Some friends who won't like my under-calorie status?
nutellabrah
Posts: 543
Whenever I report my status for having a calorie deficit, invariably a few well meaning friends will like my status.
Like on a day where my goal is 3730 cals and I only hit like 2500 cals.
FACEPALM!!!
Its "diet bias"
I feel a victim of it too when my calorie tracker at the bottom doesn't show my weight to go properly because it just assumes everyone is losing weight by default. Its broken if you try to show weight you need to gain.
And even if it were to work its worded as needing to lose -15lbs lol.
Like on a day where my goal is 3730 cals and I only hit like 2500 cals.
FACEPALM!!!
Its "diet bias"
I feel a victim of it too when my calorie tracker at the bottom doesn't show my weight to go properly because it just assumes everyone is losing weight by default. Its broken if you try to show weight you need to gain.
And even if it were to work its worded as needing to lose -15lbs lol.
0
Replies
-
tsk tsk. weight says nothing about body composition0
-
people "like" my status when it automatically says YAY YOU"VE BEEN HERE FOR 5 DAYS IN A ROW.
I log in way more than that- it just resets it all the time. whatever - it is what it is.
totally irrelevant. it means nothing. Just eat more ice cream.0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*0
-
totally irrelevant. it means nothing. Just eat more ice cream.
Ice cream means everything!! *eats more ice cream*0 -
I am trying to lose weight, but I never like anyone's under goal status.
I REALLY REALLY wish MFP would change it to something like a "was within 5% of goal" status.
In the meantime, I just never close out my diary. If I do, you can bet I have a had a rough day and just really need to have a way of saying to myself "That's it, you can't have any more. Your diary is closed. Go to bed."0 -
Yeah I wish they would change it too. It shouldn't be congratulating people for being under goal.0
-
I do sometimes like under goal statuses, but I check diaries first. Don't want to be inadvertently supporting someone to eat 800 calories or anything0
-
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 8000 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
Yup skerdoodles!!! Makes me wanna poke my eyes out sometimes...0 -
I do sometimes like under goal statuses, but I check diaries first. Don't want to be inadvertently supporting someone to eat 800 calories or anything
And when you check out the diary and you see that everything was either measured with measuring cups or estimated... I cut them some slack then too.0 -
Same here.I do sometimes like under goal statuses, but I check diaries first. Don't want to be inadvertently supporting someone to eat 800 calories or anything0 -
Just to play the devil's advocate....
I usually leave some calories on the table to make up for overestimating exercise and underestimating food. And, of course, I have days when I'm way over.0 -
I don't really know how you would even notice that.0
-
This times a million!!I REALLY REALLY wish MFP would change it to something like a "was within 5% of goal" status.
OR a goal "range" so we have two numbers and can aim for somewhere in between, this way I don't have to be under or over...I can be just right.0 -
Whenever I report my status for having a calorie deficit, invariably a few well meaning friends will like my status.
Like on a day where my goal is 3730 cals and I only hit like 2500 cals.
FACEPALM!!!
Its "diet bias"
I feel a victim of it too when my calorie tracker at the bottom doesn't show my weight to go properly because it just assumes everyone is losing weight by default. Its broken if you try to show weight you need to gain.
And even if it were to work its worded as needing to lose -15lbs lol.
yeah i find theres not much support on here for gainers at all!0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
*facepalm*0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
*double handed facepalm*0 -
Your facepalming doesn't indicate knowledge, hon.0
-
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?0 -
I don't really know how you would even notice that.
Yeah, I don't really care. People like my status when it says I'm under my calorie goal all the time even though I've been in maintenance for a long time, and now I'm trying to gain a bit. It doesn't matter. I've got so many friends, and they do too, they don't know who's doing what ,they're just trying to be supportive. I don't worry about it. It's not all me.0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?
I would try to explain it to her but apparently my facepalming disqualifies me as being intelligent enough to. Plus. I ain't got time for this. I gotta go eat more ice cream.0 -
Yeah you do, if you're doing it the MFP way rather than TDEE. 800 calories net is not enough, it isn't about eating as little calories as possible and working as much of it off as possible, otherwise we could all just stop eating and we would magially look like fitness models. Food is a very important part of the equation.I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.0 -
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?
I would try to explain it to her but apparently my facepalming disqualifies me as being intelligent enough to. Plus. I ain't got time for this. I gotta go eat more ice cream.
Intelligence isn't measured only by knowledge, either. My statement made no assumptions about your intellect. Please don't take disagreement as a personal attack.
The vast majority of people on here (from what I've observed) underestimate the amount of calories they consume, and overestimate their exercise caloric expenditure. The site itself overestimates exercise expenditures. Encouraging users to "eat their deficit" for those trying to drop weight is counterproductive, particularly given the parameters I have observed.
I'm sure for those who accurately track and weigh and measure their foods, and also who track their expenditures accurately, being aware of the deficit helps monitor their additional needs if they are trying to maintain, cut, or especially bulk. But that said, you're not going to "erase" having eaten a 2500 calorie meal laden with trans-fats by running long enough to burn 2500 calories. What I object to is the mentality that leads to, where one can "trade" eating for exercise.
I'll ETA for those who apparently overlooked that I also disapprove of such a low net calorie goal to begin with.0 -
The example you just gave.... So in the unlikely event of me burning off about the same amount of food I ate that day, that's OK in your opinion? It's not really any different to sitting around all day but eating nothing. Neither I would recommend. But then I like to keep my muscles while cutting, and actually put on weight while bulking
ETA: yeah you said that, but then completely contradicted it with everything else got said0 -
Of course not. I also eat/exercise to preserve muscle while burning fat. Point is, it's unlikely, as you said, to burn off all one's daily calories UNLESS one is eating too few to being with ANYWAY. For where it's possible, I agree it's a bad idea. But I also doubt most MFP users are capable of doing that, or would want to, unless they're using mfp to aid their food/health disorder, which (it should go without saying) isn't the point of the tool or of my posts.0
-
I especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?
I would try to explain it to her but apparently my facepalming disqualifies me as being intelligent enough to. Plus. I ain't got time for this. I gotta go eat more ice cream.
Intelligence isn't measured only by knowledge, either. My statement made no assumptions about your intellect. Please don't take disagreement as a personal attack.
The vast majority of people on here (from what I've observed) underestimate the amount of calories they consume, and overestimate their exercise caloric expenditure. The site itself overestimates exercise expenditures. Encouraging users to "eat their deficit" for those trying to drop weight is counterproductive, particularly given the parameters I have observed.
I'm sure for those who accurately track and weigh and measure their foods, and also who track their expenditures accurately, being aware of the deficit helps monitor their additional needs if they are trying to maintain, cut, or especially bulk. But that said, you're not going to "erase" having eaten a 2500 calorie meal laden with trans-fats by running long enough to burn 2500 calories. What I object to is the mentality that leads to, where one can "trade" eating for exercise.
I'll ETA for those who apparently overlooked that I also disapprove of such a low net calorie goal to begin with.
No worries. I wasn't offended, just having a little fun. And I did make the comment that when I look at diaries I check to see if someone is estimating their intake and I don't get on them for eating under 1200 calories when it is obvious they are probably eating more than they think they are. Plus I pay attention to their weight loss numbers. If they are eating under goal but only losing a pound a week when they should be losing two, then I know their estimates for intake and outtake aren't as accurate as they could be. But I also don't like it when people get congratulations for being under. Comments like "way to be under" disturb me when someone already has the lowest calorie goal for healthy weight loss. And really we have taken this into a whole different direction than the op intended. This wasn't meant to be another 1200 calories debate thread.0 -
Yep, thisI especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?
I would try to explain it to her but apparently my facepalming disqualifies me as being intelligent enough to. Plus. I ain't got time for this. I gotta go eat more ice cream.
Intelligence isn't measured only by knowledge, either. My statement made no assumptions about your intellect. Please don't take disagreement as a personal attack.
The vast majority of people on here (from what I've observed) underestimate the amount of calories they consume, and overestimate their exercise caloric expenditure. The site itself overestimates exercise expenditures. Encouraging users to "eat their deficit" for those trying to drop weight is counterproductive, particularly given the parameters I have observed.
I'm sure for those who accurately track and weigh and measure their foods, and also who track their expenditures accurately, being aware of the deficit helps monitor their additional needs if they are trying to maintain, cut, or especially bulk. But that said, you're not going to "erase" having eaten a 2500 calorie meal laden with trans-fats by running long enough to burn 2500 calories. What I object to is the mentality that leads to, where one can "trade" eating for exercise.
I'll ETA for those who apparently overlooked that I also disapprove of such a low net calorie goal to begin with.
No worries. I wasn't offended, just having a little fun. And I did make the comment that when I look at diaries I check to see if someone is estimating their intake and I don't get on them for eating under 1200 calories when it is obvious they are probably eating more than they think they are. Plus I pay attention to their weight loss numbers. If they are eating under goal but only losing a pound a week when they should be losing two, then I know their estimates for intake and outtake aren't as accurate as they could be. But I also don't like it when people get congratulations for being under. Comments like "way to be under" disturb me when someone already has the lowest calorie goal for healthy weight loss. And really we have taken this into a whole different direction than the op intended. This wasn't meant to be another 1200 calories debate thread.0 -
Yep, thisI especially find it irritating when someone has a 1200 calorie goal and then they are under goal and people congratulate them for being under.... Like no guys!! What you're doing is wrong!! *facepalm*
Or meet the 1200 then exercise 400 of that away, netting 800
I get the frustration with people severely limiting their intake. I get that. But you don't "exercise" food away. I think that kind of thinking is inaccurate at best, disordered at worst.
ETA: I also have issue with the program encouraging you to "eat your deficit" if you've exercised. You don't automatically eat more if you're active on a given day, if you're attempting to cut.
So.... just how do you believe the whole "calories" thing works anyway?
I would try to explain it to her but apparently my facepalming disqualifies me as being intelligent enough to. Plus. I ain't got time for this. I gotta go eat more ice cream.
Intelligence isn't measured only by knowledge, either. My statement made no assumptions about your intellect. Please don't take disagreement as a personal attack.
The vast majority of people on here (from what I've observed) underestimate the amount of calories they consume, and overestimate their exercise caloric expenditure. The site itself overestimates exercise expenditures. Encouraging users to "eat their deficit" for those trying to drop weight is counterproductive, particularly given the parameters I have observed.
I'm sure for those who accurately track and weigh and measure their foods, and also who track their expenditures accurately, being aware of the deficit helps monitor their additional needs if they are trying to maintain, cut, or especially bulk. But that said, you're not going to "erase" having eaten a 2500 calorie meal laden with trans-fats by running long enough to burn 2500 calories. What I object to is the mentality that leads to, where one can "trade" eating for exercise.
I'll ETA for those who apparently overlooked that I also disapprove of such a low net calorie goal to begin with.
No worries. I wasn't offended, just having a little fun. And I did make the comment that when I look at diaries I check to see if someone is estimating their intake and I don't get on them for eating under 1200 calories when it is obvious they are probably eating more than they think they are. Plus I pay attention to their weight loss numbers. If they are eating under goal but only losing a pound a week when they should be losing two, then I know their estimates for intake and outtake aren't as accurate as they could be. But I also don't like it when people get congratulations for being under. Comments like "way to be under" disturb me when someone already has the lowest calorie goal for healthy weight loss. And really we have taken this into a whole different direction than the op intended. This wasn't meant to be another 1200 calories debate thread.
:red face: So we're all on the same page then. Sorry for the hijack!!!
/hijack0 -
LOL yep pretty much :P0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions