Help please! I'm a beginner at all of this..
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »OP read the stickied most helpful posts (many linked here), get a food scale, log accurately, use reasonable estimates of your activity level, any purposeful exercise above and beyond should be logged and calories eaten back, and be patient.
This is the best advice I can offer.
QFT.1 -
I'm fairly new so I remember what it was like (started May 2018), but I've also learned quite a bit. So, here's what helped me:
[...]
- Watch the macronutrients. It's not helping if your diet has a super high percentage of carbohydrates, or is otherwise unbalanced. Sugar is a big one. It took several months of adjusting to reduce that. Even then, it's not unusual to completely blow the daily sugar goal - it doesn't take much since so many foods have so much sugar.
Most of your post is decent advice, but this bit is unnecessary. Unless the OP has a medical reason to limit her sugar or carbs it's not a big deal, especially when starting out. Many people here have lost weight - and kept it off - with a high carb diet because that's what they prefer.
She needs to get a handle on how many calories she's actually eating first, with a food scale, then she can think about maybe replacing some sugary foods with something else if she wants to.3 -
I’m 5’10”. There is no way I could lose at 2100 calories a day. And you really need a food scale.
In my experience, it takes about 3 weeks of reduced calories to get my head understanding tha5 I don’t need to Ana k at night and I’m really not hungry, just nibbly. I found that was the worst habit to break and the easiest way to fall off the healthy eating wagon.
Perhaps try eating more at breakfast.... I find steel cut oats really stick with me. And if I’m hungry I drink a glass of water first. Then wait 15 minutes before I have something to eat. Usually by then I do t want food.
And yes. Bigger meals might help! Super large salads with low cal eg help me a lot to feel fuller. Hard boiled eggs work too.2 -
Get the food scale.
Wish I could be a fly on the wall when you see how much food actually weighs. I know my eyes bugged right out of my head. 😨1 -
I'm fairly new so I remember what it was like (started May 2018), but I've also learned quite a bit. So, here's what helped me:
[...]
- Watch the macronutrients. It's not helping if your diet has a super high percentage of carbohydrates, or is otherwise unbalanced. Sugar is a big one. It took several months of adjusting to reduce that. Even then, it's not unusual to completely blow the daily sugar goal - it doesn't take much since so many foods have so much sugar.
Most of your post is decent advice, but this bit is unnecessary. Unless the OP has a medical reason to limit her sugar or carbs it's not a big deal, especially when starting out. Many people here have lost weight - and kept it off - with a high carb diet because that's what they prefer.
She needs to get a handle on how many calories she's actually eating first, with a food scale, then she can think about maybe replacing some sugary foods with something else if she wants to.
Maybe, although balancing the macros seems to be what the basic MFP goals are based on. It can be too easy to just track total calories, and carbohydrates are so pervasive that I find they tend to dominate if I'm not careful. Unless you're on a special diet, a good starting point seems to be the basic MFP macro ratio and seeing how that works.
I'm not sure about letting the sugar intake go, especially sucrose and other added, simple sugars. I do agree that for someone just starting out it's hard to stay under the sugar goals - that one can be harder than the others. Eating too much sugar is also widely demonized, which adds extra "guilt" when trying to limit it. Like anything else, blowing the goal when starting out shouldn't be a cause to quit, it just focuses where to try harder if your weight goal is not being met.
2 -
glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.glovepuppet wrote: »glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.
10k steps puts her in a pretty active category. Without knowing for sure it should create about a 750 calorie deficit over the course of 7 days for 1.5 pound of loss per week. Without a food scale, of course, it would be hard to verify her actual calories.
With 10k steps, isn't the average burn nearer 500cals?
Both the calorie intake needs and the calories burned from walking will vary with the person's size.
If the NHS is quoting 2000 calories to maintain, they're talking about an "average" woman. The average woman is probably somewhere around 5'4"-5'6". OP is 5'9", and she's still somewhat heavier than average. Therefore, her calorie needs (for any given weight management goal) are likely to be higher than average.
And steps burn calories by moving one's body weight through space, which is work in the physics sense of "work". Since OP is tall and has weight to lose, her calorie burn for X number of steps will be greater than it would be for a shorter, lighter person.
Some of way to succeed at the weight management process is personalizing many aspects of the process, including the numbers.
It looks like MPF uses the Mifflin St Jeor equation to calculate basal metabolism rate. That takes height, weight, age and gender into account.
I'm not convinced that a taller person burns significantly more calories per step. An easy beginner mistake is to assume they're so different from the averages that they're burning more calories, and then counting on that to eat more. MFP goes into some detail about how input from walking factors into the lifestyle selection - for example, a sedentary lifestyle assumes 5000 steps, so you don't get many extra calories until you exceed that.1 -
I'm fairly new so I remember what it was like (started May 2018), but I've also learned quite a bit. So, here's what helped me:
[...]
- Watch the macronutrients. It's not helping if your diet has a super high percentage of carbohydrates, or is otherwise unbalanced. Sugar is a big one. It took several months of adjusting to reduce that. Even then, it's not unusual to completely blow the daily sugar goal - it doesn't take much since so many foods have so much sugar.
Most of your post is decent advice, but this bit is unnecessary. Unless the OP has a medical reason to limit her sugar or carbs it's not a big deal, especially when starting out. Many people here have lost weight - and kept it off - with a high carb diet because that's what they prefer.
She needs to get a handle on how many calories she's actually eating first, with a food scale, then she can think about maybe replacing some sugary foods with something else if she wants to.
Maybe, although balancing the macros seems to be what the basic MFP goals are based on. It can be too easy to just track total calories, and carbohydrates are so pervasive that I find they tend to dominate if I'm not careful. Unless you're on a special diet, a good starting point seems to be the basic MFP macro ratio and seeing how that works.
I'm not sure about letting the sugar intake go, especially sucrose and other added, simple sugars. I do agree that for someone just starting out it's hard to stay under the sugar goals - that one can be harder than the others. Eating too much sugar is also widely demonized, which adds extra "guilt" when trying to limit it. Like anything else, blowing the goal when starting out shouldn't be a cause to quit, it just focuses where to try harder if your weight goal is not being met.
But calories are king when it comes to achieving weight goals. Certain macro splits can be important with satiety as well as managing certain health conditions, and certainly a minimum of protein and fat are important, but even if carb intake is high that doesn’t preclude weight loss.
5 -
glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.glovepuppet wrote: »glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.
10k steps puts her in a pretty active category. Without knowing for sure it should create about a 750 calorie deficit over the course of 7 days for 1.5 pound of loss per week. Without a food scale, of course, it would be hard to verify her actual calories.
With 10k steps, isn't the average burn nearer 500cals?
Both the calorie intake needs and the calories burned from walking will vary with the person's size.
If the NHS is quoting 2000 calories to maintain, they're talking about an "average" woman. The average woman is probably somewhere around 5'4"-5'6". OP is 5'9", and she's still somewhat heavier than average. Therefore, her calorie needs (for any given weight management goal) are likely to be higher than average.
And steps burn calories by moving one's body weight through space, which is work in the physics sense of "work". Since OP is tall and has weight to lose, her calorie burn for X number of steps will be greater than it would be for a shorter, lighter person.
Some of way to succeed at the weight management process is personalizing many aspects of the process, including the numbers.
It looks like MPF uses the Mifflin St Jeor equation to calculate basal metabolism rate. That takes height, weight, age and gender into account.
I'm not convinced that a taller person burns significantly more calories per step. An easy beginner mistake is to assume they're so different from the averages that they're burning more calories, and then counting on that to eat more. MFP goes into some detail about how input from walking factors into the lifestyle selection - for example, a sedentary lifestyle assumes 5000 steps, so you don't get many extra calories until you exceed that.
The OP is taller and heavier so it is more work.
This is getting off track though. Tracking intake accurately is more important than the calorie goal right now. Calorie goals can be adjusted so it is not worth debating.2 -
glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.glovepuppet wrote: »glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.
10k steps puts her in a pretty active category. Without knowing for sure it should create about a 750 calorie deficit over the course of 7 days for 1.5 pound of loss per week. Without a food scale, of course, it would be hard to verify her actual calories.
With 10k steps, isn't the average burn nearer 500cals?
Both the calorie intake needs and the calories burned from walking will vary with the person's size.
If the NHS is quoting 2000 calories to maintain, they're talking about an "average" woman. The average woman is probably somewhere around 5'4"-5'6". OP is 5'9", and she's still somewhat heavier than average. Therefore, her calorie needs (for any given weight management goal) are likely to be higher than average.
And steps burn calories by moving one's body weight through space, which is work in the physics sense of "work". Since OP is tall and has weight to lose, her calorie burn for X number of steps will be greater than it would be for a shorter, lighter person.
Some of way to succeed at the weight management process is personalizing many aspects of the process, including the numbers.
It looks like MPF uses the Mifflin St Jeor equation to calculate basal metabolism rate. That takes height, weight, age and gender into account.
I'm not convinced that a taller person burns significantly more calories per step. An easy beginner mistake is to assume they're so different from the averages that they're burning more calories, and then counting on that to eat more. MFP goes into some detail about how input from walking factors into the lifestyle selection - for example, a sedentary lifestyle assumes 5000 steps, so you don't get many extra calories until you exceed that.
The daily activity level settings are also effectively scaled to the person's demographics, because they are multipliers of the person's estimated BMR, which, as you point out, is estimated with height, weight, age and gender as inputs.
And MFP uses METS-based methods for estimating exercise calories. Those are also scaled to a person's weight.
A taller individual person doesn't necessarily burn more calories than a shorter individual person, per step . . . at the same bodyweight for each. But taller people tend to be bigger than shorter people, so on average tall people burn more calories walking X distance than shorter people.
It just makes more sense, to me, to start with sound research-based estimates, not with other people's individual experiences (or worse, guesses), which vary all over the place . . . and I think people at the extremes (not average) are more likely to comment.
Common advice here is to start with the MFP estimate, use it for 4-6 weeks, then adjust based on actual personal results. I think that's good advice, since we have no idea in advance whether an individual's calorie needs will be higher than average, average, or lower than average. The 4-6 week experiment helps them figure that out. And starting with a research-based estimate (that is the average of large numbers of similar people) is a good place to start that experiment.
And I say that as someone for whom the MFP estimate turned out to be quite, quite wrong: Way too low. (Some will find it too high, many/most will find it reasonably close to accurate. That's the nature of statistical estimates.)
3 -
I won't repeat the excellent tips you've already gotten, but will just add further "food for thought" :-)
--Consider taking the "Kaizen" approach--take tiny steps that you know you can easily succeed at; turn them into habits; gradually increase the size of the steps; repeat until you have a solid new habit. I highly recommend the book "One Small Step Can Change Your Life" by psychologist Robert Maurer. Sounds like hyperbole, but that book truly has changed my life, not just in the weight loss department, but other areas of my life where I was stuck.
--Try replacing overeating/comfort food with something you are excited about. For me, starting to get my fiction writing mojo back has replaced food as a major source of satisfaction. Is there anything you've been wanting to change (relationship, career, following a dream, etc.)? If so, try to work on that, and see if overeating fades. (See Robert Maurer's book above if you need courage or help getting unstuck.)
--Another thing that really helped me is instead of worrying what NOT to eat, focus on what TO eat. I knew I wasn't getting enough protein, fiber, or potassium, so I tried to hit those daily goals instead of focusing on calories. It's really hard to eat lots of junk (which I used to do) when you're trying to cram in the right amount of healthy nutrients.
__I still eat way too much sugar; that's my downfall. I know that will be the hardest thing for me to tackle so I'm not worrying about it til I get further along. Again, don't expect to suddenly undo years or decades of bad habits all at once.
--Don't get discouraged when you overeat. That's to be expected along the journey. Consider the fact that it takes on average 7 serious attempts for a smoker to quit smoking. Just start again.
--Remember you can always get support and guidance here in these forums!2 -
poisonesse wrote: »I'm 5'8", I started my journey at 213 pounds, my caloric goal was 1200. Since the only exercise I think you're doing is walking to get those 10K steps, you're overeating. DO invest in a food scale, because believe me, you have no idea how much you're really eating until you start weighing it!!! Then just give it time, stick to the plan, and let us know how much you've lost.
This seems very unlikely regardless of age. Unless you were using some other method than My Fitness Pal to calculate. I agree with others who say why start so low? That's a little absurd.9 -
seltzermint555 wrote: »poisonesse wrote: »I'm 5'8", I started my journey at 213 pounds, my caloric goal was 1200. Since the only exercise I think you're doing is walking to get those 10K steps, you're overeating. DO invest in a food scale, because believe me, you have no idea how much you're really eating until you start weighing it!!! Then just give it time, stick to the plan, and let us know how much you've lost.
This seems very unlikely regardless of age. Unless you were using some other method than My Fitness Pal to calculate. I agree with others who say why start so low? That's a little absurd.
Agree and just want to add: poor advice for newbies.4 -
glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.glovepuppet wrote: »glovepuppet wrote: »
That seems high. Are you really tall? NHS recommendations are 2000 calories per day for women.
One of the top reasons people here don't lose at first is that they fail to weigh what they're eating. It's a good investment.
10k steps puts her in a pretty active category. Without knowing for sure it should create about a 750 calorie deficit over the course of 7 days for 1.5 pound of loss per week. Without a food scale, of course, it would be hard to verify her actual calories.
With 10k steps, isn't the average burn nearer 500cals?
Both the calorie intake needs and the calories burned from walking will vary with the person's size.
If the NHS is quoting 2000 calories to maintain, they're talking about an "average" woman. The average woman is probably somewhere around 5'4"-5'6". OP is 5'9", and she's still somewhat heavier than average. Therefore, her calorie needs (for any given weight management goal) are likely to be higher than average.
And steps burn calories by moving one's body weight through space, which is work in the physics sense of "work". Since OP is tall and has weight to lose, her calorie burn for X number of steps will be greater than it would be for a shorter, lighter person.
Some of way to succeed at the weight management process is personalizing many aspects of the process, including the numbers.
It looks like MPF uses the Mifflin St Jeor equation to calculate basal metabolism rate. That takes height, weight, age and gender into account.
I'm not convinced that a taller person burns significantly more calories per step. An easy beginner mistake is to assume they're so different from the averages that they're burning more calories, and then counting on that to eat more. MFP goes into some detail about how input from walking factors into the lifestyle selection - for example, a sedentary lifestyle assumes 5000 steps, so you don't get many extra calories until you exceed that.
The daily activity level settings are also effectively scaled to the person's demographics, because they are multipliers of the person's estimated BMR, which, as you point out, is estimated with height, weight, age and gender as inputs.
And MFP uses METS-based methods for estimating exercise calories. Those are also scaled to a person's weight.
A taller individual person doesn't necessarily burn more calories than a shorter individual person, per step . . . at the same bodyweight for each. But taller people tend to be bigger than shorter people, so on average tall people burn more calories walking X distance than shorter people.
It just makes more sense, to me, to start with sound research-based estimates, not with other people's individual experiences (or worse, guesses), which vary all over the place . . . and I think people at the extremes (not average) are more likely to comment.
Common advice here is to start with the MFP estimate, use it for 4-6 weeks, then adjust based on actual personal results. I think that's good advice, since we have no idea in advance whether an individual's calorie needs will be higher than average, average, or lower than average. The 4-6 week experiment helps them figure that out. And starting with a research-based estimate (that is the average of large numbers of similar people) is a good place to start that experiment.
And I say that as someone for whom the MFP estimate turned out to be quite, quite wrong: Way too low. (Some will find it too high, many/most will find it reasonably close to accurate. That's the nature of statistical estimates.)
Nice summary - definitely good advice!3 -
Hi I just started Myfitnesspal on 7/24 and have lost 6.5 pounds. I am 5'9" and weighed 210.4 pounds when I started logging. You are welcome to look at my diary and see if looking at what am doing helps you. In short I walk 10 miles almost every day (25000 steps) and on average eat 1600 calories or less.1
-
I find it helpful to have goals other than the scale to measure my progress.
I lose weight slowly, doesn't bother me much as it's about re-establishing better habits and an active lifestyle.
The scale fluctuates a lot, but if I have lost an inch that will not re-appear a week later.
Measurements, how clothes fit, some fitness goals, all help with motivation as they show progress.0 -
Track food accurately will help immensely, I also joined a meal service (hello fresh) to help me eat healthy meals at dinner time.0
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