Still not seeing results

2»

Replies

  • LaurenW432
    LaurenW432 Posts: 14
    I shall from today!
    Thanks for all the replies :)
  • logg1e
    logg1e Posts: 1,208 Member
    I don't understand Chris' method. Why divide by 100?
  • ambzdee94
    ambzdee94 Posts: 59 Member
    Hi,

    I've been using Fitnesspal since Feb, and following the suggested calorie intake each week. I also exercise 5 days a week for about 40 minutes, alternating between cardio workouts and weight training. My problem is, I'm just not seeing much difference. I went on the scales this morning and I've actually put weight on, about a pound. My scales are rubbish though, so I'm going to re-check in a week on some digital scales.
    I'm baffled about how many calories I should actually be eating. MFP says 1,430. I'm 5'9, weigh 11.10ish (today). I very rarely eat this much, or net under because of exercise. The weekends are a problem. I go out for drinks and sometimes end up with a pizza to take home. Is it possible this is the whole issue? Even though I'm averaging under my weekly calorie goal each week?
    I don't really feel any different either. Possibly a little firmer but that's about it. I'm just looking for some advice as I'm becoming discouraged, and wondering if I should maybe just go onto a diet planner regime, like Slimming World. My friend just lost 2lbs in a week. That has not happened for me and I feel like I'm working hard for it everyday.
    Any advice would be appreciated, thanks.



    Hi Lauren,

    I was in the exact same situation as you .. really you need to weight everything and make sure you log everything that goes in your mouth. Im 5ft 6 weight 12stone 1/2 .
    so this week i have eat a lot more healthier cutting the crap out and logging everything and been to exercise classes 5 times .. I have lost 9 inches from my body and 3lbs in weight..

    really i think you need to get your diet right to see a difference... eating pizza and drinking alcohol all the time whilst doing exercise is gonna get you no where unfortunately.

    Try cutting it out, by all means have it in moderation just not all the time.

    Feel free to add me to look at my diary.

    x
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    one weekend of drinking can put you back a whole week. calories from drinks add up crazy fast, and drunk eating is a big problem for alot of people. trust me, we all ahve to deal with it, if you need to go out then switch to a lower cal drink (i went with gin and club soda) and prepare a healthier snack for after the bars, itll save you alot of calories
    edit; also as other have said tighten up your through the week eating as well
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    You say you don't log everything. This could be why! If you don't log everything, you may not be under your weekly limit. The most consistent success I have had is when I logged absolutely everything, including logging my alcohol on nights out. My friends thought I was a bit mad but are now really pleased for me that I've lost loads of weight! I've been less consistent in the logging lately and am seeing much less improvement...
  • logg1e
    logg1e Posts: 1,208 Member
    With respect, Chris' method needs clarifying. If a pan of sauce weighed in at 500g, why would you divide by 100? You wouldn't.
  • WishUponAStarx
    WishUponAStarx Posts: 41 Member
    bump
  • InfamousFox
    InfamousFox Posts: 14 Member
    I would and I will :) I thought Chris' post was brilliant - I've been trying to figure out an easy way to measure recipe portions more accurately. I think that method really simplifies it. Glad I peeked into this post. Thanks! (and GL to you, OP! You can do this :) )
  • IsabellaGiano
    IsabellaGiano Posts: 158 Member
    With respect, Chris' method needs clarifying. If a pan of sauce weighed in at 500g, why would you divide by 100? You wouldn't.

    You want that a portion is 100g. The total weight of your recipe is TOT. How many portions ( X ) do you need for one to be 100g?

    So you want that

    TOT / X = 100g

    So, X = TOT / 100g

    In that case, 500 g / 100 g = 5 portions, each of them being exactly 100 grams.
  • IsabellaGiano
    IsabellaGiano Posts: 158 Member
    I would and I will :) I thought Chris' post was brilliant - I've been trying to figure out an easy way to measure recipe portions more accurately. I think that method really simplifies it. Glad I peeked into this post. Thanks! (and GL to you, OP! You can do this :) )


    Yes, I thnk too that is perfect! I didn't, but I will from now on! Thanks Chris!
  • SteveyBrule
    SteveyBrule Posts: 171 Member
    I went on the scales this morning and I've actually put weight on, about a pound. My scales are rubbish though, so I'm going to re-check in a week on some digital scales.

    The pizza and beer is probably doing it for you.

    Just a heads up, to avoid disappointment, getting a new scale realistically won't help the situation. All scales will show you different numbers the first time you step on them, the key being showing the weight loss.

    You may get a new scale and it will show you 3 lbs heavier than the old scale, and neither one may be right. The key is using them to keep track of the weight lost, which most all scales can do accurately, especially if it's mechanical.
  • bjkidfun
    bjkidfun Posts: 377 Member
    Nice read, bumping to read later.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    With respect, Chris' method needs clarifying. If a pan of sauce weighed in at 500g, why would you divide by 100? You wouldn't.

    I think Isabella clarified this better than I ca, but why wouldn't you, unless of course you intended to eat all 500 g in once sitting? Dividing the total by 100 would give you 5 servings and accurate calories & macros for 1 portion as 1 portion now = 100 g

    100 g portion sizes make perfect sense if you think about it because you dont have to worry how much you weigh out. Spoon 101 g onto your pasta and its 1.01 servings, weigh over 150 g then its 1.5 servings

    It allows you to be more exact
  • logg1e
    logg1e Posts: 1,208 Member
    We'll say I make a sauce for two people with 330 calories in it and it weighs 428g. I think, "my half is 165 calories".

    Using your method I do 428g divided by 100g is 4.28 portions. 330calories divided by 4.28 is, er something on my calculator. I'm too lazy to do so I estimate it to be 75 calories per 100g. Then I want my half of the meal so do 75 calories x 2.14 again too lazy so I estimate it to be 160.5.

    What am I missing??
  • lisaabenjamin
    lisaabenjamin Posts: 665 Member
    OP, as well as possibly underestimating your calories consumed, the flip side of the coin is that you could be burning fewer calories than you think.

    Do you use heart rate monitor to calculate your exercise, or just input from the MFP database? If the latter, you should know that this is almost always inaccurate too :-/

    Not only is it, again, a problem with this being an open community database, but when you plug your time spent exercising into MFP it just spits out a number based on a mathematical formula for the "average" person - of course there is no such thing as an average person, and it doesn't take into account how hard you were actually working. E.g. you could say you spent an hour doing aerobics, but were you really going for it, doing sweating, heart pounding until you could take no more, or was it quite easy? A heart rate monitor is the best way to more accurately measure calories burned.

    Either way, the fact is, unless you have some kind of medical condition that messes with your metabolism, if you're not losing weight then you are getting your calories in vs calories out equation wrong somehow.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    We'll say I make a sauce for two people with 330 calories in it and it weighs 428g. I think, "my half is 165 calories".

    Using your method I do 428g divided by 100g is 4.28 portions. 330calories divided by 4.28 is, er something on my calculator. I'm too lazy to do so I estimate it to be 75 calories per 100g. Then I want my half of the meal so do 75 calories x 2.14 again too lazy so I estimate it to be 160.5.

    What am I missing??

    How you do this is entirely up to you and I guess a recipe where you eat both portions may not be the best example. However imagine you are cooking for a family and its a big pot of food.

    But lets use your example of a 2 portion sauce, do you estimate half when you use it? or do you weigh it cooked then weigh out exactly half?

    What happens if you make it as a two person sauce and think hmmm there is more there than I thought there was or I am not that hungry so I will only have 1/3 of it or slightly more than a 1/3 but less than a 1/2 suddenly the calculation or estimation becomes more complicated.

    Dividing the weight by 100 just means you can weigh out however much you want to eat and have an accurate calculation of calories.

    But if it doesn't make sense to you its not compulsory, I tried to find an easy way to cook for multiple people most of whom don't care how much they eat allowing those of us who are counting calories to continue to do so

    ETA Grammar
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Mmmm...

    You know what, I like buffalo mozzarella, but with tomato I think that the regular cow mozzarella is better, since it's taste is milder.
    Also, buffalo mozzarella tend to produce a lot of fluid, that would dilute a bit too much the mix of tomato juice.

    Anyway, one of our "patriotic" dish is the "caprese salad", that is exactly tomato, cow mozzarella, basil (red white green, our flag) with oil and salt.

    But I guess that if you particularly like buffalo mozzarella, you can go for it with tomatoes, no problem! :)

    This is interesting to know and I think its a misunderstanding we have in the UK in the belief that its not worth having unless its buffalo! Glad to hear that isnt the case and will continue to use cow mozzarella because it is easier to find :-)
  • logg1e
    logg1e Posts: 1,208 Member
    Thanks for taking the time to explain Chris. I used two as an example of cooking for two people (not eating two portions!!). It would equally work for dividing by 3 or 4 or however many there are. Normally I divide by two because I generally cook for two adults. Sometimes I multiple by a third or two fifths if I want less than the other adult. And yes, I do weigh out the portions.

    As you say, it's horses for courses and lots of people have already said they find your method very helpful.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Thanks for taking the time to explain Chris. I used two as an example of cooking for two people (not eating two portions!!). It would equally work for dividing by 3 or 4 or however many there are. Normally I divide by two because I generally cook for two adults. Sometimes I multiple by a third or two fifths if I want less than the other adult. And yes, I do weigh out the portions.

    As you say, it's horses for courses and lots of people have already said they find your method very helpful.

    I use both methods. I do the one you're describing most of the time, but for certain things that I might just want to have a tiny bite of I'll use Chris's method (cheese danish, I'm looking at you). As long as whatever method is working for you that's what matters. :drinker:
  • srk369
    srk369 Posts: 256 Member
    I like the idea of Chris's method because I always forget what the portion was. I'll make a large meal, weigh it and divide by how many portions I think it is and have my 1 portion. Sometimes I'll weigh out my leftover meal right away, others I'm searching for my piece of paper where I wrote all my weights down as I prepped them trying to remember what the portion was for 1/6 of the meal. Thanks for the tip!

    Now if MFP would just let us adjust the measurement on each ingredient in the recipe instead of entering it all over again, I'd be set!

Categories