You reared your ugly face
Options
Replies
-
"Exercise calories fuel your body. "
What is an exercise calorie? A calorie is a unit of measure. Calories aren't dated. Wouldn't it be nice if they expired, though? Not nice for the human race from a survival standpoint in times of famine, I guess.
I know we need food today to have energy today but I don't really think our caloric deficit has to be limited to our NEAT, which seems to be MFP's plan (at least when people interpret it as 'eat BMR plus exercise').
I know the argument is 'your deficit is built in' excluding exercise. But say my BMR is 1400 and I'm sedentary and want to lose 1.5 lbs/week because I'm 25 lbs. overweight. MFP is going to do 1400*1.2 (or some small multiplier) = 1680 TDEE without exercise, so you my friend can only have a 480 calorie per day deficit, since you have to eat 1200. I want 750 deficit, though, so I walk 3 miles a day to up my TDEE to 1950. I don't think at a 480 calorie deficit per day, I HAVE TO eat back those 300 calories. If I had put in that I was active because I walk 3 miles a day, it would also tell me to eat 1200 and there'd be no 'eating back' because those 3 miles would be NEAT calories, not 'exercise' calories. What's the difference, except under one method I'd eat at a smaller deficit than I wanted on some days?
No, I don't eat 1200 but I don't think there's anything wrong with it for many people.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.0 -
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
I don't have a dog in your fight, but I did a little reading in the peer-reviewed literature last summer on the accuracy of heart rate monitors. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.
As you note, results are the best way to calibrate an HRM. I have a Timex and two Garmin HRMs, one of them an Edge 800 bike computer that also takes into account the terrain over which I'm riding. The Garmin Edge 800 is pretty accurate, based on comparing its estimates with my food diary and weight loss. The ForeRunner 410 tends to overestimate calories by about 30%. The Timex overestimates by over 50%.0 -
So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode
write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck
The correct one was eat less. OP, I know you said you plateaued when you were eating 1600 calories/day, but you're getting between 1800 and 1900 now and stalled. You obviously need to eat less.
Just a shot in the dark here-- but do you have a "cheat day" once a week? There's nothing wrong with it-- but if you've already got a moderate or marginal calorie deficit, it's easy as pie (literally) to wipe it out by going over on your calorie limit once in awhile.
I ask because I notice you tend to have partially filled-out diary entries on weekends, which is what I always do when I decide to say 'screw it' for a day, lmao.0 -
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
I don't have a dog in your fight, but I did a little reading in the peer-reviewed literature last summer on the accuracy of heart rate monitors. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.
As you note, results are the best way to calibrate an HRM. I have a Timex and two Garmin HRMs, one of them an Edge 800 bike computer that also takes into account the terrain over which I'm riding. The Garmin Edge 800 is pretty accurate, based on comparing its estimates with my food diary and weight loss. The ForeRunner 410 tends to overestimate calories by about 30%. The Timex overestimates by over 50%.
Thanks for sharing this information. I really appreciate it.
There is no fight going on, I just get irritated when people exhibit "superior" attitudes. We are all here to learn.
I'm not saying all HRMs of a certain brand are accurate, as you have just demonstrated, I am just saying mine must be fairly accurate because of my results. I eat 99 percent of my exercise calories back, therefore if my HRM was inaccurate I would see different results.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.
FFS. It's not that the HRM that you have is accurate. It's that it is accurate for you.0 -
I have been about 197 for the last month...my body fat percentage went from 36.6% to 36.5%.
IMO you are significantly under-estimating your BF %. This in turn would likely mean overestimating BMR and TDEE, by as much as 400 calories.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.
FFS. It's not that the HRM that you have is accurate. It's that it is accurate for you.
Blah.
Splitting hairs. Thanks for the clarification. . 0 -
So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:
It's baffling. How can the advice for someone trying to lose weight be the EXACT SAME ADVICE they'd get if they were trying to gain weight?
Ridiculous.
Sabatogeurs gonna sabotage.0 -
Also, HRMs are not that accurate. Cut them all by half.
Some heart rate monitors may not be accurate, especially if they are some of the cheaper one.. The Polar F7 I have is accurate. I know this because of my results.
That's silly to cut exercise calories in half unless you are absolutely certain your heart rate monitor is inaccurate.
It's accurate for you so it is accurate for the entire population. That's an interesting argument. Flawed. But interesting. Do some research on how HRMs calculate calories burned.
Did I say that? :laugh: No.
I said: some heart rate monitors might not be accurate, but I've found mine to be accurate due to the results.. Some brands tend to render more accuracy then others.
Um. Wow. The fact that you don't understand and/or see the flaw speaks volumes.
Cut it out.
Okay, let me help you then. You've taken your own personal results and applied them to the population in general. The poster above is spot on and there are other examples.
Thank you for clarifying, but I said the Polar F7 that I have is accurate. I only know this because of my results. That does not mean all HRMs are accurate, or even inaccurate, and that does not mean that every Polar F7 is accurate.
Of course my results don't apply to an entire population, and this is not even what I was trying to get across.
You find out if your HRM is accurate via the results you get. Are you maintaing? Are you losing too fast or slow according to your weight loss goals? Are you gaining weight?
Yes, the poster above gave great examples, which I appreciated.
FFS. It's not that the HRM that you have is accurate. It's that it is accurate for you.
Blah. Splitting hairs. Thanks for the clarification. .
Yea. Not splitting hairs at all. But again, you clearly don't understand.
Good luck with all your health and fitness goals. :flowerforyou:
ETA: And I should add that "it's accurate for you for the specific exercise for which you're using it. " Put in the vernacular, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.0 -
Virtually all HRMs are accurate at measuring heart rate.
Virtually no HRMs are particularly accurate at guessing (because that's what they do - guess - not measure) calories burned, unless they have been properly calibrated to the specific individual, or unless you already fit a specific fitness profile and are doing a specific type of exercise.
And no, inputting age and weight into a watch does not constitute "properly calibrated".0 -
I agree that HRMs mis-estimate and they are just using averages to make an educated guess.
But I see SLLRunner's point, that her's seems accurate for her. I feel the same way about my Fitbit. But I think you need to qualify that either it's accurate for me or else it mis-estimates in an equal and opposite direction as I mis-estimate my food. If we're splitting hairs.
0 -
Virtually all HRMs are accurate at measuring heart rate.
Virtually no HRMs are particularly accurate at guessing (because that's what they do - guess - not measure) calories burned, unless they have been properly calibrated to the specific individual, or unless you already fit a specific fitness profile and are doing a specific type of exercise.
And no, inputting age and weight into a watch does not constitute "properly calibrated".
Thank you.
i was told by more than one person if you are going to get a heart rate monitor get one with a chest strap, which measures individual heart rate and calibrates your fitness profile according to this. This is why I got one with a chest strap as opposed to a heart rate monitor where you just put input your data into the watch and you're ready to go.
The specific brand was also recommended by fitness professionals, and I also did my own research.0 -
So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode
write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck
The correct one was eat less. OP, I know you said you plateaued when you were eating 1600 calories/day, but you're getting between 1800 and 1900 now and stalled. You obviously need to eat less.
Just a shot in the dark here-- but do you have a "cheat day" once a week? There's nothing wrong with it-- but if you've already got a moderate or marginal calorie deficit, it's easy as pie (literally) to wipe it out by going over on your calorie limit once in awhile.
I ask because I notice you tend to have partially filled-out diary entries on weekends, which is what I always do when I decide to say 'screw it' for a day, lmao.
The only days I have cheated this month at all were thanksgiving, and today. otherwise, I just avoid temptation, im not a dog, so I dont reward myself with food. Ill reward myself with tattoos or something later. aside of this hectic week, no I dont have cheat days. I dont like feeling guilty after them so I dont do them.0 -
I have been about 197 for the last month...my body fat percentage went from 36.6% to 36.5%.
IMO you are significantly under-estimating your BF %. This in turn would likely mean overestimating BMR and TDEE, by as much as 400 calories.
My BF% is 36.6 - and we checked that 2 days ago, so thats as accurate as i can give you.0 -
lol I left to see family and came back to a ton of messages and comments on here. Its not my intention to cause people to bicker, and honestly if my lack of information is laughable thats fine - I just ended up frustrated.
So I will cut back to 1600 calories a day, I will continue burning about 300-400 calories 4 days a week and about 200-300 on my cardio only days. I will still have 1 day of rest.
I did not know you could eat below your BMR, i had posted a thread in the past and the majority of the advice was to stop eating below it, but I read several topics in the group that was posted here earlier, and I will use that info wisely. I'm new to this... I have never been overweight before, I was always very fit since I was in the military, so this is new to me since being out of the military.
I was told by my trainer to take 2 days off - so yesterday and today in my food log are not filled out. he told me to use them as relax and cheat days because he thought I over trained and that I needed to rest until monday (tomorrow) when we start fresh again. He doesnt really feel like my eating is a problem, even with the stall in loss, which is why I ended up here asking your opinions. Thanks again everyone - I will adjust my calorie settings now and start those fresh tomorrow morning.0 -
I have been about 197 for the last month...my body fat percentage went from 36.6% to 36.5%.
IMO you are significantly under-estimating your BF %. This in turn would likely mean overestimating BMR and TDEE, by as much as 400 calories.
My BF% is 36.6 - and we checked that 2 days ago, so thats as accurate as i can give you.
If that were true, you have more lean body mass than a typical male.
That number is not believable, sorry. I would add 10 to it, and then use Katch-McCardle to calculate your BMR. This will give you a number 300-400 calories lower than what you are currently using, which not coincidentally, is consistent with what you are (not) experiencing weight loss wise.0 -
I have been about 197 for the last month...my body fat percentage went from 36.6% to 36.5%.
IMO you are significantly under-estimating your BF %. This in turn would likely mean overestimating BMR and TDEE, by as much as 400 calories.
My BF% is 36.6 - and we checked that 2 days ago, so thats as accurate as i can give you.
If that were true, you have more lean body mass than a typical male.
That number is not believable, sorry. I would add 10 to it, and then use Katch-McCardle to calculate your BMR. This will give you a number 300-400 calories lower than what you are currently using, which not coincidentally, is consistent with what you are (not) experiencing weight loss wise.
A typical male has less than 125 lbs of lean mass?
Not at 200 lbs, I wouldn't think? It just sounds so low.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions