Gaining weight and eating 1600 calories

13»

Replies

  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    My food logging is accurate, I log everything even a tablespoon of peanut butter! :)
    I am doing FOCUS T25 workout and my watch tracks calories burned. I know the tracker may not be a 100 % accurate but I use it only to track my workouts and that is it.

    The tablespoon part isn’t truly accurate. Use a scale and weigh everything in grams—it is truly eye opening!

    And with your height and weight, it’s really unlikely you’re burning that many calories in that timeframe, no matter how intense. Your burn is probably half that.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Necro thread, OP hasn't been around for a long time.

    @ErinWoy3

    Suggest you start your own thread giving as much context about yourself as possible and opening your food diary would be enormously helpful.
  • csplatt
    csplatt Posts: 1,002 Member
    One question to consider: how do you know that 2 lb is fat? When my deficit is decreased, there’s a tad more food/waste simply in my intestines, etc.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.
  • csplatt
    csplatt Posts: 1,002 Member
    edited March 2021
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,883 Member
    ErinWoy3 wrote: »
    I am so frustrated with my lack of weight loss. My eating is good, I workout 7 days a week. Workouts range from running, walking, weight training and HIIT. I am stuck between 220 and 230 and yoyo throughout the week. I am not new to working out or eating in a healthy way. I get so discouraged and frustrated and wonder why I am even trying.

    Hi Erin!

    I agree with the suggestions to start your own thread, otherwise people will be confused.

    When you do, change your Diary Sharing settings to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited March 2021
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
  • csplatt
    csplatt Posts: 1,002 Member
    edited March 2021
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).

    I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    csplatt wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).

    I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.

    Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)

    I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.
  • csplatt
    csplatt Posts: 1,002 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).

    I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.

    Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)

    I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.


    You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,935 Member
    edited March 2021
    csplatt wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).

    I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.

    Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)

    I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.


    You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.

    The OP was in 2014 too...so now people are just being chatty in an old thread - in general.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    csplatt wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    csplatt wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.

    Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.

    How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).

    I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.

    Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)

    I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.


    You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.

    Yes, should've said so. Apologies! Just chatting on the old thread. It's pretty hard for a woman your/my size to burn even 500 calories in an hour, though of course not impossible. OT gives a really good workout, more balanced than many, time efficient, good calorie burn.

    HRMs get quite a few people thinking they have a higher burn than may be reality, because it's really most accurate with steady state non-strength-y moderate intensity cardio in someone with close to age-estimated HRmax (or tested). The further from that, the iffier the estimate. May be close, or not, only good guess at that is by comparing with maybe-better methods for the particular exercise.

    Maybe surprisingly, METS based estimates, which is what the MFP database uses, can be as good or better than HR for some things, so a good cross-check in those cases.

    Still iffy, though. IMU, MFP's implementation is sub-ideal: Gives gross calories, should have subtracted the calories we'd already burn if just watching TV, but double counts those. Not a big deal, for calorie counting use, except for long-duration, low burn activities, because the overcounting is small in the all-day calorie picture. And METs are a poor way to estimate certain activities, too.

    The electronic devices are too often seen as accurate for calories, better than any other calorie estimating method, because technology. Sadly, it's a common misimpression. (And sort of a pet peeve for me - apologies for using your post as a launching pad for it.)

    The better fitness trackers (i.e. multi-measurement, not just HR) are improving all the time, in part because the algorithms have been enhanced to *not* rely on HR for certain activities, and to individually reality test fitness norms to "learn" an individual user. They're still falling short of fully accurate, and folks don't consider them as a potential source of estimating variance. They should.