You reared your ugly face
Replies
-
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
personally i ignore exercise calories completely, they are a bonus0 -
So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:
I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though
Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.
Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but ]to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?
You are right, you do have to eat less than you burn to eat more.
However, it's your verbal choice that was condescending, not the concept you were trying to get across 0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
personally i ignore exercise calories completely, they are a bonus
Not if you use the MFP method, because MFP has already built in your calorie deficit based on how much you want to lose each week. You are suppose to NET the calories provided by MFP.
If you use the TDEE method minus a percentage, then you do not eat exercise calories back because there really is not deficit built in prior to your exercise.
Exercise calories fuel your body.0 -
So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode
write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck
Are you in a mood, or are you always this miserable?0 -
So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:
I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though
Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.
Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but ]to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?
You are right, you do have to eat less than you burn to eat more.
However, it's your verbal choice that was condescending, not the concept you were trying to get across
I'm well aware that I'm a harpy. And? :huh:
People place far too much importance on being "nice". That's like setting your alarm clock on the easy listening station. It's really not going to wake you up as effectively as a screeching klaxon. And with all the sweet, kind, supportive, BAD advice around here, it just doesn't seem very effective to sing the same lullaby as everyone else. :smokin:0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
personally i ignore exercise calories completely, they are a bonus
Not if you use the MFP method, because MFP has already built in your calorie deficit based on how much you want to lose each week. You are suppose to NET the calories provided by MFP.
If you use the TDEE method minus a percentage, then you do not eat exercise calories back because there really is not deficit built in prior to your exercise.
Exercise calories fuel your body.
So does FAT. :bigsmile:0 -
From looking at your diary, I would say your sodium intake on some days is between 3000 and and over 4000 mg. I would aim to decrease sodium to 1500 - 2000 mg per day.
THIS X1000.
Bear in mind, you don't HAVE to lower your sodium, because if you're retaining water it's just water and no big deal assuming you're not hypertensive. BUT I personally find it very very helpful to keep my sodium both 1) low, in the range the user above posted and 2) as steady as I can possibly manage. Waterweight is so freaking demotivating because it does make it impossible to trust the scale, especially when you're losing fat slowly-ish.0 -
So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:
I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though
Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.
Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but ]to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?
You are right, you do have to eat less than you burn to eat more.
However, it's your verbal choice that was condescending, not the concept you were trying to get across
I'm well aware that I'm a harpy. And? :huh:
People place far too much importance on being "nice". That's like setting your alarm clock on the easy listening station. It's really not going to wake you up as effectively as a screeching klaxon. And with all the sweet, kind, supportive, BAD advice around here, it just doesn't seem very effective to sing the same lullaby as everyone else. :smokin:
You're a delight.0 -
Weight bearing exercises are your friend. Pick up some heavy things or just do body weight exercises (pushups, lunges etc.).
Muscle your way off that plateau.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.0 -
.0
-
So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode
write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck
Are you in a mood, or are you always this miserable?
Couldn't be happier thanks, in fact if you want a good laugh read the whole thread and wonder at all the logical sound advice given0 -
So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:
I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though
Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.
Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but ]to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?
You are right, you do have to eat less than you burn to eat more.
However, it's your verbal choice that was condescending, not the concept you were trying to get across
I'm well aware that I'm a harpy. And? :huh:
People place far too much importance on being "nice". That's like setting your alarm clock on the easy listening station. It's really not going to wake you up as effectively as a screeching klaxon. And with all the sweet, kind, supportive, BAD advice around here, it just doesn't seem very effective to sing the same lullaby as everyone else. :smokin:
This is all I've got for you...... :bigsmile: 0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.0 -
I just eat at a calorie deficit and any exercise is a bonus, i don't need to follow guidelines it is rather dull to be honest, some people really are anal about it all and good luck to them but there is some serious over thinking going on here
If people had looked at the op's ticker from the start a lot of their very helpful advice could have been avoided from the start0 -
If people had looked at the op's ticker from the start a lot of their very helpful advice could have been avoided from the start
Well, the OP asked for advice, ticker or no ticker.0 -
If people had looked at the op's ticker from the start a lot of their very helpful advice could have been avoided from the start
Well, the OP asked for advice, ticker or no ticker.
I presume she may have wanted good advice though not the usual clap trap straight from the mythical dieters handbook0 -
If people had looked at the op's ticker from the start a lot of their very helpful advice could have been avoided from the start
Well, the OP asked for advice, ticker or no ticker.
I presume she may have wanted good advice though not the usual clap trap straight from the mythical dieters handbook
Oh brother. Your advice is not better than anyone else's.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.0 -
"Exercise calories fuel your body. "
What is an exercise calorie? A calorie is a unit of measure. Calories aren't dated. Wouldn't it be nice if they expired, though? Not nice for the human race from a survival standpoint in times of famine, I guess.
I know we need food today to have energy today but I don't really think our caloric deficit has to be limited to our NEAT, which seems to be MFP's plan (at least when people interpret it as 'eat BMR plus exercise').
I know the argument is 'your deficit is built in' excluding exercise. But say my BMR is 1400 and I'm sedentary and want to lose 1.5 lbs/week because I'm 25 lbs. overweight. MFP is going to do 1400*1.2 (or some small multiplier) = 1680 TDEE without exercise, so you my friend can only have a 480 calorie per day deficit, since you have to eat 1200. I want 750 deficit, though, so I walk 3 miles a day to up my TDEE to 1950. I don't think at a 480 calorie deficit per day, I HAVE TO eat back those 300 calories. If I had put in that I was active because I walk 3 miles a day, it would also tell me to eat 1200 and there'd be no 'eating back' because those 3 miles would be NEAT calories, not 'exercise' calories. What's the difference, except under one method I'd eat at a smaller deficit than I wanted on some days?
No, I don't eat 1200 but I don't think there's anything wrong with it for many people.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.0 -
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
I don't have a dog in your fight, but I did a little reading in the peer-reviewed literature last summer on the accuracy of heart rate monitors. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.
As you note, results are the best way to calibrate an HRM. I have a Timex and two Garmin HRMs, one of them an Edge 800 bike computer that also takes into account the terrain over which I'm riding. The Garmin Edge 800 is pretty accurate, based on comparing its estimates with my food diary and weight loss. The ForeRunner 410 tends to overestimate calories by about 30%. The Timex overestimates by over 50%.0 -
So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode
write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck
The correct one was eat less. OP, I know you said you plateaued when you were eating 1600 calories/day, but you're getting between 1800 and 1900 now and stalled. You obviously need to eat less.
Just a shot in the dark here-- but do you have a "cheat day" once a week? There's nothing wrong with it-- but if you've already got a moderate or marginal calorie deficit, it's easy as pie (literally) to wipe it out by going over on your calorie limit once in awhile.
I ask because I notice you tend to have partially filled-out diary entries on weekends, which is what I always do when I decide to say 'screw it' for a day, lmao.0 -
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
I don't have a dog in your fight, but I did a little reading in the peer-reviewed literature last summer on the accuracy of heart rate monitors. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.
As you note, results are the best way to calibrate an HRM. I have a Timex and two Garmin HRMs, one of them an Edge 800 bike computer that also takes into account the terrain over which I'm riding. The Garmin Edge 800 is pretty accurate, based on comparing its estimates with my food diary and weight loss. The ForeRunner 410 tends to overestimate calories by about 30%. The Timex overestimates by over 50%.
Thanks for sharing this information. I really appreciate it.
There is no fight going on, I just get irritated when people exhibit "superior" attitudes. We are all here to learn.
I'm not saying all HRMs of a certain brand are accurate, as you have just demonstrated, I am just saying mine must be fairly accurate because of my results. I eat 99 percent of my exercise calories back, therefore if my HRM was inaccurate I would see different results.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.
FFS. It's not that the HRM that you have is accurate. It's that it is accurate for you.0 -
I have been about 197 for the last month...my body fat percentage went from 36.6% to 36.5%.
IMO you are significantly under-estimating your BF %. This in turn would likely mean overestimating BMR and TDEE, by as much as 400 calories.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.
FFS. It's not that the HRM that you have is accurate. It's that it is accurate for you.
Blah. Splitting hairs. Thanks for the clarification. . 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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