So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?
Options
Replies
-
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.0 -
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.
Which time?0 -
She's predicting -500 to 500 'net calories'. Are you guys saying you think she's off by 800-1300 per day? That's a lot, though I guess not totally impossible.Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.0 -
Why is this thread still going and the Thermodynamic one gone?
This is definitely going in the survey.
Which time?
I took it 1.642 times.
But its popped up about 17 times after that.
So I am not really sure? :ohwell:0 -
BTW, the "cronometer" is a free download and it is interesting to plug in what you eat to see not only macros, but also vitamin and mineral intake.
http://www.cronometer.com
i'm betting that there are no pesky popups if i consume less than 1200 while tracking on the CRonometer thing. Hell, I'm betting there's no annoying warnings if i consistently eat 500 per day while doing 2 hours of elliptical per day while following the CRon plan.
how convenient
No, it subtracts exercise calories from your calories eaten, so it has the same 'net" type effect as MFP. Because MFP is a forum rather than just an app, I think the hosts/moderators feel a responsibility to warn people who may be damaging their health, especially since there are a lot of people in ED recovery posting. I actually find it kind of annoying to get the starvation mode warning if I eat 1195 calories instead of 1200, as if not consuming those 5 calories on one day will kill me. When I first used that term ignorantly in a forum, I was told by a number of posters that "starvation mode" doesn't even exist. I like MFP because it has a wider range of foods, but I like the cronometer because it tracks micros. For instance, today I'm low on vitamin C, protein, and calcium, so I know how I need to plan my eating for the rest of my day and also if I might need to take a supplement if I can't get to those targets.0 -
No, it subtracts exercise calories from your calories eaten, so it has the same 'net" type effect as MFP. Because MFP is a forum rather than just an app, I think the hosts/moderators feel a responsibility to warn people who may be damaging their health, especially since there are a lot of people in ED recovery posting. I actually find it kind of annoying to get the starvation mode warning if I eat 1195 calories instead of 1200, as if not consuming those 5 calories on one day will kill me. When I first used that term ignorantly in a forum, I was told by a number of posters that "starvation mode" doesn't even exist. I like MFP because it has a wider range of foods, but I like the cronometer because it tracks micros. For instance, today I'm low on vitamin C, protein, and calcium, so I know how I need to plan my eating for the rest of my day and also if I might need to take a supplement if I can't get to those targets.
:huh:
You can track micros with MFP, too.0 -
How can you do that? I've only been able to track macros, and not all of them. You have to choose which ones you want displayed. The cronometer displays everything automatically, even vitamins and minerals I've never heard of. Right now, I'm using both MFP and the cronometer. I also like MFP for the community. I made one post on CR and all they sent me was a bunch of text files with their program.0
-
Glad you posted that, I couldn't understand how you got 300 calories/hr. 210 calories for 154lbs is actually lower burn than MFP is giving me: 228 for 150lbs. If I had ever seen Solong be wrong on anything I may have questioned what he said, but I figured there must be a calculator error somewhere. Seems he was right on the 300 being high, thanks!
Hmm, I thought the discussion was about whether 300 must be wrong for the OP's burn, not what MFP gave for that calculation. Don't most people generally prefer HRM or Fitbit or the like, if available? (I know not everyone trusts Fitbit, but it's been remarkably accurate for me.) 300 seems not unreasonable to me for an hour walk (assuming average speed of 3 mph, which is a moderate walking speed, slower than I usually walk personally, and the rough rule of about 100 calories per mile unless one is really large or small). I know it's similar to what Fitbit gives me (I don't log walking ever, so have no clue what MFP would give, but I know it gives me (at 162) slightly above 100 calories per mile for running and that's generally consistent with my Fitbit and my HRM and, most significantly, I generally eat back running calories and haven't experienced lower than expected losses while doing so.
In fact, to follow up I Lift Heavy Acrylic's post, I also have found that MFP does not seem to overestimate certain kinds of workout calories, although I do think it does for others (like the elliptical) and other things--like strength and circuit training--are simply going to have such a wide variation that it seems silly to take any estimate by MFP that seriously. But for cycling calories, for example, MFP estimates lower than MapMyRide, IME. MMR also has a reputation for overestimating, so I checked it with my HRM assuming the result would be way off, and the HRM was pretty similar but higher. I think this is because I (a) often ride with wind that makes the ride harder, not easier, and (b) ride a mountain bike, not a road bike, so these are reasons the actual workout could be harder than MFP says. Thus, if the OP is using a HRM or some such, I don't think walking calories are likely to be the smoking gun.
All that aside, I, like most everyone else, believe that the results and the estimated numbers don't seem to match up and if they did they would suggest that there has been a negative effect on metabolism. Of course, the best way to check this would be for the OP to post her results per month and estimated deficits. We don't really know the precise time period over which she's lost the bulk of her weight currently, I don't think.0 -
She's predicting -500 to 500 'net calories'. Are you guys saying you think she's off by 800-1300 per day? That's a lot, though I guess not totally impossible.Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.
Use today as an example. As of right now...
Calorie goal - 1300
Calories consumed - 1165
Calories burned - 657 (afternoon workout plus Fitbit adjustment)
Net - 508
However... I have about 80 minutes of boot camp at 6 pm following by boxing for another 20 minutes. Even if those two activities burned as little as 300 calories, which they don't... they burn more. That would leave me with a net of 208 for the day assuming I don't eat dinner. Which I will but...
80 minutes of calisthenics on MFP gives me 581 calories burned. I will round that down to 400.
20 minutes of boxing on MFP gives me 181 calories burned. I will round that down to 100.
Still leaves me with a net of 8 (eight) for the day. Say my dinner is around 300 calories. So I end the day with a net of 308 calories.
The information that I have in the diary for what I've eaten today is accurate.0 -
One problem with tracking at least certain micros with MFP is that the underlying nutrition information in the database doesn't have a lot of them (one reason why people tend to fear they are low on potassium when they probably are not). How does the cronometer solve that?
I suppose I could just go look, even though I'm not interested in low calories for longevity as a thing. ;-)0 -
Glad you posted that, I couldn't understand how you got 300 calories/hr. 210 calories for 154lbs is actually lower burn than MFP is giving me: 228 for 150lbs. If I had ever seen Solong be wrong on anything I may have questioned what he said, but I figured there must be a calculator error somewhere. Seems he was right on the 300 being high, thanks!
Hmm, I thought the discussion was about whether 300 must be wrong for the OP's burn, not what MFP gave for that calculation. Don't most people generally prefer HRM or Fitbit or the like, if available? (I know not everyone trusts Fitbit, but it's been remarkably accurate for me.) 300 seems not unreasonable to me for an hour walk (assuming average speed of 3 mph, which is a moderate walking speed, slower than I usually walk personally, and the rough rule of about 100 calories per mile unless one is really large or small). I know it's similar to what Fitbit gives me (I don't log walking ever, so have no clue what MFP would give, but I know it gives me (at 162) slightly above 100 calories per mile for running and that's generally consistent with my Fitbit and my HRM and, most significantly, I generally eat back running calories and haven't experienced lower than expected losses while doing so.
In fact, to follow up I Lift Heavy Acrylic's post, I also have found that MFP does not seem to overestimate certain kinds of workout calories, although I do think it does for others (like the elliptical) and other things--like strength and circuit training--are simply going to have such a wide variation that it seems silly to take any estimate by MFP that seriously. But for cycling calories, for example, MFP estimates lower than MapMyRide, IME. MMR also has a reputation for overestimating, so I checked it with my HRM assuming the result would be way off, and the HRM was pretty similar but higher. I think this is because I (a) often ride with wind that makes the ride harder, not easier, and (b) ride a mountain bike, not a road bike, so these are reasons the actual workout could be harder than MFP says. Thus, if the OP is using a HRM or some such, I don't think walking calories are likely to be the smoking gun.
All that aside, I, like most everyone else, believe that the results and the estimated numbers don't seem to match up and if they did they would suggest that there has been a negative effect on metabolism. Of course, the best way to check this would be for the OP to post her results per month and estimated deficits. We don't really know the precise time period over which she's lost the bulk of her weight currently, I don't think.
Oddly enough... I lost the bulk if not all of my weight before I joined MFP and started tracking my calories! I just ate right (when I was hungry), exercised daily and the weight fell off. I never gave any thought at all to how much I was eating vs. how much I was burning. I am going to just go back to that method and not worry about it anymore.0 -
I'm just here to say that your ticker image is awesome OP...0
-
I'm just here to say that your ticker image is awesome OP...
Haha! Thanks! I love MMA / boxing... talk about huge calorie burns!0 -
I'm just here to say that your ticker image is awesome OP...
Haha! Thanks! I love MMA / boxing... talk about huge calorie burns!
I can kick pretty high but I feel I never get the roundhouse the right way...0 -
A different perspective - proof is in the results.
The undebatable (if unverifiable, we don't weigh each other here) fact is that the OP as lost a significant amount of weight over a period of time.
The OP seems to report being healthy.
Doing the math, It appears that the caloric deficit over this weight-loss period is a reasonable <800 cal/ day.
Those are facts, with cold hard numbers. The rest of the stuff? Estimates subject to large amounts of error. Here are some potential sources:
1. Fitbit accuracy - guess what? it's not an ergometer. It doesn't actually measure the work done, nor your efficiency doing it. It merely estimates your caloric burn (as with any HR monitor). Better than nothing, but still subject to inaccuracy. Better estimates? An ergometer for a rowing machine or bicycle, or a running tracker based on distance and altitude gain. HR is tremendously variable - if you watch a suspense movie it goes up, but you're not really burning 1000 cal/hour. Conversely, depending on conditions, a same intensity (based on speed and a power meter. 2% accuracy) bicycle ride for me can vary up to 25 BPM depending on fatigue, hydration, and temperature. It is a really hard workout to burn 1,000 cal in an hour on a bicycle - you'd need to go about 25 mph solo on a level, windless day on a road bike (160 lb person, but not that much effect since it's not a weight-bearing exercise). MFP fails miserably with their estimates for that, running, or stair climbing (for me,it's about 1/2 of what is stipulated).
2. BMR estimates: I have a naturally low metabolism, so my estimated results were all out of whack. I got tested for actual metabolic rate through an air-exchange analyzer. Bingo - I have low metabolism at rest. Very low heart rate (<45 common, less than 40 when waking up) and low body temperature. So I couldn't lose at the rate predicted because all the models are based on average people.
3. Metabolic changes - yes, for sure. But not through some catastrophic hormonal imbalance - simply lugging 60 lb less every day results in a reduced amount of work to do stuff around.
The scientific method would say that if you have trustworthy results but debatable methodology or assumptions, what needs to be adjusted are the assumptions in order to build a better model. In your case, your estimated caloric balance and reality display a completely different reality. It could be that you're a biological anomaly, or that the model and its assumptions need adjustment. Occam's razor would point that the latter is more likely.0 -
So I am wondering when all the bad stuff that I keep hearing about e.g., ruined metabolism, muscle loss, starvation mode, etc. is supposed to happen? I have been going strong for a year and three months, still solid with a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time. I have not experienced any of the scary stuff people like to talk about. Honestly, I just continue to feel better and stronger with more energy and endurance...
Anyone else experience this? Anyone experience a "Real" crash and burn? Could it be that everyone is just different and some can tolerate and/or even thrive on extreme low calorie and hard work and others can't? I would love to understand this because many folks took great pains in 'warning' me of the dangers. Well, I am in deep waters and there are no dangers as far as the eye can see. Is there a magical time-frame like two years in? I know that a body can take a lot of abuse for a long time before breaking down, but how long exactly? Could it also be true that a body will actually learn to adapt to it's new environment when given no other choice?
I am not being sarcastic here, I really would like to hear some stories and opinions on all of this. And I don't mean opinions or nastiness toward me and please no lectures and no opinions on my own health and nutrition plan.
Just personal experience, personal perspective based on what we have heard, read, etc.
There is so much conflicting information!
I'd love to hear some real life experiences.
Thanks!
But back to your topic, I have been eating below 1200 and I have lost about 26 pounds in about 4 months I think. I wasn't huge to begin with and that's why my loss hasn't been more. I don't feel tired, I workout, I work full time and I am a college student. I do a lot and I'm just as active as my friends who eat +1500 calories, if not more. I don't gain weight if I eat 1400 calories but my stomach has shrunk a lot so I get full quickly (which is not bad at all anyway).0 -
I'm just here to say that your ticker image is awesome OP...
Haha! Thanks! I love MMA / boxing... talk about huge calorie burns!
I can kick pretty high but I feel I never get the roundhouse the right way...
Yes the roundhouse is tough... takes a ton of practice! Remember it's not about kicking high but kicking forward.
My trainer told me to imagine I was in a school bus aisle and I had to lift my leg up first, and then over the seats... that helped my form a lot! Just practice, practice, practice
0 -
I'm just here to say that your ticker image is awesome OP...
Haha! Thanks! I love MMA / boxing... talk about huge calorie burns!
I can kick pretty high but I feel I never get the roundhouse the right way...
Yes the roundhouse is tough... takes a ton of practice! Remember it's not about kicking high but kicking forward.
My trainer told me to imagine I was in a school bus aisle and I had to lift my leg up first, and then over the seats... that helped my form a lot! Just practice, practice, practice
I was thinking of buying a standing bag...do you think its worth it?0 -
She's predicting -500 to 500 'net calories'. Are you guys saying you think she's off by 800-1300 per day? That's a lot, though I guess not totally impossible.Because as it has been said many times throughout this thread, for various obvious reasons, you aren't actually netting what you claim to be netting. And your actual results are further evidence that you are not. I'm struggling to understand how you're struggling to reach this same conclusion.
I'm too lazy to go back and find the data, but she lost X pounds over Y months which results in a calculated net deficit of Z. It's simply irreconcilable with her assertion of "Most days it is under 500, some days it is a negative number."
Also, as was pointed out numerous times, her fitbit activity was double-counted. To continue using the obviously bogus net calculated amount after this not insignificant problem has been identified is disingenuous at best.
I know you really want her story to be true because it supports your consistent position in the forums, but I can't understand how you are so willing to overlook the inconsistencies in the facts and circumstances in this particular case.
Like I said earlier in this thread (but can't find now to quote it...(was it actually mod-nuked?)): OP wasn't experiencing any of the problems commonly associated with eating too little because her actual rate of weight loss indicates she wasn't eating too little. Inconsistent logging, exaggerated burn rates, double-counted exercise, poor recall of frequency be damned, the simple math of the outcome reveals the truth. It may not have been intentional, but she (perhaps accidentally) got it right at least insofar as net calories are concerned.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions