Not sure what I am doing wrong....

FitGuyWillDoIt

if you are going to the gym you will be building muscle which is heavier than the fat you are loosing, so go on looks as well as the scales.

GAH!! Muscle is NOT heavier than fat. A pound of muscle weights exactly the same as a pound of fat. Muscle just takes up less space on your body.

Don't be silly. How could 1 lb of muscle take up less space than 1 lb of fat, unless as a general statement (without knowing weight or volume) muscle was heavier?

The best way to put it is that muscle is denser than fat like iron is denser than jelly. Iron looks better too. This is why an athlete like Randy Moss can weigh 200 lbs. and be lean & ripped at less than 10% bodyfat while an average person can also weigh 200 lbs. and be at 25% bodyfat.

bcattoes

if you are going to the gym you will be building muscle which is heavier than the fat you are loosing, so go on looks as well as the scales.

GAH!! Muscle is NOT heavier than fat. A pound of muscle weights exactly the same as a pound of fat. Muscle just takes up less space on your body.

Don't be silly. How could 1 lb of muscle take up less space than 1 lb of fat, unless as a general statement (without knowing weight or volume) muscle was heavier?

The best way to put it is that muscle is denser than fat like iron is denser than jelly. Iron looks better too :happy:

Why is this better than just not assuming someone is so stupid that they think 1 lb =/= 1 lb and instead assuming that they are talking about same volume of each? IMO assuming people aren't stupid is better.

MacMadame

MFP lies. Not on purpose, of course. But all the figure it gives you are averages and you can't use them as gospel because everyone is different. Just because the screen says "if you ate like this every day in 5 weeks you'd weight X", doesn't mean it's true. The same thing when it claims you burned 150 calories when you only walked a mile. (The net calorie burn of walking is about 50 calories a mile, btw.)

There are so many ways MFP can be off.

First of all, it can be off because it doesn't get your BMR right. The BMR it calculates for you is just an average based on other women your age and weight. But that doesn't mean it's your BMR. Yours could be higher or lower. If it's lower, then the amount of calories MFP things you need to maintain will be too high. So it will not give you enough of a deficit or it will think that the deficit you do have will lead to more weight loss than it does.

Another way it can be off is with the exercise database. I see exercise burns posted in my news feed from MFP that are ridiculously high. I know the database isn't subtracting off your BMR calories which are already accounted for. If you don't subtract them off, then you are counting them twice. This is why a lot of people only eat back half their exercise calories. Or they subtract off 60-100 calories an hour from what their HRM or MFP tells them. (HRMs also don't subtract off your BMR calories.)

It can also be off because of human error. If you don't record every lick, bite or sniff, you could easily be missing 50-200 calories a day. If you don't measure your food, your portion sizes could be bigger than you think. Also, if the package says there is 1 oz of food and that's 200 calories, there could be as much as 18% more than that by law so it could be that you are eating 236 calories. Do that a couple of times a day and it adds up!

You may also have put in too high an activity level when you first set MFP up. This is why a lot of people just put in sedentary and then record anything they do that's out of the ordinary and only if their loses show they need to do that.

What it's not likely to be is gaining muscle -- it's very hard to gain muscle when you eat at a calorie deficit. Some experts say it's impossible. Not sure I agree that it's impossible, but it's definitely hard.

The other thing is, losing 1.2 pounds a week is actually a pretty fast clip. If it was me, I wouldn't want to be losing faster than that because the faster you lose it, the harder your body fights to put it back on once you are in maintenance from what I can see. As an example, in some study of Biggest Lose participants -- people who are losing weight 2-3x faster than that -- they found their metabolisms were much more wrecked by their dieting than typical dieters who lose it slower.

Dawnhasajeep

if you are going to the gym you will be building muscle which is heavier than the fat you are loosing, so go on looks as well as the scales.

GAH!! Muscle is NOT heavier than fat. A pound of muscle weights exactly the same as a pound of fat. Muscle just takes up less space on your body.

Don't be silly. How could 1 lb of muscle take up less space than 1 lb of fat, unless as a general statement (without knowing weight or volume) muscle was heavier?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/279938-5-lbs-of-muscle-vs-5-lbs-of-fat-picture

Well now I'm really confused. Do we have 1 lb or 5 lbs?

Pretty sure the word you're looking for is "denser". 1lb of muscle is DENSER than 1lb of fat. Not heavier.

So, nothing is heavier than something else. Hmm, it's odd that word heavier even exists.

Please do not breed.

fstender

Try changing your diet...I think just because your staying within your calorie goal always isn't very good...I think it does matter what your diet looks like to be the most effective. I challenge you to eat really well this week....no or little sugar, no starchy foods (rice, noodles, bread ect) and watch out...you will be so amazed! I had this problem too..infact i was gaining weight...Then i started the DASH diet...only on day 5 and i can so see a huge different. Also...Get rid of the scale...maybe weigh in twice a month...so much can be a factor with day or week to week weighing...the longer you have in between weighing could be better mentally for you...Just food for thought...( all calorie free...haha) Good luck!

kennethmgreen

Why is this better than just not assuming someone is so stupid that they think 1 lb =/= 1 lb and instead assuming that they are talking about same volume of each? IMO assuming people aren't stupid is better.

I agree that assuming someone is stupid (rather than simply ignoring their casual misuse of terms) may not be the best approach. But I'm not sure feigning ignorance or purposely being difficult over 3-4 posts is the best way to prove that point.

kennethmgreen

I'm guessing most people who are capable of typing likely understand that five pounds = five pounds. Reminding them that five pounds = five pounds probably isn't necessary (despite how cool the muscle and fat pics are). I think most people understand what posters *mean* when they say "muscle weighs more than fat." It may not be technically correct, but we know what they mean. They're using phrases like "weighs more" and "heavier" without context (like volume), or in short hand. Or maybe they are confusing weight and density. But we know what they are trying to say, right?

If the urge to correct someone about muscle and fat is too powerful, we could suggest (as others have already) something like: "because muscle is more dense than fat, given the same amount of space in your body, muscle will weigh more." Or perhaps simply saying "one cubic inch of muscle weighs more than one cubic inch of fat." That's just adding the prefix "one cubic inch of" to both words. We could even start a movement for the prefix, call it OCIO. Then, anytime someone posts "muscle weighs more than fat," someone could post OCIO and move on. Or maybe go the suffix route, appending "given the same volume" - call it GSV. Someone could make T-shirts. Either way, we could link to the FAQ (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/390247-does-muscle-weigh-more-than-fat) and have more time for fun stuff like juggling.

Rhozelyn

Also, with the whole muscle thing, its pretty much physically impossible for a woman to gain more then 1/2 lb a week, without some kind of steroid.

Lol

robot_potato

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

It takes time to get through, but I didn't start losing till I read this and followed it, eating more calories than I thought I should be but following the formula. It works.

This is working really well for me too.

toni119922

if you are going to the gym you will be building muscle which is heavier than the fat you are loosing, so go on looks as well as the scales.

GAH!! Muscle is NOT heavier than fat. A pound of muscle weights exactly the same as a pound of fat. Muscle just takes up less space on your body.

Don't be silly. How could 1 lb of muscle take up less space than 1 lb of fat, unless as a general statement (without knowing weight or volume) muscle was heavier?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/279938-5-lbs-of-muscle-vs-5-lbs-of-fat-picture

Well now I'm really confused. Do we have 1 lb or 5 lbs?

Pretty sure the word you're looking for is "denser". 1lb of muscle is DENSER than 1lb of fat. Not heavier.

So, nothing is heavier than something else. Hmm, it's odd that word heavier even exists.

Please do not breed.

^^^This. :laugh:

gramacanada

if you are going to the gym you will be building muscle which is heavier than the fat you are loosing, so go on looks as well as the scales.

GAH!! Muscle is NOT heavier than fat. A pound of muscle weights exactly the same as a pound of fat. Muscle just takes up less space on your body.

Don't be silly. How could 1 lb of muscle take up less space than 1 lb of fat, unless as a general statement (without knowing weight or volume) muscle was heavier?

A pound of feathers weighs exactly the same as a pound of iron... A pound of iron takes up much less room.
But it is NOT heavier. Same with fat and muscle. One pound of fat weighs the same as one pound of muscle.
The pound of fat is bigger. The pound of muscle is smaller.

kennethmgreen

MFP lies. Not on purpose, of course. But all the figure it gives you are averages and you can't use them as gospel because everyone is different. Just because the screen says "if you ate like this every day in 5 weeks you'd weight X", doesn't mean it's true. The same thing when it claims you burned 150 calories when you only walked a mile. (The net calorie burn of walking is about 50 calories a mile, btw.)

There are so many ways MFP can be off.

First of all, it can be off because it doesn't get your BMR right. The BMR it calculates for you is just an average based on other women your age and weight. But that doesn't mean it's your BMR. Yours could be higher or lower. If it's lower, then the amount of calories MFP things you need to maintain will be too high. So it will not give you enough of a deficit or it will think that the deficit you do have will lead to more weight loss than it does.

Another way it can be off is with the exercise database. I see exercise burns posted in my news feed from MFP that are ridiculously high. I know the database isn't subtracting off your BMR calories which are already accounted for. If you don't subtract them off, then you are counting them twice. This is why a lot of people only eat back half their exercise calories. Or they subtract off 60-100 calories an hour from what their HRM or MFP tells them. (HRMs also don't subtract off your BMR calories.)

It can also be off because of human error. If you don't record every lick, bite or sniff, you could easily be missing 50-200 calories a day. If you don't measure your food, your portion sizes could be bigger than you think. Also, if the package says there is 1 oz of food and that's 200 calories, there could be as much as 18% more than that by law so it could be that you are eating 236 calories. Do that a couple of times a day and it adds up!

You may also have put in too high an activity level when you first set MFP up. This is why a lot of people just put in sedentary and then record anything they do that's out of the ordinary and only if their loses show they need to do that.

What it's not likely to be is gaining muscle -- it's very hard to gain muscle when you eat at a calorie deficit. Some experts say it's impossible. Not sure I agree that it's impossible, but it's definitely hard.

The other thing is, losing 1.2 pounds a week is actually a pretty fast clip. If it was me, I wouldn't want to be losing faster than that because the faster you lose it, the harder your body fights to put it back on once you are in maintenance from what I can see. As an example, in some study of Biggest Lose participants -- people who are losing weight 2-3x faster than that -- they found their metabolisms were much more wrecked by their dieting than typical dieters who lose it slower.

I think your post is supportive and well-informed, and I especially like your advice around weight loss rate. However, the idea of subtracting BMR from calorie burns (except in cases of burns lasting more than 2 hours or so), isn't as accurate as you are presenting. If you want to subtract BMR from each calorie burn, you should also be recording every walk to your car, every time you go up a flight of stairs, every time your open a jar of pickles. Because those activities are - however minimally - burning calories above your BMR.

I'm not trying to convince you not to subtract out your BMR, or even saying that you are incorrect. But the "BMR calories burned get counted twice" argument is a bit one-sided when presented the way you have. And I've seen too many people get frustrated obsessising on the details. Many people (like myself) know that the calorie burns we enter are counting the BMR cals twice. But it all evens out when considering the other things we do throughout the day above our BMR. It's just one more way to use MFP tool and the information it provides.

MFP, and weight loss/fitness in general, is about estimations. Yes, accurate estimations are better than wild guesses. But they are still estimations.

MacMadame

If you want to subtract BMR from each calorie burn, you should also be recording every walk to your car, every time you go up a flight of stairs, every time your open a jar of pickles. Because those activities are - however minimally - burning calories above your BMR.

Except those are already accounted for in your activity level that you select when you set your numbers up.

However, you are right that you shouldn't subtract your BMR from your exercise burn. Technically you should subtract your RMR from your exercise burn rate but I didn't want to get too technical about BMR vs. RMR especially with numbers that are all just estimates anyway. :laugh:

megsmom2

the program is telling you to eat more, and MFP works by having you eat back your exercise calories. You are doing neither of those. It does seem counter intuitive, but it works, and will help you keep healthy while you are losing. Eating so little just creates the very problem you are talking about...slow to no loss.