gain even eating the same or less as last year. Food for thought.
Just my .02.1 -
collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?0 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
But she's guessing with her logging too. Random muffin, random pasta. Some may be fine, others could be way off.
Logging accurately adds all of about 5 minutes at worst to mealtimes a day for me. Sure it takes a few goes to get good and efficient at it but it's not hard or time consuming.
You're not getting the results you want. The way to pinpoint the issue is to decrease the variables as much as possible. The glaringly obvious one is your food tracking.7 -
collectingblues wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »I'm losing my mind. I feel like it's obviously a vicious cycle of too intense of cardio somehow exacerbating body fat increases,
Simply eating too much is the most obvious cause.
You'd think right. But I was eating more when I was skinnier than I wanted to be. My overall suspicion is that my blood-sugar is a little on the volatile side (I might be borderline diabetic as I had gestational diabetes with one of my three pregnancies)
I've read that intense cardio burns up all your blood sugar causing insulin spikes that block bodyfat metabolism and trigger your body to store fat as much as possible.
"High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain. It is impossible to have high levels of insulin in your system while burning fat at the same time"
This last isn't valid. I'm a diabetic and I check my blood glucose frequently. Intense cardio is great for glucose control and increases insulin sensitivity for about a day afterwards. The idea that insulin blocks body fat metabolism and forces fat storage is pure grade A baloney. In fact, some bodybuilders abuse insulin because it facilitates muscle growth.
It is true that for some people, intense exercise of any kind temporarily raises stress hormones, which blocks the action of insulin and causes a temporary rise in glucose levels. (Edit: I just read one of those people posted above.) This effect is very short term and the long term improvement in glucose control outweighs it.
That second paragraph is exactly my issue (increased cortisol et. al. causes temporary insulin resistance). I only mentioned it because I do have wonky blood sugar when running and it doesn’t impact my weight loss (or gain) at all.
Do you mind if I ask a couple of questions to educate myself? 300 sounds really high, do you have symptoms when you get that high? I have vision blurring when I have swings over 200, so a temporary spike as high as you get would be problematic for me.
I get those kind of spikes post-workout. I'm type 1, and see those spikes with some level of reguarlity, though, so maybe it's different. My endo says it's perfectly normal -- we always err on the side of running me high, since running low during exercise (and, I guess, quite literally running low) is a huge safety issue. The 300s+ is a safety issue in the long-term, of course, but less of the sort of "I'm going to pass out in the park" sort of thing that a 40 or 50 would bring. I just treat it after and move on.
True. It’s certianly not the risk of a low. I may feel woozy, but I’m not at risk of passing out/coma due to low blood sugar. But since I’m not diabetic and only experience issues during long exercise, anything that high is pretty unusual for me. I was glad to find out what was making me feel awful. And I hate that anyone feels that way with regularity.0 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
That's true -- but it would depend on the original goal, I guess.
I don't do the MFP-NEAT format, because with training, it makes meal planning stress me out -- I like knowing *everything* for the day, and I know that my training is *typically* pretty normal, so seeing red numbers until the activity comes over from Runkeeper just makes me feel awful and makes me feel like I'm a failure by having to fuel back. So I go TDEE, and forget that other people, well, use the program as designed.0 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
not to mention all that excess sodium can cause water retention. and if you are using homemade entries that are not your own ,you dont know what goes into the recipe so the calories can vary. also a chicken entry on here can vary by quite a lot. I learned the hard way when I started gaining weight back because I didnt use a food scale . if you weigh food you can make your own recipes and follow them when you have that food again. but pastas weight is dry weight not cooked weight. you get very little cooked pasta for say 300-400 calories. its possible that your pasta with sauce and meatballs could have been more that the listing you used.
2 pieces of chicken can vary in weight and calories even if they are close to the same size. labels are notoriously known for being off. also some of the entries on mfp even the green checked marked ones can be wrong also. I started losing weight again once I started weighing everything.many times I have had to go and correct incorrect entries. also an entry a person from say canada enters wont be exactly the same as one a person from the US may enter(if they enter them correctly that is).2 -
collectingblues wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
That's true -- but it would depend on the original goal, I guess.
I don't do the MFP-NEAT format, because with training, it makes meal planning stress me out -- I like knowing *everything* for the day, and I know that my training is *typically* pretty normal, so seeing red numbers until the activity comes over from Runkeeper just makes me feel awful and makes me feel like I'm a failure by having to fuel back. So I go TDEE, and forget that other people, well, use the program as designed.
I have been considering a return to TDEE but I hate logging just 1 calorie for my workouts, as silly as that sounds. It is tough on days when I just walk or rest rather than train, to see those red numbers, even if I have had other days where I was below my goal. They really should change that colour lol.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
But she's guessing with her logging too. Random muffin, random pasta. Some may be fine, others could be way off.
Logging accurately adds all of about 5 minutes at worst to mealtimes a day for me. Sure it takes a few goes to get good and efficient at it but it's not hard or time consuming.
You're not getting the results you want. The way to pinpoint the issue is to decrease the variables as much as possible. The glaringly obvious one is your food tracking.
Yes, you have good points and I previously stated in a post that she needs to start weighing and logging her food properly. I was mostly questioning whether she needs to set such a low net once she is logging accurately really and whether that might be too aggressive. I am personally lax with my logging. I weigh chicken, nuts and yoghurt, but mostly I use the packaging and I just put large for any apples I eat. That said, it has never caused me issues when it comes to losing or maintaining my weight and I have been the same weight for months now, give or take a pound. For others, it is necessary because they do not have a good idea of portion sizes.1 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
But she's guessing with her logging too. Random muffin, random pasta. Some may be fine, others could be way off.
Logging accurately adds all of about 5 minutes at worst to mealtimes a day for me. Sure it takes a few goes to get good and efficient at it but it's not hard or time consuming.
You're not getting the results you want. The way to pinpoint the issue is to decrease the variables as much as possible. The glaringly obvious one is your food tracking.
Yes, you have good points and I previously stated in a post that she needs to start weighing and logging her food properly. I was mostly questioning whether she needs to set such a low net once she is logging accurately really and whether that might be too aggressive. I am personally lax with my logging. I weigh chicken, nuts and yoghurt, but mostly I use the packaging and I just put large for any apples I eat. That said, it has never caused me issues when it comes to losing or maintaining my weight and I have been the same weight for months now, give or take a pound. For others, it is necessary because they do not have a good idea of portion sizes.
I'm the same largely the same with portioned prepackaged stuff but when you're logging a pasta dish or rice based dish for example, what seems like a perfectly reasonable portion of rice or pasta can be waaaaaay off. Same for dishes with meat, you may be using a fattier cut than the generic user created entry, more missed calories. Eyeballing olive oil? Immediate calorie bomb.
There is also the flip side of that in that you could end up under-fuelling, though that's not the case here because OP has been gaining/isn't losing. I think it's fair to assume there's a lot of under-estimating happening.3 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »wildshrubbery wrote: »OP, you still haven't answered - how are you tracking your calories? Do you use a scale to weigh in grams?
I've been eating foods with labels. Today I had a particularly skinny lunch of a whole can of tuna (1.75 servings = 105 calories) on top of plain baby arugula with no fancy dressings for flavor that's barely 20 calories more.
And what's not labelled, I compare to what's saved in the database already. For instance this is Tuesday
So you're almost 500 calories over your target for the day. What do you expect to happen, then?
This is true although I do note that her base net calories are at the absolute minimum of 1200, so even if she only burnt 300 in exercise, her net would only be around 1800 which does not seem enough to account for such weight gain ?
That's true -- but it would depend on the original goal, I guess.
I don't do the MFP-NEAT format, because with training, it makes meal planning stress me out -- I like knowing *everything* for the day, and I know that my training is *typically* pretty normal, so seeing red numbers until the activity comes over from Runkeeper just makes me feel awful and makes me feel like I'm a failure by having to fuel back. So I go TDEE, and forget that other people, well, use the program as designed.
I have been considering a return to TDEE but I hate logging just 1 calorie for my workouts, as silly as that sounds. It is tough on days when I just walk or rest rather than train, to see those red numbers, even if I have had other days where I was below my goal. They really should change that colour lol.
But with TDEE your goal includes your exercise so you shouldn't be going dramatically in the red? Because you aren't logging exercise so rest day goal will be the same as activity day goal.1 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.
And you think it's the running that's making you fat?13 -
Every time someone posts they aren't losing weight, despite logging and exercising they are either, logging so badly they might as well not be doing it, or eating back more exercise calories than they actually are burning.
If you are going to all the trouble to log, might as well try and make it at least a little more accurate. Guessing on muffins and pasta is a no. It's not the same as guessing on mushrooms and celery.
I often tell myself not to complain about results I didn't get, due to effort I didn't put in. It's a good saying. Keeps me honest.6 -
wildshrubbery wrote: »That just sounds so painfully labor intensive, time consuming and obsessive, measuring weighing and calculating exact calories. Just logging everything seems borderline neurotic.
I have 2 toddlers. I'm just simply not going to weight every piece of food on a food scale and calculate the exact calories in it.
I've said this before, but -
It perplexes me why people who are monitoring their calories on a calorie counting site feel that actually using the site as designed is obsessive and neurotic. And they don't understand why they're not losing weight. It seems to me that in that case the obvious course of action would be to go to a different site that uses a different method for weight management that doesn't feel obsessive and neurotic and use that site as designed.12 -
Weighing using a food scale is not hard if you have the right scale. In fact, once you get used to it, it can be easier - for example, instead of messing about with measuring cups to make steel cut oats with milk, walnuts and apples, I put the pot directly on the scale, hit tare to set the weight to zero, and add each ingredient by weight. It takes literally seconds. For a muffin, you put the plate you were planning to eat from on your scale, hit tare, then your muffin. If you were planning to eat from a plate, you've done nothing extra that you weren't going to have to do already. Writing the amounts down in your log gets easier over time, since more and more foods will already be in your recent list, so you just have to select the amount.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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