Plateaued With Heavy Exercise. Troubleshooting?
Replies
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another (
).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway. 5 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
You and sijomial are clearly the same person And I even typically like the posts that both of you make - more proof of this...or something. 13 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought
it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
7 -
[
4 -
So if you are about 184lbs, and you ran 5miles then you burned about 580kcal, and not over 700 as the app is stating.1
-
-
-
Maxematics wrote: »
Possibly, but those apps generally don't say so. With a fitbit you at least end up with a daily calorie burn that takes any tracked workout into account. A stand-alone app doesn't do that.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.1 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought
it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?0 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought
it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?
Whatever general collection of annoyances I have that day.1 -
Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.9 -
Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
Sorry, I combined 2 responses in one.
It was the OP that said she was going to disregard those cals. Since she is struggling with her plan, I just thought I’d mention that.0 -
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
0 -
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
Fitbit indeed shows gross calories for exercise; there was never a question about that. My question was if Map My Run does the same which would account for the discrepancy of the calories given by MFPs database or the equation above. Either way, yes, the difference can be accounted for this way or by just eating back a smaller portion of exercise calories.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
Fitbit indeed shows gross calories for exercise; there was never a question about that. My question was if Map My Run does the same which would account for the discrepancy of the calories given by MFPs database or the equation above. Either way, yes, the difference can be accounted for this way or by just eating back a smaller portion of exercise calories.
Ah, I misunderstood the question. I don't think MFP is smart enough to back out BMR or maintenance cals from added exercise cals, unless the device sending the data to MFP is already calculating net cals (which most don't)0 -
When was the last time you adjusted goals for your updated lower weight? Apologies if this was asked already1
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought
it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?
Whatever general collection of annoyances I have that day.
Aha - that sometimes works for me too!0 -
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »
I’m really not sure then. My FitBit has been very accurate for me estimating burns. I don’t log any activities though in any apps. I let it auto detect and track, which I personally find more accurate. Also the longer you wear it the more accurate it seems to become. I run a 5k a few times a week at a 9:30-10 pace and typically earn 90-100 cals per mile.
Have you tried setting your activity here to sedentary and just allowing FitBit to auto adjust during the day?
Most people I’ve chatted with who are successfully reaching their goals using MFP and FitBit together are set to sedentary with negative adjustments enabled. Your calories here adjust through out the day depending on that days specific activity.2 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »
I’m really not sure then. My FitBit has been very accurate for me estimating burns. I don’t log any activities though in any apps. I let it auto detect and track, which I personally find more accurate. Also the longer you wear it the more accurate it seems to become. I run a 5k a few times a week at a 9:30-10 pace and typically earn 90-100 cals per mile.
Have you tried setting your activity here to sedentary and just allowing FitBit to auto adjust during the day?
Most people I’ve chatted with who are successfully reaching their goals using MFP and FitBit together are set to sedentary with negative adjustments enabled. Your calories here adjust through out the day depending on that days specific activity.
I have done that, and that may be what I have to do again to make progress.
I reset mfp to not adjust calories for activity for now, but I don't want to change too much at once because I won't be able to isolate the variable.
I've had various Fitbits for over a year, so I dunno.
Just going to see what happens for a while1 -
When I say I'm careful about logging, this is what I mean.
Individual ingredients researched, accumulated, weighed, portioned and assembled, then plugged into the recipe feature, cross referenced with packaging for calorie accuracy and plugged in. Why my log says '1 serving' frequently. This is one of several meals I'm doing this week for myself and two other adults (Mexican chicken wraps. Just stuff into the wraps I provide)
4 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »When I say I'm careful about logging, this is what I mean.
Individual ingredients researched, accumulated, weighed, portioned and assembled, then plugged into the recipe feature, cross referenced with packaging for calorie accuracy and plugged in. Why my log says '1 serving' frequently. This is one of several meals I'm doing this week for myself and two other adults (Mexican chicken wraps. Just stuff into the wraps I provide)
Wish I had organisation skills like this !0 -
Your resting heart rate is lower, which means you're burning less calories throughout the day17
-
roxierachael wrote: »Your resting heart rate is lower, which means you're burning less calories throughout the day
Nope, that just means her heart is more effecient and pumping blood, more blood(oxygen) per beat.
HR does not equate to Cals burned, an HRM uses HR to estimate effort and oxygen uptake, but can be quite off, and is only a decent estimator under certain circumstances, which is Steady state cardio in which your fitness level matches the embedded calculation. HRMs that allow you to adjust V02Max, and max HR will be more accurate, but still only for steady state cardio11 -
OooohToast wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »When I say I'm careful about logging, this is what I mean.
Individual ingredients researched, accumulated, weighed, portioned and assembled, then plugged into the recipe feature, cross referenced with packaging for calorie accuracy and plugged in. Why my log says '1 serving' frequently. This is one of several meals I'm doing this week for myself and two other adults (Mexican chicken wraps. Just stuff into the wraps I provide)
Wish I had organisation skills like this !
This is what I meant when I say healthy habits are hard to build in to your life. This took a WHILE to be proficient.
At this point I USUALLY spend one weekend day processing and preparing meals or ingredients for the following week, dropping everyone's cumulative food costs and raising better nutrition. It used to be a *kitten*, but I'm practiced now3 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »
I’m really not sure then. My FitBit has been very accurate for me estimating burns. I don’t log any activities though in any apps. I let it auto detect and track, which I personally find more accurate. Also the longer you wear it the more accurate it seems to become. I run a 5k a few times a week at a 9:30-10 pace and typically earn 90-100 cals per mile.
Have you tried setting your activity here to sedentary and just allowing FitBit to auto adjust during the day?
Most people I’ve chatted with who are successfully reaching their goals using MFP and FitBit together are set to sedentary with negative adjustments enabled. Your calories here adjust through out the day depending on that days specific activity.
I have done that, and that may be what I have to do again to make progress.
I reset mfp to not adjust calories for activity for now, but I don't want to change too much at once because I won't be able to isolate the variable.
I've had various Fitbits for over a year, so I dunno.
Just going to see what happens for a while
You say you’ve had various FitBits. This stands out to me because each time I’ve upgraded my device (about once every 12-18mo) it takes about 3-4mo of consistent tracking to adjust and get more accurate for me tracking stride, auto detecting workouts, calories based on weight, etc.
How new is the device you use now?
2 -
If a diet break isn't in order, you may want to just decrease calls by 100/day, as it is possible your BMR is lower than you are basing your intake off of. If you don't lose after 3-4 weeks, drop another 100 cals/day.3
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »
On another thread, you say you've gone but down from 224 to 184, and are around there now. You also mention elsewhere that your runs are actually walk/run intervals.IDeserveBetter wrote: »So, here is the issue.
Since December 2017 I've lost 40 pounds.
Major progress.
But that does include a period of gaining most back and losing it again, so ups and downs related to life circumstances.
Now, I'm plateaued.
I thought that going from distance walking to running, thus raising my heart rate would solve that issue. I'm doing some pretty serious running, you guys. ten miles at about a 13 minute pace yesterday. Is not panning out weight loss wise. I'm also at a loss as to further improving my fitness level according to the Fitbit app
<Images snipped, for length>
You're struggling, IMO, because of several issues:
* Having started at about your weight, I'm also skeptical about your exercise calories. On the thread over in the Fitness forum, someone gave you the estimating formula for net calories from walking and running. Use that**. However, I see that you have your Fitbit synched, which should (maybe) be giving you a more sensible calorie adjustment. You can use the formula for a gut check, but recognize that the Fitbit adjustment covers more than the run.
(**For others reading, the formulas are weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles for running; weight in pounds x 0.30 x distance in miles for walking.)
* Others have pointed out that it appears you're not using a food scale, using "servings", using what looks like generic entries from the database, etc. Tightening that up is a high-potential-benefit route. The first tens of pounds come off with less precision; as you get lighter, better precision can be helpful.
* You mention (in the other thread?) that you've recently begun running (vs. walking) and that you're adding strength training. Any new exercise, especially strength exercise, can temporarily add water weight, and mask fat loss on the scale for a couple/few weeks. Perhaps that's part of the current picture for you.
It pretty much is gospel. But, if calorie counting is the weight loss strategy being used, accuracy is important.Despite seeing major improvement on the running aspect with times and endurance, I'm still fluxuating between the same four pounds......for the last ten weeks or so. Having said that, my resting pulse is lower than it has ever been.
I think I know why, but I over think things.
1: I'm not allowing myself enough rest. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around exercise more and eat less isn't gospel.
Adequate rest is also important, though. If you get over-fatigued, it tends to reduce daily life activity (we rest more, do less vigorous things in work/chores, maybe even sleep more) which reduces calories burned in daily life, effectively wiping out some of the exercise calories. (Your Fitbit might not catch all of this effect, but should catch most.) Also, rest is important for performance in exercise (muscle recovery as well as energy level; well-managed rest and recovery is vital to fitness improvement.
Huh? No.2: I realize that the huge deficits I'm recording (my food recording is very accurate. I'm very practiced and suuuper careful with it. How I lost 40 pounds) may not exist. I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record
The "fat burning zone" is a myth (from a calorie-counting standpoint: it matters for endurance fueling); your body doesn't "get used to an exercise" and burn fewer calories when doing it. In most common exercises (such as walking/running), the efficiency difference between a skilled person and an unskilled one is trivial. And a fit person and unfit person of the same size, running the same distance, burn roughly the same number of calories. It just feels much easier to the fit person, and many heart rate monitors will (inaccurately) estimate a lower calorie burn for the fit person vs. the unfit one. That's one of the many limitations of heart rate as a proxy for calorie burn.
Of course, in any weight-bearing exercise (like walking/running) you burn fewer calories as a lighter person than you did as a heavier one, for the same exercise (same pace, distance, intensity, duration, etc.). Of course, as you get fitter, you can work out harder (higher intensity) for the same amount of time, without incurring an impairing fatigue penalty, and burn more calories that way.
Your Fitbit may or may not accurately estimate your workout calories, but the reasons have nothing to do with "reaching your peak", whatever you mean by that.
You don't need to vary your exercise for calorie-burn purposes, for reasons outlined above. Strength training is worth doing (preserves existing muscle while losing weight; adds muscle in the very long run; adds strength in the short run (mainly through neuromuscular adaptation); can help your running pace; strengthens bones to help avoid osteoporosis, which is a major mortality risk and independence factor for we women as we age; and more). Rest is absolutely vital for strength training, and overdoing on an overall basis is counterproductive for weight loss as described above.3: I academically know I need to vary my exercises; I've started incorporating some weight training and I'm about to start yoga, but I'm having a hard time not doubling those days up with cardio instead of giving cardio a break. I'm not internalizing the lesson
Varied exercise modalities are good for fitness, in the sense that they improve different aspects of fitness, of course.
Starvation mode, in that sense, is not a real thing. If it were, no one would ever starve to death, and, sadly, many people worldwide do so every day, and they aren't fat when it happens. It's true that undereating can sap your energy and cause some slowdown, but if you're eating less than you're burning, you'll lose weight.4: I'm unsure if I should be eating less, or more. If the deficits are accurate, eating more may help because of avoiding starvation mode. If they aren't, I may barely have deficits at all. I'm aware muscle weighs more, and I AM seeing tape measure differences, but not big ones.
Have you adjusted your base calorie goal every 10 pounds or so along the way? Unfortunately, the lighter we are, the fewer BMR/NEAT calories we burn, so we may need to adjust to keep weight loss coming.
Beyond adjusting for bodyweight changes, eating more/less is a probably-irrelevant tweak until the bigger and more probable factors are pinned down.I don't really know what I'm asking.
I'm probably going to consult a trainer and a nutritionist for more educated insight.
Pictures included for posterity:
Really good muscle gain for even a young woman under perfect circumstances would be a quarter pound a week (and perfect circumstances would include a calorie surplus). If new to exercise and strength training, you can maybe, possibly gain a bit of muscle mass in calorie deficit with an good progressive weight training program done diligently, but it's very unlikely to achieve that quarter pound a week rate. In contrast, losing a quarter pound of fat a week would be such a slow rate of weight loss that one probably wouldn't notice it in less than a month or two, even with a weight-trending app and daily weigh-ins for the app to work with.
As far as fitness improvement, it's inherently a slow process. You've seen some fast gains initially (like resting heart rate improvement), but it slows down. Patience and persistence are essential.
In your other thread, you mention not being very good with "one size fits all" plans like C25K. It's a really good thing for us to know our own inclinations and work with them rather than fight them . . . but those kinds of plans really are the way to make the best fitness progress. Something like one of the Hal Higdon running plans suitable to your goals (or a good one from another source), and a weight training program from the thread below would be your best bet if maximum fitness progress is the most important goal, vs. doing things in a way that's more congenial/pleasurable for your personality. That tradeoff is totally your call, of course.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/
Your best route at this point, IMO and IME, is to
1. Tighten up your logging (food scale for a while, at least - great use of $20 or thereabouts, and quicker than cups/spoons once you learn the tricks);
2. Gut-check your exercise calories with the estimating formula given;
3. Make sure your intake level is right for your current body weight;
4. Get a weight trend app (Happy Scale for iOS, Libra for Android, Trendweight, etc.) if you don't have one;
5. Start the strength training for long-run fitness benefits rather than weight loss per se;
6. Consider running and weight training programs if fitness improvement is a vital goal, vs. DIY preference.
You can get past this plateau, and make progress, if you look at the situation as analytically and dispassionately as possible, and adjust accordingly.
Best wishes for much success!
I've addressed much of this in previous responses, so I won't repeat, but there are a few things I'm going to reply to:
I just responded in the other thread that I taped myself last night after posting, and saw the following changes
First set of numbers is mid feb, second is yesterday:
Bust: 41 40
Chest 36 34.5
Waist 38 35
hips 43 42
biceps 13 (both) 13 (Both)
So there IS progress here, but I'm not yet familiar enough to know how to really translate that. I'm going to research.
I have a bunch of apps, but not a weight trend one, so I'm going to look into that.
....Still not doing a C25k. I understand the benefits, but..... I'm just not.
This is a really really large difference in inches for no weight loss. For me, three inches off the waist, two off the chest, and one off the hips represented about twenty or more pounds. Since your biceps aren’t enlarging (would like to see a thigh measurement) it doesn’t sound like you could be increasing muscle enough to explain it. I would be dubious about the accuracy of the measurements. In any case, having lost between one and two clothing sizes, have you noticed that you need new clothes?4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »
On another thread, you say you've gone but down from 224 to 184, and are around there now. You also mention elsewhere that your runs are actually walk/run intervals.IDeserveBetter wrote: »So, here is the issue.
Since December 2017 I've lost 40 pounds.
Major progress.
But that does include a period of gaining most back and losing it again, so ups and downs related to life circumstances.
Now, I'm plateaued.
I thought that going from distance walking to running, thus raising my heart rate would solve that issue. I'm doing some pretty serious running, you guys. ten miles at about a 13 minute pace yesterday. Is not panning out weight loss wise. I'm also at a loss as to further improving my fitness level according to the Fitbit app
<Images snipped, for length>
You're struggling, IMO, because of several issues:
* Having started at about your weight, I'm also skeptical about your exercise calories. On the thread over in the Fitness forum, someone gave you the estimating formula for net calories from walking and running. Use that**. However, I see that you have your Fitbit synched, which should (maybe) be giving you a more sensible calorie adjustment. You can use the formula for a gut check, but recognize that the Fitbit adjustment covers more than the run.
(**For others reading, the formulas are weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles for running; weight in pounds x 0.30 x distance in miles for walking.)
* Others have pointed out that it appears you're not using a food scale, using "servings", using what looks like generic entries from the database, etc. Tightening that up is a high-potential-benefit route. The first tens of pounds come off with less precision; as you get lighter, better precision can be helpful.
* You mention (in the other thread?) that you've recently begun running (vs. walking) and that you're adding strength training. Any new exercise, especially strength exercise, can temporarily add water weight, and mask fat loss on the scale for a couple/few weeks. Perhaps that's part of the current picture for you.
It pretty much is gospel. But, if calorie counting is the weight loss strategy being used, accuracy is important.Despite seeing major improvement on the running aspect with times and endurance, I'm still fluxuating between the same four pounds......for the last ten weeks or so. Having said that, my resting pulse is lower than it has ever been.
I think I know why, but I over think things.
1: I'm not allowing myself enough rest. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around exercise more and eat less isn't gospel.
Adequate rest is also important, though. If you get over-fatigued, it tends to reduce daily life activity (we rest more, do less vigorous things in work/chores, maybe even sleep more) which reduces calories burned in daily life, effectively wiping out some of the exercise calories. (Your Fitbit might not catch all of this effect, but should catch most.) Also, rest is important for performance in exercise (muscle recovery as well as energy level; well-managed rest and recovery is vital to fitness improvement.
Huh? No.2: I realize that the huge deficits I'm recording (my food recording is very accurate. I'm very practiced and suuuper careful with it. How I lost 40 pounds) may not exist. I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record
The "fat burning zone" is a myth (from a calorie-counting standpoint: it matters for endurance fueling); your body doesn't "get used to an exercise" and burn fewer calories when doing it. In most common exercises (such as walking/running), the efficiency difference between a skilled person and an unskilled one is trivial. And a fit person and unfit person of the same size, running the same distance, burn roughly the same number of calories. It just feels much easier to the fit person, and many heart rate monitors will (inaccurately) estimate a lower calorie burn for the fit person vs. the unfit one. That's one of the many limitations of heart rate as a proxy for calorie burn.
Of course, in any weight-bearing exercise (like walking/running) you burn fewer calories as a lighter person than you did as a heavier one, for the same exercise (same pace, distance, intensity, duration, etc.). Of course, as you get fitter, you can work out harder (higher intensity) for the same amount of time, without incurring an impairing fatigue penalty, and burn more calories that way.
Your Fitbit may or may not accurately estimate your workout calories, but the reasons have nothing to do with "reaching your peak", whatever you mean by that.
You don't need to vary your exercise for calorie-burn purposes, for reasons outlined above. Strength training is worth doing (preserves existing muscle while losing weight; adds muscle in the very long run; adds strength in the short run (mainly through neuromuscular adaptation); can help your running pace; strengthens bones to help avoid osteoporosis, which is a major mortality risk and independence factor for we women as we age; and more). Rest is absolutely vital for strength training, and overdoing on an overall basis is counterproductive for weight loss as described above.3: I academically know I need to vary my exercises; I've started incorporating some weight training and I'm about to start yoga, but I'm having a hard time not doubling those days up with cardio instead of giving cardio a break. I'm not internalizing the lesson
Varied exercise modalities are good for fitness, in the sense that they improve different aspects of fitness, of course.
Starvation mode, in that sense, is not a real thing. If it were, no one would ever starve to death, and, sadly, many people worldwide do so every day, and they aren't fat when it happens. It's true that undereating can sap your energy and cause some slowdown, but if you're eating less than you're burning, you'll lose weight.4: I'm unsure if I should be eating less, or more. If the deficits are accurate, eating more may help because of avoiding starvation mode. If they aren't, I may barely have deficits at all. I'm aware muscle weighs more, and I AM seeing tape measure differences, but not big ones.
Have you adjusted your base calorie goal every 10 pounds or so along the way? Unfortunately, the lighter we are, the fewer BMR/NEAT calories we burn, so we may need to adjust to keep weight loss coming.
Beyond adjusting for bodyweight changes, eating more/less is a probably-irrelevant tweak until the bigger and more probable factors are pinned down.I don't really know what I'm asking.
I'm probably going to consult a trainer and a nutritionist for more educated insight.
Pictures included for posterity:
Really good muscle gain for even a young woman under perfect circumstances would be a quarter pound a week (and perfect circumstances would include a calorie surplus). If new to exercise and strength training, you can maybe, possibly gain a bit of muscle mass in calorie deficit with an good progressive weight training program done diligently, but it's very unlikely to achieve that quarter pound a week rate. In contrast, losing a quarter pound of fat a week would be such a slow rate of weight loss that one probably wouldn't notice it in less than a month or two, even with a weight-trending app and daily weigh-ins for the app to work with.
As far as fitness improvement, it's inherently a slow process. You've seen some fast gains initially (like resting heart rate improvement), but it slows down. Patience and persistence are essential.
In your other thread, you mention not being very good with "one size fits all" plans like C25K. It's a really good thing for us to know our own inclinations and work with them rather than fight them . . . but those kinds of plans really are the way to make the best fitness progress. Something like one of the Hal Higdon running plans suitable to your goals (or a good one from another source), and a weight training program from the thread below would be your best bet if maximum fitness progress is the most important goal, vs. doing things in a way that's more congenial/pleasurable for your personality. That tradeoff is totally your call, of course.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/
Your best route at this point, IMO and IME, is to
1. Tighten up your logging (food scale for a while, at least - great use of $20 or thereabouts, and quicker than cups/spoons once you learn the tricks);
2. Gut-check your exercise calories with the estimating formula given;
3. Make sure your intake level is right for your current body weight;
4. Get a weight trend app (Happy Scale for iOS, Libra for Android, Trendweight, etc.) if you don't have one;
5. Start the strength training for long-run fitness benefits rather than weight loss per se;
6. Consider running and weight training programs if fitness improvement is a vital goal, vs. DIY preference.
You can get past this plateau, and make progress, if you look at the situation as analytically and dispassionately as possible, and adjust accordingly.
Best wishes for much success!
I've addressed much of this in previous responses, so I won't repeat, but there are a few things I'm going to reply to:
I just responded in the other thread that I taped myself last night after posting, and saw the following changes
First set of numbers is mid feb, second is yesterday:
Bust: 41 40
Chest 36 34.5
Waist 38 35
hips 43 42
biceps 13 (both) 13 (Both)
So there IS progress here, but I'm not yet familiar enough to know how to really translate that. I'm going to research.
I have a bunch of apps, but not a weight trend one, so I'm going to look into that.
....Still not doing a C25k. I understand the benefits, but..... I'm just not.
This is a really really large difference in inches for no weight loss. For me, three inches off the waist, two off the chest, and one off the hips represented about twenty or more pounds. Since your biceps aren’t enlarging (would like to see a thigh measurement) it doesn’t sound like you could be increasing muscle enough to explain it. I would be dubious about the accuracy of the measurements. In any case, having lost between one and two clothing sizes, have you noticed that you need new clothes?
Yes.
My clothes from last summer are falling off and a picture comparison shows differences2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions