Am I losing too fast again?
Options
Replies
-
So I looked at 4 weeks of your diary.
Eating calories averages:
last 7 1802
prev 7 1916
prev 7 1673
prev 7 1681
What you should have lost based on food deficit:
last7 .5lb
prev7 1lb
prev7 1.7lb
prev7 1.2
That totals to a little over 4.5lbs and your scale report says 6.5.So I looked at 4 weeks of your diary.
Eating calories averages:
last 7 1802
prev 7 1916
prev 7 1673
prev 7 1681
What you should have lost based on food deficit:
last7 .5lb
prev7 1lb
prev7 1.7lb
prev7 1.2
That totals to a little over 4.5lbs and your scale report says 6.5.
Which means that +250 puts her closer to a 1lb a week pace and +500 puts her closer to a 0.5lb a week place.
Because of how trending weight apps work, the actual slow down (or speed up) will start taking place a few days before it starts being clearly reflected in the app.
Thank you!! I'll definitely bump it by 250 now. That really showcases the math
It's odd, according to MFP 1lb/week should be my calorie goal given. I guess with work, etc and other untracked movement it's higher. I'm surprised this isn't a more common issue!
And thank you both so much
0 -
Officially updated my calorie goal manually & shifted my macros slightly for the heck of it.
5 -
Thank you!! I'll definitely bump it by 250 now. That really showcases the math
It's odd, according to MFP 1lb/week should be my calorie goal given. I guess with work, etc and other untracked movement it's higher. I'm surprised this isn't a more common issue!
And thank you both so much
It is hard to know how often someone's activity is selected incorrectly in the app or they are "in between" activity levels and simply need an adjustment. We really only know what people ask here. If you had been eating more of your exercise calories back on your 600+ burn days it might have taken longer to spot. But you have fairly low days and then higher calorie days and you were not eating enough to compensate. My eating pattern can also be erratic so I suggest you keep a closer eye on the week totals to make sure you ending with enough calories.
Since I am in a similar boat I track my 7 day calorie average all the time to make sure I don't dip too low which is funny because I am too low right now. This is uncommon for me now though so one week is not a major deal but I will bring it back up where it needs to be.
1 -
Thank you!! I'll definitely bump it by 250 now. That really showcases the math
It's odd, according to MFP 1lb/week should be my calorie goal given. I guess with work, etc and other untracked movement it's higher. I'm surprised this isn't a more common issue!
And thank you both so much
It is hard to know how often someone's activity is selected incorrectly in the app or they are "in between" activity levels and simply need an adjustment. We really only know what people ask here. If you had been eating more of your exercise calories back on your 600+ burn days it might have taken longer to spot. But you have fairly low days and then higher calorie days and you were not eating enough to compensate. My eating pattern can also be erratic so I suggest you keep a closer eye on the week totals to make sure you ending with enough calories.
Since I am in a similar boat I track my 7 day calorie average all the time to make sure I don't dip too low which is funny because I am too low right now. This is uncommon for me now though so one week is not a major deal but I will bring it back up where it needs to be.
Thank you! Yes my eating is so variant! I feel like I have 2 modes now - eating a ton or eating what feels like enough to get me through the day comfortably (which was itself a Process to figure out this summer). Either fun/entertainment eating socially or fuel eating and there isn’t a good in between I’ve navigated yet, or I need to change some of the fuel day routines to be a little higher calorie. (Not to mention, nutritionally I need to eat more veggies)
The way my activity varies by day is really part of it, I think you’re right I need to pay more attention to my weekly totals than my day-to-day. Some work days I’ve hit (when I had my tracker) 13000 steps, and days at home even doing laundry and other tasks I’ve been under 3000.
If there was like an automatic weekly report notification I would definitely upgrade to premium. I’m disorganized enough I never really remember to check even though I know where it is at any regular intervals. (My disorganization is like 80% of my cause for weight gain/obesity other than emotional eating. It’s like this main thing in my life I need to work on. Chaos being 😐 lol).0 -
I'm going to repeat for emphasis something I said earlier: The "calclulators" just estimate. They can prove inaccurate, even if all your settings are tecnically correct.
I'm reading some of "maybe you're more active than you thought, and your settings are wrong" on this thread. And maybe that's true. But the estimate can be wrong even if settings are accurate. That's the nature of statistical estimates.
These are sound, research-based statistical single-output-value estimates. They're accurate or close for most people, because that's what good statistical estimates do. And they'll be further off for a very few people, because that's also how good statistical estimates of this type tend to behave.
There doesn't have to be an observable reason ("mistake you made") for the estimates to be inaccurate for you. Once you've tracked as meticulously as possible **, and you've found your empirical results, those results are facts (or close enough
).
It would be interesting to know why, for sure - but knowing why isn't vital for success, in practical terms.
** One does see, around the forums, a substantial amount of "I'm special, I can't lose on predicted calories", or "I'm eating maintenance calories and still losing, so I must be special" and overwhelming most often, inaccurate tracking of some type is at the root. Being a person who's simply at a statistically unusual point is rare (by definition), so other explanations are far more likely than "specialness". But it happens.4 -
@annpt77 For my part I think I made it clear that some people are in between activity levels (or more accurately the multipliers used on the BMR) which is the same as saying that even if you pick the correct activity level you might still need to adjust.
The OP's data is a touch more convoluted because in addition to a 200+ difference in eating patterns the exercise can be hardcore one week and pretty minimal the next. She is losing at different rates each week. Since she and I share a degree of "special" I felt like I needed to look over her numbers and assist.
@kiela64 If you want me to help you again with any tweaking do us both a favor and keep a handy list of your final daily calories and final exercise calories. In about 3 weeks tag me (@username) and I will be happy to help again if needed.1 -
I'm going to repeat for emphasis something I said earlier: The "calclulators" just estimate. They can prove inaccurate, even if all your settings are tecnically correct.
I'm reading some of "maybe you're more active than you thought, and your settings are wrong" on this thread. And maybe that's true. But the estimate can be wrong even if settings are accurate. That's the nature of statistical estimates.
These are sound, research-based statistical single-output-value estimates. They're accurate or close for most people, because that's what good statistical estimates do. And they'll be further off for a very few people, because that's also how good statistical estimates of this type tend to behave.
There doesn't have to be an observable reason ("mistake you made") for the estimates to be inaccurate for you. Once you've tracked as meticulously as possible **, and you've found your empirical results, those results are facts (or close enough ).
It would be interesting to know why, for sure - but knowing why isn't vital for success, in practical terms.
** One does see, around the forums, a substantial amount of "I'm special, I can't lose on predicted calories", or "I'm eating maintenance calories and still losing, so I must be special" and overwhelming most often, inaccurate tracking of some type is at the root. Being a person who's simply at a statistically unusual point is rare (by definition), so other explanations are far more likely than "specialness". But it happens.
Great points!
Yeah I'd definitely bet on my lack of organization, meticulousness, and understanding/knowing all the variables rather than being special in any way XD@annpt77 For my part I think I made it clear that some people are in between activity levels (or more accurately the multipliers used on the BMR) which is the same as saying that even if you pick the correct activity level you might still need to adjust.
The OP's data is a touch more convoluted because in addition to a 200+ difference in eating patterns the exercise can be hardcore one week and pretty minimal the next. She is losing at different rates each week. Since she and I share a degree of "special" I felt like I needed to look over her numbers and assist.
@kiela64 If you want me to help you again with any tweaking do us both a favor and keep a handy list of your final daily calories and final exercise calories. In about 3 weeks tag me (@username) and I will be happy to help again if needed. And thank you very much for that assist! Understanding the data I've generated is a struggle. I'm just glad I got a scale when I did - the previous times I've tried to lose weight were without one so it was a very vague understanding of the process.
Going forwards I will give a lot more emphasis to the weekly view. Maybe I will find a spot to write it down physically in my office so I can keep visual tabs on it every Sunday or something. Then I will have that list to give you, rather than leaving you to do the work of sifting through my diary. (Thank you, again )
I don't consider any of my "exercise" to be "hardcore" haha - it's been at least a month since I've even done anything like dedicated exercise. But I have been adjusting to a physical/active job, from an almost completely sedentary student lifestyle. My base habits are still extremely sedentary, with this active job thrown in. It's definitely creating some variety. I do love it, I feel like it's helping my life a ton, however understanding how it's affecting my calorie needs is a bit uncertain.
Maybe once I replace my lost tracker - I need to actually choose one first, that's in itself an overwhelming process with many variables I don't fully get - it will be a little easier. Currently I have no idea how to log my work activity without the tracker. Even going by my hours at work doesn't work because sometimes there's more walking, sometimes more squatting, it's just so variant. Yesterday I decided to log it as a walk for 2.0mph for 1/4 of the time I was at work, for no very good logical reason other than I thought I needed to log something.
I'm only about 4lbs away from no longer being obese, so I think regardless of the hair-loss issue, slowing down & being more attentive to fitness over weight loss is really important. I'm happy with the progress I've made & my aesthetics already make me happy. I just want to be a healthier weight for my busted knees and stronger to support them, and also for fun. I can feel muscles under my skin for like the first time and it's pretty neat XD1 -
@kiela64 If you want me to help you again with any tweaking do us both a favor and keep a handy list of your final daily calories and final exercise calories. In about 3 weeks tag me (@username) and I will be happy to help again if needed.
So would the weekly average be the correct thing to record?
0 -
The average is fine if you also have the total number of exercise calories for the same period. I can also work with daily numbers if you accidentally forget.
Hardcore is a matter of perspective. I am not in a position yet to burn 600+ calories in a day. 1 -
The average is fine if you also have the total number of exercise calories for the same period. I can also work with daily numbers if you accidentally forget.
Hardcore is a matter of perspective. I am not in a position yet to burn 600+ calories in a day.
Okay, thank you!! Once I replace my tracker (by mid-October at the latest) I will have a known calories-out measure. This is why I wanted to get one sooner, but I'm so overwhelmed with trying to research and compare and keep the price reasonable (ending up on a rabbit hole of $300+ devices and then being like 'this is not actually feasible please stop').
Without work making it necessary, I wouldn't have. I am not sure I am technically in that position either, given my knee issues. It flared up really badly the 2nd and 3rd weeks of August. I was supposed to limit my activity to 20min of slow walking once a week and 20 min of swimming & cycling 3x. That didn't happen lol.
And 600 sounds like a ton, I don't think I'm doing that?? But maybe that's what the adjustment was giving me for a bit. A fellow MFP-er mentioned that my tracker and MFP were disagreeing on my BMR or something like that, because the adjustment seemed ridiculously massive but then when I looked through the backlog of what it was giving me it actually more or less accounted for my speed of loss. That's why I'm considering sticking with that brand...even though they don't have the HR monitors and other fancy features. (I don't know what to do on that side of things lol my brain is breaking a little bit XD)0 -
You have several days listed at 600+ calories from exercise.
I don't have a tracker yet but I have been casually starting to shop for one. Until you get one though I think comparing your projected deficit loss against the actual loss along with monitoring your rate of loss will tell you most of what you need to know so no pressure.1 -
@annpt77 For my part I think I made it clear that some people are in between activity levels (or more accurately the multipliers used on the BMR) which is the same as saying that even if you pick the correct activity level you might still need to adjust.
(more snipped by responder)
This is not what I'm saying. The estimates can just be incorrect for an individual.
It's not about in between, or misunderstanding, or anything. It's very rare, but I'm talking about being out toward a tail of the implicit bell curve. It's rare, but it happens.
There are two reasons I harp on this:
1. I see people, especially new people, get criticized, ridiculed even, for reporting unusual results. I think it's important to make sure people have everything set up correctly, and are thinking about the whole problem correctly, and are being meticulously accurate and not overlooking any intake or activity, because those are the common problems.
There's also a possible very uncommon problem: The calculators are plain wrong for a person, because they're statistically unusual. (Something explains this, but it's something not captured by these statitical models.) People for whom this is true are more likely to post "can't lose" or "losing too fast" posts. They - and people who mistakenly believe they're like them - don't need to be ridiculed as thinking they're "defying physics" because a large mass of people on MFP are bad at statistics.
2. I believe I am one of those people, on the lucky side of the statistics.
MFP estimates me at around 1500 net, because I'm somewhere in the sedentary to lightly active range outside of intentional exercise. I'm retired; my non-exercise hobbies are sedentary. I recently got a (well regarded) all-day activity tracker. It says I'm averaging around 6600 steps daily. I actually maintain in real life, tracking meticulously, in the 2100-ish range (net), eating back all of my exercise calories, for a gross intake in the mid-2000s. I'm borderline sedentary/lightly active, but I have MFP set on active. That gets its estimate up into the correct general region, but still results in it thinking I'll gain at a calorie level that, if sustained, will have me losing a pound a month or slightly less. When I first started losing weight here (too fast, BTW ), I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and thought it would change at some point. It didn't. I'm in year 3 of maintenance. MFP underestimates my calorie needs significantly. I don't know why (not that I haven't tried to figure it out, short of an expensive RMR test).
It happens, but only very rarely. I have to believe there are people who are rare on the lower-than-expected end, as well (I've watched one very closely among my MFP friends, for example, and I'm pretty confident she's tracking accurately).
Sometimes the estimates are just wrong. It's one of quite a few reasons - some of which you mentioned - why people need to pay attention to results, and adjust.
Apologies, OP, while this post was intended to further explain some of my statements above, the post itself goes beyond being on topic for the thread - I'm sorry for the hijack.4 -
@annpt77 So you picked the correct activity level for yourself and then you were forced to adjust. I think I might have said that somewhere.
I understand that you want to make the distinction and you are absolutely correct but I am not sure how much it matters. If you think your CI is fairly correct and you are losing faster or slower than expected you have to consider that the CO part of your equation is wrong.
If you want to correct me again please do. I have too much platonic internet message board love for you to debate too much.
5 -
You have several days listed at 600+ calories from exercise.
I don't have a tracker yet but I have been casually starting to shop for one. Until you get one though I think comparing your projected deficit loss against the actual loss along with monitoring your rate of loss will tell you most of what you need to know so no pressure.
Yes, that was definitely the tracker - I went back and looked. Thank you! I do feel a bit of pressure because it’s an Unknown right? But I also want to make a good decision so I’m trying to not rush.1 -
what app is that you are using?0
-
@annpt77 For my part I think I made it clear that some people are in between activity levels (or more accurately the multipliers used on the BMR) which is the same as saying that even if you pick the correct activity level you might still need to adjust.
(more snipped by responder)
This is not what I'm saying. The estimates can just be incorrect for an individual.
It's not about in between, or misunderstanding, or anything. It's very rare, but I'm talking about being out toward a tail of the implicit bell curve. It's rare, but it happens.
There are two reasons I harp on this:
1. I see people, especially new people, get criticized, ridiculed even, for reporting unusual results. I think it's important to make sure people have everything set up correctly, and are thinking about the whole problem correctly, and are being meticulously accurate and not overlooking any intake or activity, because those are the common problems.
There's also a possible very uncommon problem: The calculators are plain wrong for a person, because they're statistically unusual. (Something explains this, but it's something not captured by these statitical models.) People for whom this is true are more likely to post "can't lose" or "losing too fast" posts. They - and people who mistakenly believe they're like them - don't need to be ridiculed as thinking they're "defying physics" because a large mass of people on MFP are bad at statistics.
2. I believe I am one of those people, on the lucky side of the statistics.
MFP estimates me at around 1500 net, because I'm somewhere in the sedentary to lightly active range outside of intentional exercise. I'm retired; my non-exercise hobbies are sedentary. I recently got a (well regarded) all-day activity tracker. It says I'm averaging around 6600 steps daily. I actually maintain in real life, tracking meticulously, in the 2100-ish range (net), eating back all of my exercise calories, for a gross intake in the mid-2000s. I'm borderline sedentary/lightly active, but I have MFP set on active. That gets its estimate up into the correct general region, but still results in it thinking I'll gain at a calorie level that, if sustained, will have me losing a pound a month or slightly less. When I first started losing weight here (too fast, BTW ), I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and thought it would change at some point. It didn't. I'm in year 3 of maintenance. MFP underestimates my calorie needs significantly. I don't know why (not that I haven't tried to figure it out, short of an expensive RMR test).
It happens, but only very rarely. I have to believe there are people who are rare on the lower-than-expected end, as well (I've watched one very closely among my MFP friends, for example, and I'm pretty confident she's tracking accurately).
Sometimes the estimates are just wrong. It's one of quite a few reasons - some of which you mentioned - why people need to pay attention to results, and adjust.
Apologies, OP, while this post was intended to further explain some of my statements above, the post itself goes beyond being on topic for the thread - I'm sorry for the hijack.
Oh I don’t mind, I like reading these ideas. Never apologize for explaining more things 😁
What you talk about is part of why I’m tempted to stick with the Misfit brand of tracker. It seemed like it was doing a good job of accounting for my rate of loss. I don’t know if another brand will be as accurate as they are all working on different algorithms. And that one seemed to work for me.0 -
I've read that a small percentage of people who are on carb restrictive diets experience hair loss. I took a quick look through your diary and noticed you're not on a very low carb diet but everyone is different and maybe you're ~100 net carbs a day isn't enough. You could try adding in some non-bread/non-sugar complex carbs like oatmeal and brown rice? It will take your body time to regrow your hair so don't worry!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/can-low-carb-diets-result-in-hair-loss0 -
@annpt77 So you picked the correct activity level for yourself and then you were forced to adjust. I think I might have said that somewhere.
I understand that you want to make the distinction and you are absolutely correct but I am not sure how much it matters. If you think your CI is fairly correct and you are losing faster or slower than expected you have to consider that the CO part of your equation is wrong.
If you want to correct me again please do. I have too much platonic internet message board love for you to debate too much.
Obviously, the CI or the CO is somehow wrong, because at a high level those are the only relevant variables . . . but not necessarily because someone has misunderstood or incorrectly defined the inputs to a calorie "calculator", or logged something inaccurately. Putting it another way, the idea that they're misapplying the model is not the only possible explanation (even though misapplication - or "defying physics" is what is sometimes imputed here in MFP threads even after the OP has made decent case that they're doing the right things).
The model (the calculator) itself has limitations. It's taking limited inputs, and producing a singular output, the calorie goal. It's a statistical estimate. You don't have to be "setting it wrong" or "between levels" to get an inaccurate estimate. The model itself can be inaccurate for some n = 1 cases.
It matters because the answer isn't always to send people scurrying back to the calculator to set better inputs, so still implying that the calculator is right, and their experience is wrong. Usually, the problems are in how a person is applying the calorie-counting process, or how they're setting inputs to the calculator, but not always. Sometimes the calculator is just wrong, IMO, for reasons having to do with limitations of the underlying model.
Why is this important? Because helping people understand the tools - what they really do - is important. Over on the maintenance forum, it's not unusual to see "Eating maintenance calories, why am I losing?". If people understood the limitations of the calculators, it would be easier for them to process the idea - the platitude, in this case - that if they're losing weight, they're not eating maintenance calories, no matter what the calculator says.
Or, in our current thread, it can create a little conceptual room for someone to understand that they can be losing faster than expected, even if they used the calculator (MFP settings) correctly. There doesn't have to be a demonstrable reason for it to be true; the calculator can be inaccurate in and of itself. It's not a crystal ball; it's an estimate, subject to error.
Experience, once carefully calibrated, trumps calculator estimates. There doesn't have to be an obvious user error. It can be limitations of the calculator.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions