When did you get 'more energy'?

goal06082021

I started feeling like I had more energy when I started exercising regularly. I didn't really change much in terms of what I was eating, just how much, but--shock and surprise--turns out when you start your day by moving your body for half an hour, a body in motion tends to stay in motion.

jenpobble

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your comments.

I think from what you have all said that my deficit is too great. It just feels easier to eat less than find time for more exercise (I do walk my dog at least an hour per day) but I think that's what I need to try to do.

I've also made my food diary public. My settings are to lose 1kg a week (SW 120kg, current 111.7) which is less than 1%. (I'm female, 43, 168cm).

sijomial

But 1kg a week weight loss still needs a huge calorie deficit to (try to) achieve that rate of loss.
Going back to your OP - hoping to feel more energised when you are trying to cut 1,100cal of energy out of your daily diet is very optimistic.

Direction not speed, sustainability not misery and failure.....

kshama2001

jenpobble wrote: »

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your comments.

I think from what you have all said that my deficit is too great. It just feels easier to eat less than find time for more exercise (I do walk my dog at least an hour per day) but I think that's what I need to try to do.

I've also made my food diary public. My settings are to lose 1kg a week (SW 120kg, current 111.7) which is less than 1%. (I'm female, 43, 168cm).

How many miles are you getting during that hour? As I don't know your height, I used mine - 5'6". At my height and your weight, "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" = 368 calories and "Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace" = 279 calories.

Are you eating back your walking calories?

Walking with my mom can be as bad as walking with some dogs - she stops a lot to look at things. (Seasonally, she sniffs as well! Right now Sweet Pepper Bush is in bloom.) So I use my pedometer. Yesterday she was out for a walk for 90 minutes but covered 2 miles. Since she has a 3 minute mile, she would enter 40 minutes for "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" in the exercise diary.

AnnPT77

jenpobble wrote: »

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your comments.

I think from what you have all said that my deficit is too great. It just feels easier to eat less than find time for more exercise (I do walk my dog at least an hour per day) but I think that's what I need to try to do.

I've also made my food diary public. My settings are to lose 1kg a week (SW 120kg, current 111.7) which is less than 1%. (I'm female, 43, 168cm).

It looks like just the last few of recent days are logged (that's not a criticism, just a statement that I don't have much recent diary there to comment on).

In those few days, you're a little under your goals for fat and protein, but not by extremely far. (Some people find those filling; some find them important for energy.)

But the main thing: You're eating hundreds of calories under your goal calories most of those days. Your goal - if you set up MFP per instructions - is a number to hit close to (little high, little low, no big deal), not a number to beat by hundreds of calories.

It looks like your goal may have been 1700 to start on Saturday. It looks like you have a device synched. The exercise calories don't seem particularly high for the lifestyle you describe, though it's hard to tell . . . and there are some issues with the Apple calorie adjustment, for some.

At your goal of 1700, on Saturday you logged 1388 calories (when your goal with exercise calories was 2069), Sunday 1209 (of 1860), Monday (which looks like it may be a full day, not sure since it's still Monday here; and looks like you might have increased your target loss rate or manually decreased your goal?) 1194 of 1200 with no exercise adjustment.)

When I do an estimate at Sailrabbit (https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/), the estimates for your BMR (basal metabolic rate, the amount you'd burn in a coma, just by being alive, immobile) are around 1800. There's not a hard and fast rule not to eat below BMR, but maybe sort of a caution flag, as a sign to give it a think whether your goal is too aggressive. (Oversimplifying, the higher the total all-source physical and psychological stress in your life, the more likely that you should avoid the added physical stress of trying to lose really fast.)

Please, at least eat up near (over/under) your calorie goal. If you're hungry and fatigued, I'd strongly suggest eating at least your estimated BMR for a while. Your daily life, including the dog-walks, burn calories too, so you'd still expect to lose weight, probably around half a kg a week, which is a fine loss rate. There's no need to target the fastest possible rate, especially if it's unsustainable. On top of that, low energy is a sign that you're probably burning fewer calories from daily life activity than you could if you weren't dragging, so the reduction in loss rate from eating more might not be as major as you'd think.

Eat more. Give it a week to see if you feel better. Let us know how you're doing.

If you see a small scale jump when you bump calories up a bit, don't let that worry you: It isn't fat, it's just adjustments in water weight and digestive contents from the added food. Fat is what you're trying to lose (I presume), so don't worry about weight bobbles that are about water or waste in transit.

Hang in there. You can do this. It always takes a little figuring out!

jenpobble

kshama2001 wrote: »

How many miles are you getting during that hour? As I don't know your height, I used mine - 5'6". At my height and your weight, "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" = 368 calories and "Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace" = 279 calories.

Are you eating back your walking calories?

Walking with my mom can be as bad as walking with some dogs - she stops a lot to look at things. (Seasonally, she sniffs as well! Right now Sweet Pepper Bush is in bloom.) So I use my pedometer. Yesterday she was out for a walk for 90 minutes but covered 2 miles. Since she has a 3 minute mile, she would enter 40 minutes for "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" in the exercise diary.

I'm 168cm which is about 5ft6 so your guess was perfect! The distance we cover varies a lot, sometimes there is a lot of stop & sniff, sometimes less so! I wear my apple watch so my step count is adjusted for. I don't add the time manually.

jenpobble

AnnPT77 wrote: »

It looks like just the last few of recent days are logged (that's not a criticism, just a statement that I don't have much recent diary there to comment on).

In those few days, you're a little under your goals for fat and protein, but not by extremely far. (Some people find those filling; some find them important for energy.)

It looks like your goal may have been 1700 to start on Saturday. It looks like you have a device synched. The exercise calories don't seem particularly high for the lifestyle you describe, though it's hard to tell . . . and there are some issues with the Apple calorie adjustment, for some.

At your goal of 1700, on Saturday you logged 1388 calories (when your goal with exercise calories was 2069), Sunday 1209 (of 1860), Monday (which looks like it may be a full day, not sure since it's still Monday here; and looks like you might have increased your target loss rate or manually decreased your goal?) 1194 of 1200 with no exercise adjustment.)

When I do an estimate at Sailrabbit (https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/), the estimates for your BMR (basal metabolic rate, the amount you'd burn in a coma, just by being alive, immobile) are around 1800. There's not a hard and fast rule not to eat below BMR, but maybe sort of a caution flag, as a sign to give it a think whether your goal is too aggressive. (Oversimplifying, the higher the total all-source physical and psychological stress in your life, the more likely that you should avoid the added physical stress of trying to lose really fast.)

Thanks for the detailed reply. My target is 1200 according to what MFP calculated - I had put it up to 1700 manually while I was on my period (I need to eat more then or I am miserable) but then I was ill and not tracking for while and neglected to adjust it back down.

I wear an apple watch although I am forgetful about putting it on, especially if I am around the house. I know that many people say they overestimate calories so I am cautious about eating back. So on the Saturday you describe I did an hours pilates class and walked 17k steps, which is a more active day for me. It would be half that on a desk day.

AnnPT77

jenpobble wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

It looks like just the last few of recent days are logged (that's not a criticism, just a statement that I don't have much recent diary there to comment on).

In those few days, you're a little under your goals for fat and protein, but not by extremely far. (Some people find those filling; some find them important for energy.)

It looks like your goal may have been 1700 to start on Saturday. It looks like you have a device synched. The exercise calories don't seem particularly high for the lifestyle you describe, though it's hard to tell . . . and there are some issues with the Apple calorie adjustment, for some.

At your goal of 1700, on Saturday you logged 1388 calories (when your goal with exercise calories was 2069), Sunday 1209 (of 1860), Monday (which looks like it may be a full day, not sure since it's still Monday here; and looks like you might have increased your target loss rate or manually decreased your goal?) 1194 of 1200 with no exercise adjustment.)

When I do an estimate at Sailrabbit (https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/), the estimates for your BMR (basal metabolic rate, the amount you'd burn in a coma, just by being alive, immobile) are around 1800. There's not a hard and fast rule not to eat below BMR, but maybe sort of a caution flag, as a sign to give it a think whether your goal is too aggressive. (Oversimplifying, the higher the total all-source physical and psychological stress in your life, the more likely that you should avoid the added physical stress of trying to lose really fast.)

Thanks for the detailed reply. My target is 1200 according to what MFP calculated - I had put it up to 1700 manually while I was on my period (I need to eat more then or I am miserable) but then I was ill and not tracking for while and neglected to adjust it back down.

I wear an apple watch although I am forgetful about putting it on, especially if I am around the house. I know that many people say they overestimate calories so I am cautious about eating back. So on the Saturday you describe I did an hours pilates class and walked 17k steps, which is a more active day for me. It would be half that on a desk day.

They can overestimate . . . but they can also underestimate. The bigger deal with the Apple to MFP synch is that Apple doesn't send the data to MFP in the form MFP expects, so the results can be off. (Can be better to synch Apple to the Pacer app, and Pacer to MFP, I've been told . . . but I'm not an Apple gal.)

That number of calories for an hour of Pilates plus 17k steps doesn't seem crazy to me, really.

In most cases, I'd suggest that people believe their tracker until they accumulate enough personal logging experience data to disbelieve it. A good brand/model tracker is going to be reasonably close for a lot of people, a little off for a few more, and way off for a fairly rare few, IMO.

And I don't know why everyone worries that they can overestimate calories, but no one worries they can underestimate and cause undereating . . . because they can do that, too . . . also not very common that it's by lots. (Mine underestimates by lots - same brand/model that works well for others here, reportedly. But so does MFP underestimate, for me, and by about the same amount. Both of those things are rare, and it's unsurprising that both err in the same direction by about the same amount.)