Straight from the nutritionists mouth

veganbaum

HilTri wrote: »

Thanks all! Yyyeeeesssssss! I wasn't accurately counting calories and I was ALWAYS eating back all of my exercise calories. I think that was the main issue. Ihave been sticking to the 1500 cal max and will for one week, to me it seems on the low end as well. I always drink my 40-60 oz h2o before I enjoy a Diet Coke. When I run, I go 6-10 miles two days a week.

Thanks for all of you insight and information.

I just want to clarify, for any lurkers, that MFP is designed to eat your exercise calories.

If you aren't tracking food correctly to begin with, then you may eating more than you think and it's not eating back exercise calories that's not working, but rather imprecise tracking of food. Additionally, some people miscalculate their exercise calories and, thus, end up eating more than they should, just like with imprecise tracking of food. Whether it's choosing a higher intensity than actually exerted, or simply that it's an exercise that has an inflated number, again, it's not the method in and of itself, it's the tracking. That's why many will recommend starting with a percentage of exercise calories and then adjusting after 4-6 weeks based on real like results.

Track all your food, log exercise as honestly as you can. Adjust calories after 4-6 weeks. That's all there is to it.

lorrpb

250 calories per day=0.5 lb per week, so not counting that 300 from milk tells the whole story.

FYI 100 calories per day =1 lb per month =10-12 lbs per year. I know that's within a margin of estimated error when logging, but as someone who gained 5-10 lb per year for 20 years, it was a very sobering realization. Small changes can make a big difference. (Lost 150 on MFP and now maintaining for 1.5 years.)

PAV8888

veganbaum wrote: »

I just want to clarify, for any lurkers, that MFP is designed to eat your exercise calories.

If you aren't tracking food correctly to begin with, then you may eating more than you think and it's not eating back exercise calories that's not working, but rather imprecise tracking of food.

Additionally, some people miscalculate their exercise calories and, thus, end up eating more than they should, just like with [the] imprecise tracking of food.

Whether [you're inadvertently] choosing a higher intensity than [what you] actually exerted [at], or simply that it's an exercise that has an inflated number, again, it's not the method in and of itself, it's the tracking.

That's why many will recommend starting with a percentage of exercise calories and then adjusting after 4-6 weeks based on real [life] results.

Track all your food, log exercise as honestly as you can. Adjust calories after 4-6 weeks. That's all there is to it.

Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Which is why I remain confused as to what valuable insight, if any, the nutritionist/dietitian offered to the OP.

Sounds like a straight tracking issue (I have not been logging a cup of milk or two a day) that could have been easily resolved by logging the **kitten** coffee has now devolved to bad advice (I eat 1500 straight and ignore my exercise calories).

LivingtheLeanDream

Not sure how you can manage your runs on only 1500 so as much as I agreed with a lot of what your nutritionist told you, I do not agree with not eating back exercise calories. Fuel the body and it will run better
But yes, its amazing how little calories in drinks or condiments that we might not have thought of do add up, so now you know the score you'll soon get off that plateau.

Silentpadna

LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »

Not sure how you can manage your runs on only 1500 so as much as I agreed with a lot of what your nutritionist told you, I do not agree with not eating back exercise calories. Fuel the body and it will run better
But yes, its amazing how little calories in drinks or condiments that we might not have thought of do add up, so now you know the score you'll soon get off that plateau.

I think veganbaum and PAV said it best. There were likely errors on each side of the equation. We (most of us) try to use an exact equation and weigh and measure down to the gram - based entirely on the assumption that we live at the median of the bell curve in terms of our energy expenditure. My NEAT (or TDEE) estimate could very well be 200 calories in either direction and I would probably still be within a standard deviation of the mean (and be considered normal).

That said, if the measurements were all correct AND our OP was at the middle of the curve, then 1500 would seem like not enough fuel to support the body activity.