Fun size M&Ms not so fun when I go to log
Options
Replies
-
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Fun size candy is super annoying, unless you eat enough to make a full size treat. I'm never quite satisfied with the fun sizes and so I tend to avoid fun sizes and instead plan for a full size.
Exactly how I feel.2 -
90 calories seems pretty reasonable to me5
-
deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.3 -
I find I can have my fun if I plan to exercise it off. I look at my net calories on a weekly basis. Last Saturday night-sunday morning I over indulged to the tune of 800 calories. By carefully logging and a couple of workouts where I didn't eat back all of my workout calories, it's Friday now and I think I'm at goal now. With a workout later today I will be back to under goal and able to go to a party tonight without ruining a thing.0
-
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs
You are 100% correct and understood 0% of my point.
For had you understood and examined the context, you would realize we are talking about a 9g bit of candy, not a 118g banana.
To accomplish my logging goals, my estimate for a 9g bit of candy is sufficient.
I'd just log a banana if I were having a banana. And no I don't weigh my bananas either.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs
You are 100% correct and understood 0% of my point.
For had you understood and examined the context, you would realize we are talking about a 9g bit of candy, not a 118g banana.
To accomplish my logging goals, my estimate for a 9g bit of candy is sufficient.
I'd just log a banana if I were having a banana. And no I don't weigh my bananas either.
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)
What was factually incorrect about the candy and the estimate I provided.
I said the calorie count would be in the range of values presented, or at least close enough for most purposes.
I'm not looking for mass spectrometer accuracy. I'm trying to create a calorie deficit to lose weight and to limit carbs in order to keep my Blood Glucose below 100 mg/dL.
This approach works. If I round up certain items, I will reach those goals. If my 9g bit of candy is really only 6g of carbs and 3g of non-caloric stuff such as water, will my estimate of 36 calories really throw off my 2025 calorie day if the candy is really only 24 calories?
Nope.
The fact I stated was this was MY method of estimating and leaving margin in case I miss something and/or to stay away from the limits.
Using my "incorrect" method, I've lost 50# and my A1C has gone from 7.3 to 5.1 since 14 Feb this year.
So while it may not be accurate enough for you, and I'm all about you doing you. Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said it was CLOSE enough to meet my goals.
I never claimed it would give you lab accuracy. What I claimed was you would not UNDERESTIMATE what you had to eat using my described method if you had to estimate and had NO data.
Which is 100% true.
It can be both 100% true, inaccurate for your purposes, and works for my goals and not fit yours.
If it's useful, use it. If not, just let it go.
But don't call it factually incorrect when what I stated was a correct description of my method of estimation, that described the limits of the method. I clearly stated it may overestimate what you've consumed, but what you eat will never be MORE calories than the range described.
Which is true.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)
What was factually incorrect about the candy and the estimate I provided.
I said the calorie count would be in the range of values presented, or at least close enough for most purposes.
I'm not looking for mass spectrometer accuracy. I'm trying to create a calorie deficit to lose weight and to limit carbs in order to keep my Blood Glucose below 100 mg/dL.
This approach works. If I round up certain items, I will reach those goals. If my 9g bit of candy is really only 6g of carbs and 3g of non-caloric stuff such as water, will my estimate of 36 calories really throw off my 2025 calorie day if the candy is really only 24 calories?
Nope.
The fact I stated was this was MY method of estimating and leaving margin in case I miss something and/or to stay away from the limits.
Using my "incorrect" method, I've lost 50# and my A1C has gone from 7.3 to 5.1 since 14 Feb this year.
So while it may not be accurate enough for you, and I'm all about you doing you. Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said it was CLOSE enough to meet my goals.
I never claimed it would give you lab accuracy. What I claimed was you would not UNDERESTIMATE what you had to eat using my described method if you had to estimate and had NO data.
Which is 100% true.
It can be both 100% true, inaccurate for your purposes, and works for my goals and not fit yours.
If it's useful, use it. If not, just let it go.
But don't call it factually incorrect when what I stated was a correct description of my method of estimation, that described the limits of the method. I clearly stated it may overestimate what you've consumed, but what you eat will never be MORE calories than the range described.
Which is true.
You are deliberately and massively aiming to err on the side of overestimating Calories eaten and, based on other threads, deliberately aiming to err on the side of underestimating Calories expended.
You believe that this is working well for you.
There are many people, myself included, who think that this aggressive strategy very seldom ends up in a better place than a more moderate strategy of correctly estimating inputs and expenditures while engaged in moderate deficits.
Trying to correctly estimate will lead to estimation errors; but, absent a deliberate bias, the errors will tend to cancel one another.
Deliberate errors to be more aggressive with their deficit can lead to their own set of very real problems for other people who you councel to adopt your methods.6 -
You are deliberately and massively aiming to err on the side of overestimating Calories eaten and, based on other threads, deliberately aiming to err on the side of underestimating Calories expended.
You believe that this is working well for you.
There are many people, myself included, who think that this aggressive strategy very seldom ends up in a better place than a more moderate strategy of correctly estimating inputs and expenditures while engaged in moderate deficits.
Trying to correctly estimate will lead to estimation errors; but, absent a deliberate bias, the errors will tend to cancel one another.
Deliberate errors to be more aggressive with their deficit can lead to their own set of very real problems for other people who you councel to adopt your methods.
I wouldn't say MASSIVELY. I think that's a gross mis-characterization.
If I get 25g of cheese from the bag of shredded cheddar for my omelette and log it as a 28g serving, that's what a 10% error on what will be 5% of my daily caloric intake? The caloric content 28g of cheeses is between 90 and 110 calories for the cheeses I've used in my morning omelette. Sliced cheeses are in the ball park of 70-90 calories/slice. My 25g weighted portion will be 89.2% of that or between 80 and 100 calories give or take.
If I have 2000 (rounded down, I get 2025 before any exercise calories) a day, being off by 5-10 calories on one item really won't matter.
But what it does do is allow me to just pour a oz or two of milk in my coffee without getting out the food scale to make sure I only get 30ml of milk for that same 10-15 calories, IIRC.
Or it lets me have that bit of hard candy without having to run off to log it.
I'm not running unhealthy deficits. In fact, I'm doing largely what my diabetes coach/dietitian suggests. There is a host of estimates one can make in order to track what they are eating. Combined with taking my BG daily in the AM and the dropping of roughly 20% of my starting body weight, my approach is working to achieve my goals.
And in 20 more pounds, I'll be down to my first goal weight, to weigh what I weighed when I left the Army in 1992.
My Dr is already willing to take me off of Metformin, as I can keep my BG below 100mg/dL and often have numbers in the 80s when I wake in the AM.
Now, my approach will not win me the Nobel prize in medicine.
But it's an approach that is doable by anyone with a 6th grade education.
I really doubt I'm starving when I eat between 2000 and 2500 calories/day at 215# of body weight.
But I am staying at a deficit as I'm likely burning between 2400 and 3000 on those very same days.
It's almost 4pm where I am, and my Fitbit estimates I've burned just under 1600 calories today. (Haven't worked out yet.)
Which goes right along with the calculators for someone fitting my profile, a sedentary TDEE of just under 100 calories/hour at 2340/day.
So on most days, I'm staying around that 500-750 calorie deficit depending on how much exercise I get.
What part isn't working?
I'm not counseling anyone to adopt drastic measures. I'm saying this is how I'm doing what I do to maintain such a deficit. I don't try to get 28g of cheese by reaching into the bag again. I know I'm going to have an oz of milk in my coffee and it will balance out.
I know most people will forget things or eat samples when they go to Sam's Club, or a candy from the reception desk.
Life.
Most who try to go right up to the line will find they are actually 500 calories over the line. We see that post all the time here.
Paraphrased Title: "I've been eating 1200 calories/day and I've gain 6 pounds in the past 6 weeks, help!"
I've been here long enough to see a handful of iterations of that title each week.
If people have significant medical challenges, they should be under a DR's care and not getting their advice from a website.
Sharing what works for me is not counsel. Sharing an estimation methodology is not counsel.
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Sharing what works for me is not counsel. Sharing an estimation methodology is not counsel.
Unreservedly withdraw the characterization of counsel. By it's nature this is a web site forum where each of us spews personal opinions and experiences and is not offering counsel so... totally wrong word choice!
I still think that if you strove to be accurate (period) you would be better off than striving to be inaccurate in the hope of staving off a potential error.
In all cases, all of us, should review our progress and what we're doing after 4-6 weeks and see whether what we think we are doing is what we're actually doing... and adjust goals to compensate.
At 215 and a 500 to 750 deficit you are doing fine. You've been sounding (to me) as if you're on a 1000 to 1500 deficit. That would be less fine.0 -
Found this thread fitting for me today since I had a fun size PB snickers. Glad I was doing T25 to burn it off.. lol!
.. Oh and I use estimation as well with calorie and excersize inputs.
It works for me.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Sharing what works for me is not counsel. Sharing an estimation methodology is not counsel.
Unreservedly withdraw the characterization of counsel. By it's nature this is a web site forum where each of us spews personal opinions and experiences and is not offering counsel so... totally wrong word choice!
I still think that if you strove to be accurate (period) you would be better off than striving to be inaccurate in the hope of staving off a potential error.
In all cases, all of us, should review our progress and what we're doing after 4-6 weeks and see whether what we think we are doing is what we're actually doing... and adjust goals to compensate.
At 215 and a 500 to 750 deficit you are doing fine. You've been sounding (to me) as if you're on a 1000 to 1500 deficit. That would be less fine.
I only have that large a deficit on days where I've ridden my bike 50 miles. Doesn't happen often enough to worry about.0 -
About 139 calories in 1 ounce of plain milk chocolate M&M's, and thats about 28 m&m's0
-
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)
What was factually incorrect about the candy and the estimate I provided.
I said the calorie count would be in the range of values presented, or at least close enough for most purposes.
I'm not looking for mass spectrometer accuracy. I'm trying to create a calorie deficit to lose weight and to limit carbs in order to keep my Blood Glucose below 100 mg/dL.
This approach works. If I round up certain items, I will reach those goals. If my 9g bit of candy is really only 6g of carbs and 3g of non-caloric stuff such as water, will my estimate of 36 calories really throw off my 2025 calorie day if the candy is really only 24 calories?
Nope.
The fact I stated was this was MY method of estimating and leaving margin in case I miss something and/or to stay away from the limits.
Using my "incorrect" method, I've lost 50# and my A1C has gone from 7.3 to 5.1 since 14 Feb this year.
So while it may not be accurate enough for you, and I'm all about you doing you. Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said it was CLOSE enough to meet my goals.
I never claimed it would give you lab accuracy. What I claimed was you would not UNDERESTIMATE what you had to eat using my described method if you had to estimate and had NO data.
Which is 100% true.
It can be both 100% true, inaccurate for your purposes, and works for my goals and not fit yours.
If it's useful, use it. If not, just let it go.
But don't call it factually incorrect when what I stated was a correct description of my method of estimation, that described the limits of the method. I clearly stated it may overestimate what you've consumed, but what you eat will never be MORE calories than the range described.
Which is true.
You are deliberately and massively aiming to err on the side of overestimating Calories eaten and, based on other threads, deliberately aiming to err on the side of underestimating Calories expended.
You believe that this is working well for you.
There are many people, myself included, who think that this aggressive strategy very seldom ends up in a better place than a more moderate strategy of correctly estimating inputs and expenditures while engaged in moderate deficits.
Trying to correctly estimate will lead to estimation errors; but, absent a deliberate bias, the errors will tend to cancel one another.
Deliberate errors to be more aggressive with their deficit can lead to their own set of very real problems for other people who you councel to adopt your methods.
This strategy is causing me to not be too concerned about going over, which is not a good thing. I have been setting my goal low because I want to trend down a little further to just below the mid point in my maintenance range. That, compounded with potentially overestimating food and underestimating burn makes me feel like I can go ahead and go over a ways and make today be about even. The problem is hat I don't know what my actual deficit for the day is when I hit goal.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I really doubt I'm starving when I eat between 2000 and 2500 calories/day at 215# of body weight.
But I am staying at a deficit as I'm likely burning between 2400 and 3000 on those very same days.
It's almost 4pm where I am, and my Fitbit estimates I've burned just under 1600 calories today. (Haven't worked out yet.)
Which goes right along with the calculators for someone fitting my profile, a sedentary TDEE of just under 100 calories/hour at 2340/day.
So on most days, I'm staying around that 500-750 calorie deficit depending on how much exercise I get.
Just an update, 4 hours later and the ole Fitbit says about 2750 calories burned. I did 55 minutes of spin class tonight. Workout would have been longer, but I had a phone call come in and something from work to handle that took away my warmup and the first 5 minutes of class.
The estimated calorie burn for the class was 630 calories. Which seems to go along with how much I'd be burning at my sedentary rate plus exercise calories...
I don't totally trust the Fitbit to estimate it, so I don't try to eat back all my exercise calories. So if I have a 400-500 calorie deficit in my base food allotment and give myself half of the exercise calories back in protein and fat as I still have to watch my carb intake for T2D concerns, I'm in that 500-750 calories/day deficit range.
FWIW.
1 -
I consider ONE(1) Fun Size pack to be a serving. I wouldn't have taken two.0
-
I love Fun Size sweets. They're one of my weight loss secrets as they're perfect for taming my sweet tooth while minimising the damage that would have been done with entire bags/bars.
I tend to treat them as my 'end of day calorie round up'. I'll pretty much always make sure have enough calories left over for one or two at night. On days that I've been particularly active or eaten unusually lightly so I have more wiggle room I'll maybe even have three or four.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions