Somebody help me wrap my head around this.
Replies
-
ExistingFish wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Is your husband as concerned about all this as you are? Why isn’t he starting his own thread to get input and advice?
He uses MFP but has never been active in the forums.
But is he even concerned about his progress or is this just something that is bugging you for whatever reason? Are you reading him all these responses?
Yes, he is concerned. He brought it up (constantly) which is why I was asking.
I have always just assured him it will work with time, but I was starting to feel like a broken record just saying "don't worry, give it more time" over and over.
I have summarized the information, I don't read him the verbatim responses.
You're supporting your husband. That's an excellent thing. It's hard for any of us I think to work and work at it, expecting results consistent with maybe someone else's results. Sometimes it's a case of tweaking caloric intake and sometimes it's just a simple matter of adjusting expectations.
Impatience aside, it sounds from the measurements angle that he's making solid progress. It's easy to point out someone else's progress, but it's hard to see it in ourselves at times.6 -
DanSanthomes wrote: »
Not sure this is 100% correct. I ran it through the UK (NHS) BMI calculator and the upper weight for a guy with those measurements is roughly 170lbs.CICO works to a certain point. 5'10" 195 is pretty low for an adult man. It could be that he is already at an optimal weight for his constitution. The fact that he has lost inches speaks volumes.
FWIW - I'm half an inch shorter but weigh 168lbs, have a fair bit of muscle but STILL have a bit of belly fat.
My maintenance is approx 1950-2000 a day (I weigh and log everything and have for over 2 years). I'm doing an infinitely slow recomp myself which means I've set my cals to 1700 (and now more recently 1600) per day but I eat 100% of what must be vastly over estimated exercise calories. I've lost 5lbs since beginning of May. (I'll be going back up to 1700 once my holidays are over).
If I'm honest, it sounds like he's doing an almost perfect (but slow) recomp. Maybe give it another month - if he's still recording the same changes then just be more patient. He could end up with body/fitness levels better than he'd hoped for.
Good luck.
OK. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the weight part. My BF is 5'11" (179cm) 198 and wears a S/M. I never knew the weight/size stats for any of my other BFs, so I used him as my measuring stick. Now that I think about it, his BFP is usually around 2% so maybe that's why he looks so small.
With that said, I stand by the statement that he may have reached the optimal weight for his constitution. I think once you reach a certain weight range, BFP is more important than BMI.19 -
DanSanthomes wrote: »
Not sure this is 100% correct. I ran it through the UK (NHS) BMI calculator and the upper weight for a guy with those measurements is roughly 170lbs.CICO works to a certain point. 5'10" 195 is pretty low for an adult man. It could be that he is already at an optimal weight for his constitution. The fact that he has lost inches speaks volumes.
FWIW - I'm half an inch shorter but weigh 168lbs, have a fair bit of muscle but STILL have a bit of belly fat.
My maintenance is approx 1950-2000 a day (I weigh and log everything and have for over 2 years). I'm doing an infinitely slow recomp myself which means I've set my cals to 1700 (and now more recently 1600) per day but I eat 100% of what must be vastly over estimated exercise calories. I've lost 5lbs since beginning of May. (I'll be going back up to 1700 once my holidays are over).
If I'm honest, it sounds like he's doing an almost perfect (but slow) recomp. Maybe give it another month - if he's still recording the same changes then just be more patient. He could end up with body/fitness levels better than he'd hoped for.
Good luck.
OK. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the weight part. My BF is 5'11" (179cm) 198 and wears a S/M. I never knew the weight/size stats for any of my other BFs, so I used him as my measuring stick. Now that I think about it, his BFP is usually around 2% so maybe that's why he looks so small.
With that said, I stand by the statement that he may have reached the optimal weight for his constitution. I think once you reach a certain weight range, BFP is more important than BMI.
For starters, there is no way he is only 2% BF%, and if he was he would look huge (muscle wise) and be ripped to shreds (more than body builders) at that height, weight, and BF%... in my rofile pic, I estimate I am 11% BF% and am 5'6" 142, so he would be more ripped, and a lot bigger than me, no way he would fit in a s/m, a small is tight on me16 -
DanSanthomes wrote: »
Not sure this is 100% correct. I ran it through the UK (NHS) BMI calculator and the upper weight for a guy with those measurements is roughly 170lbs.CICO works to a certain point. 5'10" 195 is pretty low for an adult man. It could be that he is already at an optimal weight for his constitution. The fact that he has lost inches speaks volumes.
FWIW - I'm half an inch shorter but weigh 168lbs, have a fair bit of muscle but STILL have a bit of belly fat.
My maintenance is approx 1950-2000 a day (I weigh and log everything and have for over 2 years). I'm doing an infinitely slow recomp myself which means I've set my cals to 1700 (and now more recently 1600) per day but I eat 100% of what must be vastly over estimated exercise calories. I've lost 5lbs since beginning of May. (I'll be going back up to 1700 once my holidays are over).
If I'm honest, it sounds like he's doing an almost perfect (but slow) recomp. Maybe give it another month - if he's still recording the same changes then just be more patient. He could end up with body/fitness levels better than he'd hoped for.
Good luck.
OK. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the weight part. My BF is 5'11" (179cm) 198 and wears a S/M. I never knew the weight/size stats for any of my other BFs, so I used him as my measuring stick. Now that I think about it, his BFP is usually around 2% so maybe that's why he looks so small.
With that said, I stand by the statement that he may have reached the optimal weight for his constitution. I think once you reach a certain weight range, BFP is more important than BMI.
He has not. I am glad you recognize your perspective might be skewed.4 -
Has he addressed this issue with his doctor, an endocrinologist, nutritionist, or GI specialist? Slow metabolisms can be due to thyroid issues, medication side effects, imbalances in gut bacteria, and several other problems.
It may be worth investigating.4 -
For his calorie counts is he hitting his calorie goal every day? What does his weekly average look like? Is it possible that a couple of "over" days are impacting his overall CI part of the equation? Also, like you had mentioned maybe it's time to start verifying packaged foods. Maybe a day or two being over goal, and then a small overage caused by unverified package foods could be a culprit. Effectivly making his weight loss .25 a week and not .5.
The other thing is since you mention it's been around 7 weeks of this program, I feel like there are other factors masking the weight loss. A small part is probably newby muscle gains. As you say he is making visible progress. Inches lost, looking better, etc. Another small part is probably water retention from the muscle recovery.
I would say that he should dial in on his package foods. That's a good place to tighten up. Otherwise, give it another month and re-evaluate. If he stays at .25 loss a week, but continues to lose inches, it would be safe to say he is gaining muscle, and to continue the current program. If his physical progress stalls out, and/or weight loss stalls out, maybe it's time to tweak his calorie goal a bit. Say shave off 150-250 calories, or add in an evening walk or something like that.
ETA: It seems to me that it's not any one thing that is causing his weight loss to be slower. With 10-20 lbs to lose and at a goal of .5 lbs a week, there are so many variables that could easily add up to slow down weight loss. A slight overage here & there, mild fatigue impacting NEAT one day, water retention from workout the next, etc etc. It can all add up.5 -
I don't have anything to add to the thoughtful posts about perspective and reasonable possibilities to explain the disparate results between your journey and your husband's. All I am chiming in to say is I also have one of those "inquiring minds wanting to know" and have learned that not all questions that start with "how come ..." can be answered satisfactorily. But I appreciate your wanting to know
2 -
Crafty_camper123 wrote: »For his calorie counts is he hitting his calorie goal every day? What does his weekly average look like? Is it possible that a couple of "over" days are impacting his overall CI part of the equation? Also, like you had mentioned maybe it's time to start verifying packaged foods. Maybe a day or two being over goal, and then a small overage caused by unverified package foods could be a culprit. Effectivly making his weight loss .25 a week and not .5.
The other thing is since you mention it's been around 7 weeks of this program, I feel like there are other factors masking the weight loss. A small part is probably newby muscle gains. As you say he is making visible progress. Inches lost, looking better, etc. Another small part is probably water retention from the muscle recovery.
I would say that he should dial in on his package foods. That's a good place to tighten up. Otherwise, give it another month and re-evaluate. If he stays at .25 loss a week, but continues to lose inches, it would be safe to say he is gaining muscle, and to continue the current program. If his physical progress stalls out, and/or weight loss stalls out, maybe it's time to tweak his calorie goal a bit. Say shave off 150-250 calories, or add in an evening walk or something like that.
ETA: It seems to me that it's not any one thing that is causing his weight loss to be slower. With 10-20 lbs to lose and at a goal of .5 lbs a week, there are so many variables that could easily add up to slow down weight loss. A slight overage here & there, mild fatigue impacting NEAT one day, water retention from workout the next, etc etc. It can all add up.
Thanks. His goal is 2100, if he's burning over 3K a day (if the fitbit is right, or even if it's 10% off and it's 2700) he is at enough of a deficit it doesn't matter. I mentioned it to him and he explained it this way:
Tortillas are sold by full package weight, not by individual weight. If I eat the whole package over a week, I got the number I logged. Variances by the day don't matter, because the whole package is weighed at packing. He eats almost all the Tortillas, he prefers them to bread for sandwiches for lunches.
FWIW, I measured the tortilla I ate last night, it was 42g and should have been 49g, so it could just as easily work the other way.
I think it is just slow going, and a lot of water retention.2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »His goal is 2100, if he's burning over 3K a day (if the fitbit is right, or even if it's 10% off and it's 2700) he is at enough of a deficit it doesn't matter. I mentioned it to him and he explained it this way:
Are you saying he is burning entirely more calories then he is ingesting?
Something seems very off to me.
I think your husband needs to get on the boards, this is feeling like a game of telephone...
7 -
Actually he is not incorrect in terms of the weight of the packages over time (though they still are off by brand by quite a bit, though certain brands seem to have tighter control than others).
And that's an attitude that shows patience and an acceptance of averaging over time!
I think that the question can easily be flipped and shows the peril of comparing to others: we are all discussing how come your husband is losing "so slow" as compared to his "expected" loss. Yet no one is "concerned", or discussing, why you lose "so fast" as compared to your expected, right?
After a lot of looking around I found a PDF of the Mifflin-St. Jeor study which established the resting metabolic rate *estimates* that both MFP and Fitbit use as their basis when it comes to estimating one's daily TDEE: http://healthhappinesslongevity.com/ANewPredictiveEquationForRestingEnergyExpenditureInHealthyIndividuals.pdf
Estimates. Not measurements.
In the graph I see dots that are very close to the predictive line; but more than one or two that are a good 300 Cal away from the predictive line at any given fat free mass! Both up and down. Once you multiply that by the daily activity factor, the TDEE difference for these individuals would easily exceed the 500 Cal mark.
So yes, our individual experiences can vary even with careful logging--though it is always good to be able to establish that the logging IS careful in the first place!
With your husband it has only been a couple of months. There is water weight variation with exercise, it is summer, some inaccuracies and some minimal excess eating maybe--none of which are bad things off and by themselves!
He is making progress! If this whole things is *not* too hard for him, he should continue as is! If it is getting to be too hard, he should ease up so that he can continue to make progress, even if a bit slower.
It doesn't have to get much more complicated than this.
One thing is for sure. If it gets to be too hard and he "gives up", that's when he will regress!8 -
Scanned the pages and didn't see.
Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?
Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.
Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.
And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.2 -
Scanned the pages and didn't see.
Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?
Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.
Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.
And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.
Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.
The fitbit is new, so not that much data.
Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal
Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal
Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal
Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal
Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal
Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal
We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.0 -
He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.2
-
I find it hard to believe, based solely on my experience, that a sedentary day of 8k steps = 3100+ cals. That's a full 1000 calls more than my gain gives me and what my logging/experience suggests.9
-
I find it hard to believe, based solely on my experience, that a sedentary day of 8k steps = 3100+ cals. That's a full 1000 calls more than my gain gives me and what my logging/experience suggests.
Could there be settings on his fitbit that are causing that? AFAIK it's just height and weight which I'm pretty sure he accurately logged.
We determined his 2100 calorie TDEEE goal (not NEAT, thus, he doesn't eat exercise calories. Ironically I do, but maintenance) on https://tdeecalculator.net, which gives him a TDEE of 2550 (light exercise) to 2875 (moderate exercise) and I would call our exercise level moderate (heavy exercise, weights and HIIT for 1.5hr), so I'd assumed 2,800-2,900 would be a good average. That makes 2100 a pretty steep deficit.
Is 3100 that far off from 2875?
He did some work outside in the heat on Saturday (the 3100/8K day) so his heart rate may have been heat elevated.0 -
I find it hard to believe, based solely on my experience, that a sedentary day of 8k steps = 3100+ cals. That's a full 1000 calls more than my gain gives me and what my logging/experience suggests.
And by "Sedentary" I mean no gym, no house work, no excessive work. He's still doing childcare, chores, and "normal life".
And I rescind what I said about sedentary, he apparently takes more steps during the average day than I do.0 -
8k is at the top of lightly active/beginning of active when converted to an activity factor2
-
8k is at the top of lightly active/beginning of active when converted to an activity factor
Yes but a TDEE is an average though, not a daily. It includes 3 days of heavy exercise in the weekly calorie allowance, which is why I'd calculate him at moderately active and not lightly active. If it were soley based on his step level on a "normal" day and not including the intentional exercise, I'd call him lightly active.0 -
ExistingFish wrote: »He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.
So you are saying, he eats 2100 calories and burns 2700 calories? And you don’t see anything troublesome about that?
IMO it’s too aggressive with where his is at...1 -
ExistingFish wrote: »He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.
So you are saying, he eats 2100 calories and burns 2700 calories? And you don’t see anything troublesome about that?
Yes. I do. It makes my head hurt because the math isn't lining up. Which is exactly why I posted this thread, to see if anyone know of any medical conditions that might affect it. It doesn't seem like anything is likely, a thyroid condition would probably be evident in his energy levels. Given his age (29) and no apparent other health issues, I don't think it's a testosterone issue.
We tried lower calories, 300 lower, at 1800 he had no energy and found it difficult to work out, so I don't think fewer calories are sustainable. I mean I guess we could try varying values between 1800 and 2100, but.....
I'm just going to help him stay on top of his weighing and logging, making sure he weighs things and logs them correctly. My assumption is that the margins are tight because he's getting close to his goal, and although he is logging the most likely culprit is failure to log accurately. It is the most likely explanation, given that he appears to be maintaining his deficit. Either the calorie calculation is wrong (which could be slightly, but between TDEE calculation and the fitbit I doubt it is terribly inaccurate) or the calories in calculation is wrong. So I guess it must be the latter.
For calorie-dense foods, a few grams one way or the other each day over the week could be adding up and just making his deficit much lower, and thus his slower gain. Although I haven't seen it, it's the most likely explanation, and with the easiest fix - if he wants to lose faster, he needs to be sure his logs are 100% scale based accurate.
I'm still going to encourage him to see his doctor for a checkup in the near future, and we will continue to work out. I've also encouraged him to set his step goal to 10,000 and try to reach it each day. He's close already, just a little bit more will just give him that extra edge.1
Categories
- 1.5M All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 386.3K Introduce Yourself
- 42.5K Getting Started
- 258.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 174.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.1K Recipes
- 231.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 304 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.3K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152K Motivation and Support
- 7.4K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.1K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 20 News and Announcements
- 502 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions