So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?
Replies
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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).
Um wow. :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: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.
Yup ^ I think people should just leave the thread alone now, she's doing well, but for the wrong assumed reasons, her errors are cancelling out, and she doesn't want to hear about it. End result is she's doing fine, so its all good.0 -
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.
I was reading some reviews on fitbit type devices and came across this nice little gem.
Both pics are from the same person who was writing a review on several activity trackers. They wore them both at the same time, input the same data etc. I thought it was pretty interesting. I would hope that any reasonable person would assume that there is a bit of inaccuracy to the device because its made for the masses and not each specific individual however the disparity between theses two devices is pretty large. Large enough for me to re-consider getting one.
The pic on the left is the Fitbit flex. Shows over 6000 steps and estimated 1900 cals burned.
The pic on the right is the Nike Fuelband and shows 4300+ steps and only 673 cals burned. A HUGE disparity.
The reviewer specifically stated that her biggest concern for all of the fitbit products (not just the flex) "is tracking accuracy. I feel they greatly overcompensate when it comes to step count, calories burned, and distance. This makes it really hard for me to recommend it over other offerings I feel are far more accurate."
On the plus side the reviewer did state that on the plus side the Fitbit did come in a variety of colors and is pretty fashionable. So even if its not accurate, you will still look great wearing it and accessorizing
http://www.imore.com/ultimate-fitness-tracker-comparison-fitbit-flex-vs-jawbone-up24-vs-nike-fuelband-se-vs-garmin
For the full review on those and other items, I found it there ^^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!
Every time I post something about this moderators warn me and tell me that they will ban me, apparently it's okay to brag about eating +3500 calories a day as if eating like a pig is not an eating disorder but if I say I eat below my BMR I am promoting eating disorders and I will be banned.
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).
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:0 -
Every time I post something about this moderators warn me and tell me that they will ban me, apparently it's okay to brag about eating +3500 calories a day as if eating like a pig is not an eating disorder but if I say I eat below my BMR I am promoting eating disorders and I will be banned.
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).
Why would eating 3,500 calories make one a pig or label them as having an eating disorder? There are people on here with high enough activity levels where they need in excess of 3,000 calories just to simply maintain weight. I need about 3,100 just to hold 185 lbs and I don't even do any cardio...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.
Yup ^ I think people should just leave the thread alone now, she's doing well, but for the wrong assumed reasons, her errors are cancelling out, and she doesn't want to hear about it. End result is she's doing fine, so its all good.
Except that she continues to insist that she did it the "wrong" way and didn't suffer any of the "bad stuff". I personally believe that is a very dangerous message. Sure, the facts eventually support that this isn't how she did it, but on the surface, this thread starts with that position and...as long as OP continues to keep reiterating the previously-debunked "facts"...appears to end with that erroneous position too.0 -
Every time I post something about this moderators warn me and tell me that they will ban me, apparently it's okay to brag about eating +3500 calories a day as if eating like a pig is not an eating disorder but if I say I eat below my BMR I am promoting eating disorders and I will be banned.
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).
Why would eating 3,500 calories make one a pig or label them as having an eating disorder? There are people on here with high enough activity levels where they need in excess of 3,000 calories just to simply maintain weight. I need about 3,100 just to hold 185 lbs and I don't even do any cardio...
Oink Oink0 -
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.
I was reading some reviews on fitbit type devices and came across this nice little gem.
Both pics are from the same person who was writing a review on several activity trackers. They wore them both at the same time, input the same data etc. I thought it was pretty interesting. I would hope that any reasonable person would assume that there is a bit of inaccuracy to the device because its made for the masses and not each specific individual however the disparity between theses two devices is pretty large. Large enough for me to re-consider getting one.
The pic on the left is the Fitbit flex. Shows over 6000 steps and estimated 1900 cals burned.
The pic on the right is the Nike Fuelband and shows 4300+ steps and only 673 cals burned. A HUGE disparity.
The reviewer specifically stated that her biggest concern for all of the fitbit products (not just the flex) "is tracking accuracy. I feel they greatly overcompensate when it comes to step count, calories burned, and distance. This makes it really hard for me to recommend it over other offerings I feel are far more accurate."
On the plus side the reviewer did state that on the plus side the Fitbit did come in a variety of colors and is pretty fashionable. So even if its not accurate, you will still look great wearing it and accessorizing
http://www.imore.com/ultimate-fitness-tracker-comparison-fitbit-flex-vs-jawbone-up24-vs-nike-fuelband-se-vs-garmin
For the full review on those and other items, I found it there ^^
I haven't read the article to confirm, but perhaps the Nike product is measuring additional calories beyond BMR (or more accurately, beyond TDEE less exercise) and the fitbit is including calories burned in total?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.
Yup ^ I think people should just leave the thread alone now, she's doing well, but for the wrong assumed reasons, her errors are cancelling out, and she doesn't want to hear about it. End result is she's doing fine, so its all good.
Except that she continues to insist that she did it the "wrong" way and didn't suffer any of the "bad stuff". I personally believe that is a very dangerous message. Sure, the facts eventually support that this isn't how she did it, but on the surface, this thread starts with that position and...as long as OP continues to keep reiterating the previously-debunked "facts"...appears to end with that erroneous position too.
Even if you just pay attention to this thread, there are still people commenting who obviously haven't read the entire thread and probably have no idea that the OP unarguably has errors in her logging and isn't actually eating a VLCD. How many "lurkers" just read the first post and move on? How many will think it's okay? We will never know.0 -
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:
She called me a pig too! But wait, I checked her profile, she must not have because that would be judgmental and rude, and she doesn't do that: "I'm done accepting requests from guys. Also had to make my diary "friends only" because some of you people are too judgmental and rude "0 -
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:
She called me a pig too! But wait, I checked her profile, she must not have because that would be judgmental and rude, and she doesn't do that: "I'm done accepting requests from guys. Also had to make my diary "friends only" because some of you people are too judgmental and rude "
whom are we talking about? OP? I glanced over the thread and she seems fine?0 -
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:
She called me a pig too! But wait, I checked her profile, she must not have because that would be judgmental and rude, and she doesn't do that: "I'm done accepting requests from guys. Also had to make my diary "friends only" because some of you people are too judgmental and rude "
whom are we talking about? OP? I glanced over the thread and she seems fine?
Not the OP. Some hangry chic 1 page back.0 -
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:
She called me a pig too! But wait, I checked her profile, she must not have because that would be judgmental and rude, and she doesn't do that: "I'm done accepting requests from guys. Also had to make my diary "friends only" because some of you people are too judgmental and rude "
Since most who would eat at 3500 calories are guys, I'm going to assume she's just being misandric after her obvious bad experience from having befriended guys here.0 -
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.
I was reading some reviews on fitbit type devices and came across this nice little gem.
Both pics are from the same person who was writing a review on several activity trackers. They wore them both at the same time, input the same data etc. I thought it was pretty interesting. I would hope that any reasonable person would assume that there is a bit of inaccuracy to the device because its made for the masses and not each specific individual however the disparity between theses two devices is pretty large. Large enough for me to re-consider getting one.
The pic on the left is the Fitbit flex. Shows over 6000 steps and estimated 1900 cals burned.
The pic on the right is the Nike Fuelband and shows 4300+ steps and only 673 cals burned. A HUGE disparity.
The reviewer specifically stated that her biggest concern for all of the fitbit products (not just the flex) "is tracking accuracy. I feel they greatly overcompensate when it comes to step count, calories burned, and distance. This makes it really hard for me to recommend it over other offerings I feel are far more accurate."
On the plus side the reviewer did state that on the plus side the Fitbit did come in a variety of colors and is pretty fashionable. So even if its not accurate, you will still look great wearing it and accessorizing
http://www.imore.com/ultimate-fitness-tracker-comparison-fitbit-flex-vs-jawbone-up24-vs-nike-fuelband-se-vs-garmin
For the full review on those and other items, I found it there ^^
Nice find illustrating why I don't like using them at all. Way too many error sources to be reliable info. I've personally had one record huge amounts when I did next to nothing in effort, and another one record next to nothing when I hiked a tough mountain. After that I tossed out the idea of using them.
*Edited to say I'm also losing at a very reasonable weight, eating 3,500 cals and more many days for a year and a half, while burning sometimes less than our 120 lb OP who "eats less than 1,000 daily" and took no calories NET in today while still working out. Man I must be inefficient!! Or maybe I'm the mutant? 0 -
Didn't read the thread only the OP.
I did weight watchers when I started. I lost 20lbs in 6 months, then slowed down because I was already healthy. It's always been easy. I was eating well, kept healthy. Current loss: 24 lbs, biggest lost 28 lbs. Been doing this for over 3 years.
I had some mental hiccups like the need to sabotage but I am so much better now, I eventually solved that too.
Yeah, so it's not all hell for everybody.
To add to this, I'm not special. I dieted all my life, but it was a different approach I took that made it easy- to eat real food and to be satisfied plus work on any habits that don't support healthy living.0 -
Yeah, the Nike is showing a time of well past noon. No one has only burned 673 calories well past noon, taking BMR and activity into account. So it's apples and oranges. (The Nike is supposed to be estimating 'fuel points' rather than calories, too, I read.)I haven't read the article to confirm, but perhaps the Nike product is measuring additional calories beyond BMR (or more accurately, beyond TDEE less exercise) and the fitbit is including calories burned in total?
Jof- I'm not trying to bolster my own position. I think she's said repeatedly that she doesn't include her Fitbit adjustment. I can see overestimating exercise and underestimating intake (we all do both, to some extent) but over 1000/day seems like a lot of error.
I can understand backing out a deficit from weight loss results but when people post "I'm netting under 1000, is that ok?", no one asks what their observed results are, thereby taking into account their own measurement error. So it seems like a convenient double standard. Forward looking, what matters is your own measurements. Backward looking, what matters is your results.0 -
Did you just say that I eat like a pig and have an eating disorder?
:huh:
She called me a pig too! But wait, I checked her profile, she must not have because that would be judgmental and rude, and she doesn't do that: "I'm done accepting requests from guys. Also had to make my diary "friends only" because some of you people are too judgmental and rude "
Since most who would eat at 3500 calories are guys, I'm going to assume she's just being misandric after her obvious bad experience from having befriended guys here.
I sure did have a bad experience with many guys messaging me here asking for nudes LOL how pathetic.
Anyway, I did not mean to insult anyone so I apologize. I was being too harsh with my words, however, I am still in the same stance as I was before. Saying how much you eat and binge on food is okay here but letting others know how little you eat means that you'll be banned soon because you are promoting eating disorders.
Sure low calorie eating habits aren't for everyone, but just because I am doing it and don't have any issues, doesn't mean I don't belong here and should not post. That's it0 -
Yeah, the Nike is showing a time of well past noon. No one has only burned 673 calories well past noon, taking BMR and activity into account. So it's apples and oranges. (The Nike is supposed to be estimating 'fuel points' rather than calories, too, I read.)I haven't read the article to confirm, but perhaps the Nike product is measuring additional calories beyond BMR (or more accurately, beyond TDEE less exercise) and the fitbit is including calories burned in total?
Jof- I'm not trying to bolster my own position. I think she's said repeatedly that she doesn't include her Fitbit adjustment. I can see overestimating exercise and underestimating intake (we all do both, to some extent) but over 1000/day seems like a lot of error.
I can understand backing out a deficit from weight loss results but when people post "I'm netting under 1000, is that ok?", no one asks what their observed results are, thereby taking into account their own measurement error. So it seems like a convenient double standard. Forward looking, what matters is your own measurements. Backward looking, what matters is your results.
Right, so if you look backwards at her data, she would have lost far more weight than she did if her numbers for burn were correct. So how can we get her to look backwards?
I remember looking at her data and fitbit was logged in her exercise, so no it is over estimated and included, at least when I looked and did a relational comparison of exercises to try to help.
*Edit I think I see what you assume with the "past noon" comment, but it all depends on the accuracy of the device, your objection only shows its not accurate. For others on accuracy of the nike fuel here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/825789-nike-fuel-band-is-it-accurate0 -
Another thought:
This case is probably evidence of why people THINK they are making reasonable assumptions for moderate weight loss and not getting results. The OP claims to track things with reasonable accuracy, uses an exercise monitor, etc. And while the results indicate a moderate/sustainble caloric deficit, the claim is of a "very low to negative" calorie intake.
Imagine someone who is even less diligent - they must think they are consuming 1400 cals net while really it's close to 2000.
As for 3500 calories in a day making you a pig. Pfff. That was the measured work done over a 6 hour bike ride for me last Sunday. Followed by a short easy ride in the evening to prevent cramping. I didn't eat the whole thing, but I assure you the (extremely lean) Tour de France riders are eating 4000+ calories per day.0 -
Yeah, the Nike is showing a time of well past noon. No one has only burned 673 calories well past noon, taking BMR and activity into account. So it's apples and oranges. (The Nike is supposed to be estimating 'fuel points' rather than calories, too, I read.)I haven't read the article to confirm, but perhaps the Nike product is measuring additional calories beyond BMR (or more accurately, beyond TDEE less exercise) and the fitbit is including calories burned in total?
Jof- I'm not trying to bolster my own position. I think she's said repeatedly that she doesn't include her Fitbit adjustment. I can see overestimating exercise and underestimating intake (we all do both, to some extent) but over 1000/day seems like a lot of error.
I can understand backing out a deficit from weight loss results but when people post "I'm netting under 1000, is that ok?", no one asks what their observed results are, thereby taking into account their own measurement error. So it seems like a convenient double standard. Forward looking, what matters is your own measurements. Backward looking, what matters is your results.
It is a lot of error. That's my point. Which is why the originally stated theory is simply not supported by the facts. And yet still today, that is exactly what is still being propagated by OP. That's the source of my frustration...huge error in facts, but maintaining original position.
Double standard? Not me. I have preached using observed results as an indication of true deficit for the entirety of my three years here. And I'm not just a preacher of it, but I'm a parishioner too. So no, it isn't a double standard of mine.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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