"Junk" Calories

13»

Replies

  • joeysfacts
    joeysfacts Posts: 83 Member
    I would suggest you cut out sugars and junk carbs. Stick with simple clean foods and more protein than carbs. That is how I lost my weight. I know everyone is different, but I think if you clean up your eating, you will begin to see results.
  • elsyoommen
    elsyoommen Posts: 155 Member
    hi - I did not mention it in my earlier post about possible replacement snacks - but I was diagnosed with PCOS and yes sugar and carbs have a big impact. I also found that when I added weight training in September I noticed a real improvement in my fat% and my overall well-being. Prior to that I was mostly doing a great deal of walking.

    I also have found that using a blood glucose monitor to track my levels throughout the day provides very helpful and personalized feedback which you really can't get from anyone else. I don't do it each and every day but when I hit a plateau or when I am considering changing up my routine foods I sometimes use it to see how the new food impacts my glucose levels. So for example I have found that peanut/nut/seed butters are good snacks for me if I am hungry late at night, but I should make sure not to have more than 1/2 a glass of milk with that... you might find out information about how particular foods or meals affect you.

    There are support groups on here for PCOS you might want to check out.

    edited to add: I just checked your diary again and noticed that you don't track your sugar. Maybe try switching out sodium for sugar and see if that helps you see where the issue is.
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    In the end, it comes down to your Macros.

    While junk calories are not helping your overall nutrition, I suspect that you are off on either the true cals eaten or the true cals spent in exercise.

    I suggest that you compensate for that potential and adjust both by 5% for a month and see what happens. Target 5% less cals eaten and give yourself credit for 5% less cals burned while working out.

    Best!

    sounds very sensible
  • Stage14
    Stage14 Posts: 1,046 Member
    I know you're confident in your logging, but given that you have been eating a lot of processed food (not judging, so do I), it's worth remembering that nutrition labels are only guaranteed to be accurate within 20% (assuming you are in the US). So, if you're eating say, 1600 a day, it's possible to eat up to 320 calories more than you think without a single error in your part. Add to that possible errors on your part (they happen) and inconsistencies in packaging weights, and it's easy to be unwittingly overrating.

    So, eating less prepackaged food may actually help in this case, but not because calories have some of qualitative component. But just cutting your calories a bit more will likely have a similar effect, so it's really just a matter of preference.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Yesterday I did do 70 minutes, but typically I only do 60 minutes. That consists of Walking on a treadmill the first 5min on 4.1mph or 4.2mph (however I feel that day). Then I will do 1min30sec of running between 5.3-6mph (however I feel that day) then alternate walking (again at 4.1 or 4.2). I do that for the duration of 60 minutes. Then I cool down at about 2.7-3mph. I use a HRM--I'm not using MFP's calculation. I'm not using the Treadmill's calculation. I'm using my HRM.

    HRMs over-estimate that kind of activity. HRMs don't measure calories, they measure heart rate.

    For a sixty minute session, that works out to 40 minutes walking @ 4mph and 20 minutes running @ 6mph. That's 2.7 miles (or less) walking and 2 miles (or less) running.

    net calories walking = 0.3 * 2.7 * 185
    net calories running = 0.63 * 2 * 185

    -> 150 calories + 230 calories -> less than 400 calories ( under 350 on "slow" days)
  • _jayciemarie_
    _jayciemarie_ Posts: 574 Member
    Yesterday I did do 70 minutes, but typically I only do 60 minutes. That consists of Walking on a treadmill the first 5min on 4.1mph or 4.2mph (however I feel that day). Then I will do 1min30sec of running between 5.3-6mph (however I feel that day) then alternate walking (again at 4.1 or 4.2). I do that for the duration of 60 minutes. Then I cool down at about 2.7-3mph. I use a HRM--I'm not using MFP's calculation. I'm not using the Treadmill's calculation. I'm using my HRM.

    HRMs over-estimate that kind of activity. HRMs don't measure calories, they measure heart rate.

    For a sixty minute session, that works out to 40 minutes walking @ 4mph and 20 minutes running @ 6mph. That's 2.7 miles (or less) walking and 2 miles (or less) running.

    net calories walking = 0.3 * 2.7 * 185
    net calories running = 0.63 * 2 * 185

    -> 150 calories + 230 calories -> less than 400 calories ( under 350 on "slow" days)

    The first 5 minutes I walk. The remaining 55 minutes are spent equally walking/running. Then I have a 5 min cool down. I keep my heart rate up. So what you are saying is a HRM is worthless??
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Yesterday I did do 70 minutes, but typically I only do 60 minutes. That consists of Walking on a treadmill the first 5min on 4.1mph or 4.2mph (however I feel that day). Then I will do 1min30sec of running between 5.3-6mph (however I feel that day) then alternate walking (again at 4.1 or 4.2). I do that for the duration of 60 minutes. Then I cool down at about 2.7-3mph. I use a HRM--I'm not using MFP's calculation. I'm not using the Treadmill's calculation. I'm using my HRM.

    HRMs over-estimate that kind of activity. HRMs don't measure calories, they measure heart rate.

    For a sixty minute session, that works out to 40 minutes walking @ 4mph and 20 minutes running @ 6mph. That's 2.7 miles (or less) walking and 2 miles (or less) running.

    net calories walking = 0.3 * 2.7 * 185
    net calories running = 0.63 * 2 * 185

    -> 150 calories + 230 calories -> less than 400 calories ( under 350 on "slow" days)

    The first 5 minutes I walk. The remaining 55 minutes are spent equally walking/running. Then I have a 5 min cool down. I keep my heart rate up. So what you are saying is a HRM is worthless??

    For what it's worth, I find I'm able to keep my HR steadier using the elliptical machines than the treadmill, although for me that's typically due to low arches and shin splints. On the elliptical I can keep my HR around 80% of my max for an hour without any issue (other than a lot of sweat) and I feel a bit more confident in my caloric expenditure this way. HRM's aren't worthless, but they do have their limitations. Unless you're keeping your HR pretty consistent for a lengthy period of time, I would assume the HRM is going to slightly overestimate your burn and perhaps don't eat all of those calories back.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    So what you are saying is a HRM is worthless??
    HRM is a very useful training tool. You're just trying to use it for something it's not designed for. Heart rate and calorie burn don't correlate well except under specific conditions - conditions your exercise doesn't meet.

    A Prius isn't worthless because it sucks at off-roading...

Categories