Confused and demoralized

ahoy_m8

AnnPT77 wrote: »

rekrapetak wrote: »

No I don’t often eat back exercise calories. I eat a fair amount I feel and I can’t physically take much more to work and after dinner I put my kids down and am free from about 9:30. Then it’s a bit late. I can’t throw in a chocolate bar or anything as I’m a bit of an addict.


Re. The calorie calculation. I think you’ll find that’s ok for a rough estimate but far from accurate. I’m calculating this based on my Apple Watch which takes into account heart-rate, distance, speed (I believe). The active calories is the amount on top of the regular calories you would burn by sitting around top. So I take the smaller of the totals. Im pretty certain power walking a mile will burn more calories than a leisurely slow walk of the same distance.

I have to be honest I didn’t think that example was high in sodium at all? I’m not all that good at the nutritional side of things but I’ve never gone over the recommended sodium level on here and don’t usually add salt to meals. Maybe I’m eating foods I didn’t realise were high in salt?

To the bolded: No, it's pretty close to the same calories, maybe give or take a tiny few for arm swinging or something. Same person, same distance, all walking (not running) = about the same calories. Calories per minute are higher for the power walk. Calories per mile are about the same.

QFT. Calories per mile are the same. Going fast they’re compressed into a shorter time, but essentially the same. My Fitbit gives me more calories walking 12 min miles than running 8 min miles, which looks weird but I chalk it up to basal metabolic rate for the extra minutes of going slow.

rekrapetak

I think there are lots of conflicting sources of info bottom line I trust my watch figures tbh.

ceiswyn

rekrapetak wrote: »

UWell that’s when I add a slice of toast to my breakfast and allow myself a treat every now and then? Like a donut or dessert? I find healthy fillers hard. I’m great at adding extra calories with unhealthy options though!

There are no ‘unhealthy’ foods, only unhealthy diets.

If you’re approximately hitting your macros (especially protein), getting your five-a-day of fruit and veg, and have no other health complications, then what exactly is ‘unhealthy’ about a donut or dessert?

Who benefits from you not eating foods that fit your calories and make you happy?

tbright1965

rekrapetak wrote: »

I'm now thinking water retention - must be it as I went from no exercise to about 8 days straight of 8km a day. I also think I don't drink enough water maybe to help flush this through.


example days food:
Breakfast: Banana and small handfull of nuts( weighed out) = 249 calories
Lunch: Sushi pack, fruit pot = 323 calories
Dinner: Ham, pepper, onion, light cheese 50g, omelette (2eggs) again weighed incredients, peas and brocolli, 50ml semi skimmed milk =560 calories

Snacks: Blueberries, strawberrys, mini chocolate rice cakes (kaillo)= 166 calories

Total = 1298

Exercise:
Lunchtime fast walk 4km : 198 active calories
Dog Walk 5 km = 224 active calories
Total = 422

Adjusted total: 876

The value give for the Sushi pack and fruit pot seems low. I'd expect a typical sushi roll to be in the 250-350 calories alone. Another 100 or so for fruit. So that might actually be closer to 400-450 calories, depending on the roll and amount of fruit.

Ditto for the Dinner shown. When I weigh out 28g (1oz) of cheese, I'm given values of 90-110 calories. So you have 180-220 calories of cheese alone, another 180 in two eggs, another 20-30 calories in your milk before you add the ham (amount not given)

So I wonder if you are not off by a bit in your values, as I have you up to ~400 calories give or take before you add the ham and veggies.

I can make a 3 egg omelette with 28g of cheese, so maybe you can cut back on the cheese used?

But as others have noted, you may need to take tape measurements to see if you are losing fat and gaining muscle.

I just came back from vacation, scale said I was up 5 pounds after 9 days away. I didn't eat almost 18k calories more than I burned.

First day I worked out I "lost" 3.5 pounds as I likely perspired and peed away a fair bit of the water I was holding onto from more salty foods from eating out.

A few days later and I'm back at my pre-vacation weight.

Look at the long term trend, gather more data than just the scale, and be doubly sure you are logging accurately.

One of my strategies is to try to weight out just a bit UNDER the serving size. So if a serving of shredded cheese is 28g, and I have 25g on the scale, I'll log it as 28g. It gives me some margin in case I'm off on something else.

Find what works for you and use it.

Hope this helps.

AnnPT77

rekrapetak wrote: »

I think there are lots of conflicting sources of info bottom line I trust my watch figures tbh.

That chart is saying pretty much the same thing we are: Similar calories per mile.

Look at the top line (130 pounds). I believe those are calories per hour. 148 calories for 2 miles in an hour is 74 calories per mile. 177 calories for 2.5 miles in an hour is 70.8 calories per mile. 195 calories for 3 miles in an hour is 65 calories per mile. Approximately the same number of calories per mile, regardless of speed (and slightly fewer calories when faster, not slightly more when faster).

Later in the article (not in the part you screen grabbed), it talks about MET-based calculations being better. I believe MFP is using MET-based calculations for the walking entries in the exercise database. For 120 pounds, it gives me 68 calories per mile at 2.0mph (136 calories for an hour), 65.8 calories for a mile at 2.5mph (163 calories for an hour), and 60 calories for a mile at 3.0mph (180 calories for an hour).

Obviously, this is not why you're not losing weight, so I'll drop it after this post.

In the overall weight loss effort, math is kind of important, though. Good observations above about the possibility that you may be undercounting calories - not all of the MFP food database entries are accurate, so it's important to check them when you first start out, so that your "recent foods" and "frequent foods" get populated with accurate data you can rely on subsequently. If you're really netting 800-some daily calories, you'll lose weight . . . unhealthily fast. (I'm not much taller than you, 5'5", and quite a bit lighter (in maintenance), and I would get weak and fatigued on that few net calories. At your current weight, 1.5 pounds per week would be an aggressive goal, and 1 pound a week would be less risky.) I'm also wondering if you're getting enough protein, and (as other said) enough fats.

But two weeks is too short a time to rely on, so patience is a good idea. As others have said, your new exercise routine may be causing a bit of water weight retention, or your menstrual cycle (the gain isn't at menstruation for everyone, it can be at ovulation, for example), your sodium consumption (your sample menu looks high salt), or something else entirely.

You can succeed at this, just keep learning, and watch patiently for an upcoming loss when the water weight resolves. Best wishes!