Extra cals not working despite patience= hmmmm!
Replies
-
This argument is played out and boring.
This argument thread is now about Star Wars VS. Star Trek.
Storm Troopers against Klingons, who wins?
Stalemate. Neither of them can hit the broad side of a barn with their laser beam thingies. Eventually they'll both just get bored and leave the Neutral Zone.0 -
Siansonea, I know you aren't a fan of exercise at the present, but you may want to engage in some form as you age to minimize decline in RMR. Although exercise is certainly not required to reduce weight, it's quite beneficial in maintaining weight as we age. To illustrate, below is a study that noted a significantly higher RMR in active women across all age groups compared to sedentary individuals. It is important to note that the older active groups had RMRs comparable to that of their younger counterparts. Thus, exercise can prevent decline in RMR and energy expenditure due to aging which would make maintaining body weight more achievable.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/82/10/3208.full?sid=a0421a11-8b3b-4e97-acb1-28dc4a8792f3The differences in RMRadj observed with age in the sedentary and active women in the present study, when viewed over time, may have considerable physiological significance. Using the mean RMRadj values in calories per h for the pre- and postmenopausal women, the net age-related decline in energy expenditure would be approximately 600 Cal/week more in the sedentary compared to the exercising women. Thus, this age-related difference in energy expenditure, if uncompensated completely by a decrease in energy intake, would equate to about a 4 kg/yr greater increase in body weight in the sedentary women.
Oh, I'm spry for an old hag. I always take stairs two at a time. I just get bored stepping on every single one. I mean, why do there have to be so many? Ugh. :grumble:
It also helps that I'm really impatient, so I tend to zip around pretty briskly. I'm not a complete bag of mush. :bigsmile:0 -
Klingons are a type I civilization and Storm Troopers are backed by a type ]I[ galactic civilization. No contest.This argument is played out and boring.
This argument thread is now about Star Wars VS. Star Trek.
Storm Troopers against Klingons, who wins?0 -
V'Ger must join with The Creator now.0
-
This argument is played out and boring.
This argument thread is now about Star Wars VS. Star Trek.
Storm Troopers against Klingons, who wins?
Troopers will win, but the Klingon will die with honor!0 -
V'Ger must join with The Creator now.
Kirk-Unit has the information. V'Ger requires it.0 -
Honor and an empty sack is worth the sack.This argument is played out and boring.
This argument thread is now about Star Wars VS. Star Trek.
Storm Troopers against Klingons, who wins?
Troopers will win, but the Klingon will die with honor!0 -
Hmmm. Isn't this the "diet and weight loss" forum? :huh:
No. This is where you come for an argument.
'No it isn't'. '
'That's not an argument that's just a contradiction'.
'No it isn't'.
etc... apologies to Monty Python :bigsmile:
You're my new best friend. :flowerforyou: :drinker:
That speaks volumes.
glad someone said it0 -
Hmmm. Isn't this the "diet and weight loss" forum? :huh:
No. This is where you come for an argument.
'No it isn't'. '
'That's not an argument that's just a contradiction'.
'No it isn't'.
etc... apologies to Monty Python :bigsmile:
You're my new best friend. :flowerforyou: :drinker:
That speaks volumes.
glad someone said it
Um. Burn? I guess? :drinker:0 -
Hmmm. Isn't this the "diet and weight loss" forum? :huh:
No. This is where you come for an argument.
'No it isn't'. '
'That's not an argument that's just a contradiction'.
'No it isn't'.
etc... apologies to Monty Python :bigsmile:
You're my new best friend. :flowerforyou: :drinker:
That speaks volumes.
glad someone said it
Um. Burn? I guess? :drinker:
You don't seem to be making a lot of fans here.
I can drink to that. :laugh:
:drinker:0 -
Hmmm. Isn't this the "diet and weight loss" forum? :huh:
No. This is where you come for an argument.
'No it isn't'. '
'That's not an argument that's just a contradiction'.
'No it isn't'.
etc... apologies to Monty Python :bigsmile:
You're my new best friend. :flowerforyou: :drinker:
That speaks volumes.
glad someone said it
Um. Burn? I guess? :drinker:
You don't seem to be making a lot of fans here.
I can drink to that. :laugh:
:drinker:
I've always gone for quality over quantity, so it suits me fine. :drinker: People who take themselves too seriously are a crashing bore anyways.
0 -
When I think of eating more I think about how much space that food takes up on my plate and how long it takes me to eat it. With that theory you CAN eat more to weigh less. Take a look at this website which shows pictures of 200 calorie foods.
http://www.boredpanda.com/what-200-calories-look-like/0 -
Considering her avatar is Pizzazz, I don't think she really gives a *kitten* if she makes friends.Hmmm. Isn't this the "diet and weight loss" forum? :huh:
No. This is where you come for an argument.
'No it isn't'. '
'That's not an argument that's just a contradiction'.
'No it isn't'.
etc... apologies to Monty Python :bigsmile:
You're my new best friend. :flowerforyou: :drinker:
That speaks volumes.
glad someone said it
Um. Burn? I guess? :drinker:
You don't seem to be making a lot of fans here.
I can drink to that. :laugh:
:drinker:
0 -
Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:
So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.
Just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they have to eat a severely restrictive caloric intake to lose weight....
I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that.
What's been said in this thread is that the OP is not tracking. She is also not losing.
What's more likely? That she's eating too little and has some form of metabolic shutdown, or that she's eating too much and just doesn't realize it?
First thought when you hear hoof beats should be horses, not zebras.
The 'eat more' mantra is in my opinion only valid when you have an accurate history of tracking and you can see chronic, severe and harmful caloric deficit.
^^^^^^^^
^^^ MAKES SNESE ^^^ CHEERS!0 -
Considering her avatar is Pizzazz, I don't think she really gives a *kitten* if she makes friends.
I know. I can totally respect that.0 -
You know those threads where you want to call someone a female dog so badly that you make a post about sometimes wanting to call someone a female dog? This is one of those threads.
I've been called worse. "Succubus" comes to mind. I consider it a compliment. :flowerforyou:0 -
You know those threads where you want to call someone a female dog so badly that you make a post about sometimes wanting to call someone a female dog? This is one of those threads.
There's no need for that. Whether you say it directly or in that cop-out passive-aggressive way that you used. It's not nice - behave yourself.0 -
Let me get this straight...you're eating more so you have a smaller theoretical deficit and therefore less margin for error...you don't weigh or measure anything and rely entirely on visual estimation for doing something that requires a great deal of precision to work...sounds legit.
If you aren't losing then you are not in a calorie deficit. When you "eat more to lose" you have to understand that weight loss would be slower and you have significantly less margin for estimation error...a deficit of 250 - 500 calories isn't that large of a deficit and it doesn't take a whole lot of error to wipe it out. You also need to understand that "eat more to lose" is much more about dietary adherence than anything else. You don't magically start losing more weight by eating more food...people just tend to stick to their diets better and therefore tend to have more consistent losses over a long haul than people who crash and then binge and crash and then binge.
Drop your calories down and start weighing and measuring things out.0 -
You know those threads where you want to call someone a female dog so badly that you make a post about sometimes wanting to call someone a female dog? This is one of those threads.
There's no need for that. Whether you say it directly or in that cop-out passive-aggressive way that you used. It's not nice - behave yourself.
While I feel duly chastised, the sentiment still stands. I can't help the way I feel.
Also, I prefer to call it being indirect but to each their own.0 -
You know those threads where you want to call someone a female dog so badly that you make a post about sometimes wanting to call someone a female dog? This is one of those threads.
There's no need for that. Whether you say it directly or in that cop-out passive-aggressive way that you used. It's not nice - behave yourself.
While I feel duly chastised, the sentiment still stands. I can't help the way I feel.
Also, I prefer to call it being indirect but to each their own.
You feeling angry doesn't mean another woman is a *****. That's emotional reasoning. 'I am sad so you are mean,' 'I am frightened so you are scary'. It's just you feeling angry and lashing out which is neither reasonable nor acceptable. You are out of order so first pack it in and second apologise. smh
Ever been called a ***** by a stranger? How did YOU feel.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions