one... freaking... pound...
Replies
-
I haven't been using that method. The way I do it is to log all food eaten first and keep it within (or as close to within) my limits as possible, then log exercise afterward. I'm not eating back what I've exercised because those calories "don't count" in my mind... and by that, I mean they don't count toward daily INtake or provide me a buffer zone. If I didn't exercise, I'd still be in a 500 - 600 calorie per day deficit, which is why I thought a one pound loss over a month was lower than it should be.
OK, this clarifies something I thought of when I started reading this thread originally. Please try to forgive my use of your numbers, but given what you mentioned about your own calculations in your OP, this stuff is sticking out at me and I think it may be a good part of the problem.
If your BMR, your calorie need for just existing without moving at all, is ~1700; your current maintenance TDEE is ~2300 with light exercise included (IMO, "light exercise" activity level is something even people with sedentary jobs do in their day-to-day life, NOT including any intentional exercise); and you are eating around 1780 for a 500-cal deficit *before* any intentional exercise, but are sometimes well under that number; AND you do not eat exercise calories back, **you are not getting enough calories to sustain your body.** If you burn say 400 calories at the gym and eat 1700 or so that day to stay under your calorie goal before any exercise has taken place, then your net calories that day will be 1300 (if not less because of calories burned during non-exercise activity like shopping, playing with your child, etc.). That means you'll have eaten 400 calories below your BMR.
Eating below your BMR, as you may know, is not sustainable and does not encourage steady weight loss. It stalls metabolism further and from what I've read in many months of participating in this forum, it is very common for people to eat at a similar level to what you're doing, not lose weight, be advised to eat more, and after eating more, find that they are losing weight much faster. Basically, I think you are not eating enough to sustain healthy weight loss. I know thermodynamics and numbers are very difficult for you to think about, but please seriously consider eating at least half your exercise calories back. I strongly suspect you would find you'd lose the weight faster that way.
I don't know why no one has pointed this out yet in 5 pages of discussion. I believe eating *enough* during weight loss, rather than eating as little as possible, is the key to doing this healthily and sensibly. Have you read through other threads on eating 1200 or so calories and not losing weight? They are common here and what I'm suggesting is frequently advised and frequently works.
Personally, when I was losing weight, I ate most or all of my exercise calories back and lost weight faster than predicted by the averages. I know you said you don't believe in eating exercise calories back, but it is real energy expended by your body and your body needs fuel!
I'm sorry to say that I'm seeing a lot of red flags for current ED issues still. Are you presently working with a professional of some kind to assist in recovery/mental health surrounding your body image and weight?0 -
This is going to be unpopular advice but if you really want to lose lbs...I might stop exercising besides light exercise like walking or biking and just really tighten your diet. I've had more success on the scale not exercising than I do when I exercise intensely specifically weight and resistance training. Yes I know its good for you but I think when you demand a lot of your body like muscle building its hard for it operate on a calorie deficit so sometimes its less likely to let go of the weight. Your body will also hold a ton of water in your muscles during recovery. So I'd say calm down on the exercise, drink a lot of water, and really tighten your counting and i mean measuring EVERYTHING consistently and see if that helps.0
-
Honest question... how far do you trust the packaging and the food database?
I don't trust it IN THE SLIGHTEST. I use this website (http://nutritiondata.self.com/) or the USDA food database for my fresh foods. And the manufacturer or restaurant's website. This one has some odd vegies and spices and things the other ones don't (http://wholefoodcatalog.info/foods/).
However, you yourself said you measured the butter by the tablespoon. I didn't mean to doubt your accuracy. I just personally weigh in grams (twice!) things that are more than 5 calories per gram.0 -
No, you're not. Dunkin donuts, pizza, chipotle, Italian sausage, and 5 guys all within a few days. low carb or not fat is fat, sodium is sodium, fast food is fast food. I'm not trying to be rude, but I find when I am not successful and I "don't know why", it's usually because I am not being honest and trying my best. And "honestly" a little sugar would probably be better to consume than a half cup of heavy whipping cream everyday. You need to find a professional to help you come up with a nutrition plan, not an endocrinologist. If your bloodwork is normal, that means there's nothing physically wrong with you it doesn't matter where in the normal range you are. You should accept that and do what you need to do to move forward. Again please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make you be honest with yourself I was hoping to sign on here and find that you took some of our advice.
While I agree with everything you said about fast food, I have to say you are wrong about the normal range blood work.
I had my blood checked by 3 physicians - all said in normal range. I insisted to get sent to a endocrinologist, who put me on 100mg Syntroid and now I feel much better. I was told that the normal range physicians use is very wide and I was at the bottom end.0 -
Eating below your BMR, as you may know, is not sustainable and does not encourage steady weight loss. It stalls metabolism further and from what I've read in many months of participating in this forum, it is very common for people to eat at a similar level to what you're doing, not lose weight, be advised to eat more, and after eating more, find that they are losing weight much faster.
Eating below BMR causes a cortisol release, and I did not look at your diary, but even eating back your exercise calories, if your diet is deprived of dietary fat you will experience a cortisol release, as well as the effects of both leptin and grehlin.0 -
This approach works for me too. And I try not to stress over the weight loss. Not sure if keeping the stress down helps it along or not (metabolically etc) but that's what I've been doing.This is going to be unpopular advice but if you really want to lose lbs...I might stop exercising besides light exercise like walking or biking and just really tighten your diet. I've had more success on the scale not exercising than I do when I exercise intensely specifically weight and resistance training. Yes I know its good for you but I think when you demand a lot of your body like muscle building its hard for it operate on a calorie deficit so sometimes its less likely to let go of the weight. Your body will also hold a ton of water in your muscles during recovery. So I'd say calm down on the exercise, drink a lot of water, and really tighten your counting and i mean measuring EVERYTHING consistently and see if that helps.
Good luck OP.0 -
Could the answer be as simple as you're not weighing your butter an oils, but are instead measuring their volume? I'm honestly, and in no way meaning to be anything but 100% supportive here, I don't mean to trigger your anger. But personally I weigh in grams all my butter and fats. I don't trust the volume measurements of anything, personally.
Is it fair to assume that the way things are logged in MFP, with the pre-entered food database, that those calculations have already been made? Butter is 4oz per stick, 8 tablespoons, so 1/2oz per tablespoon. I have a food scale already and do use it when there's going to be a bigger variation between volume and weight (like with shredded cheese... is that a packed half cup or a lightly sprinkled half cup?).
Honest question... how far do you trust the packaging and the food database?
This is why I get frustrated with people in general on here insisting on extremely precise weighing and measuring all the time. While I do weigh and measure my food for accuracy and imprecise estimations are a problem for many, calories themselves are only a measure of potential energy and as such are approximate to some degree! Who knows if that food was 100 calories or 109 calories? Who knows if walking up that particular road with those particular hills burned 150 calories or 163? It's not a perfect measurement and these small differences may not be real, and unless the calculations and measurements are grossly inaccurate, will not affect a person's progress. I think.
And what if one carrot had more sugar than the other carrot? Or there was one more piece of shrimp in one bowl of soup than the other? They'll have different calorie contents but there is no way to know the true calorie value of every piece of food we eat because we can't stick each specific food in a calorie-measuring machine before eating it. No use worrying quite so much, everybody! (OP, this isn't directed at you specifically, it's directed at a big chunk of MFP culture and crowd-knowledge.)
That one's been bugging me for months! :explode:0 -
This isn't simply an "eat less" or "exercise more" response, it is a thoughtful response based on the information you are giving that you perhaps need to reduce your calorie level if you want to lose more weight. I am assuming that you have weight to lose and remain in a healthy BMI with my response here. If you are close to the lower end of a healthy BMI then your body may be telling you that you are at a good level and no further weight loss is to be desired.
I'm not anywhere near a healthy BMI, something that a not-so-nice doctor made clear to point out to me when I went to him for help. I'm starting in a place where nearly everyone else I see on every other message board boasts about having lost 10-15 pounds by now, often by doing LESS than I'm doing.Also, if you are only using a number on a scale to dictate your success that is also a very inaccurate measure, because you are not taking into account that you MAY have lost 5 pounds of fat and GAINED 4 pounds of muscle, which would be very desirable. Do you have a hand-held body fat analyzer or have you ever had your body fat percentage accurately measured by a professional?
While it's possible I've gained muscle, it's far more likely that I've gained muscle TONE instead. In my mind, 4lbs of muscle is a lot to put on in a month and my circuit training has been in the 30-45lb range. I don't have a fat analyzer, but I do have a mirror
. Most of my problem is all in my torso, but I certainly wouldn't complain to see my thighs trim down.
Rest assured you didn't put on 4 lbs of muscle in a month. Chances are that you are eating more than you think you are, due to not weighing/measuring your food. Also, you're likely overestimating caloric burn. That said, great job on the workouts. Remember, weight loss is rarely linear or predictable unless you control, almost scientifically, for every possible variable.
Good luck and keep at it. It'll happen.0 -
Eating below your BMR, as you may know, is not sustainable and does not encourage steady weight loss. It stalls metabolism further and from what I've read in many months of participating in this forum, it is very common for people to eat at a similar level to what you're doing, not lose weight, be advised to eat more, and after eating more, find that they are losing weight much faster.
Eating below BMR causes a cortisol release, and I did not look at your diary, but even eating back your exercise calories, if your diet is deprived of dietary fat you will experience a cortisol release, as well as the effects of both leptin and grehlin.
So basically cortisol release/excess is implicated in slowing metabolism, overstimulated appetite/stress-eating, and increased body fat. Ugh!0 -
I do not know for sure it will help you, but when I get to a point I am not losing, I change something. (Sometimes I skip a day exercising, other times I eat something that would not normally be on my diet just for fun. Are you drinking enough water? Are you drinking sodas? Also you have to eat enough food to burn the cals - I have a really big problem with that - I hope you will start losing, because it is very frustrating and as for me I tend to say why am doing this if I am not going to lose weight. Have you checked for loss in inches. Are you watching the other areas like sugar - sodium - etc. etc. Keep exercising and posting everything you eat and it will come off, may just take a while. I hope something I have said will help you, keep believing in yourself.0
-
I follow low carbing, so there is no sugar in my coffee (and I've trained the coffee shop people on how to make it). It's seriously just coffee and cream... that's it.
I'm already eating whole, unprocessed foods.
No, you're not. Dunkin donuts, pizza, chipotle, Italian sausage, and 5 guys all within a few days. low carb or not fat is fat, sodium is sodium, fast food is fast food. I'm not trying to be rude, but I find when I am not successful and I "don't know why", it's usually because I am not being honest and trying my best. And "honestly" a little sugar would probably be better to consume than a half cup of heavy whipping cream everyday.
I'll give you everything else, but where have you seen me consuming half a cup of heaving whipping cream every day? I don't put sugar in my coffee because I don't like it sweetened. That's got nothing to do with dieting and everything to do with how I've liked my coffee since I was a teenager. Dunkin' Donuts uses a light cream for their coffee that's close to half & half.You need to find a professional to help you come up with a nutrition plan, not an endocrinologist. If your bloodwork is normal, that means there's nothing physically wrong with you it doesn't matter where in the normal range you are. You should accept that and do what you need to do to move forward. Again please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make you be honest with yourself I was hoping to sign on here and find that you took some of our advice.
Maybe I've watched too many doctor shows, but throughout my life I've had too many instances where "normal" test results failed to show a decidedly NOT normal situation (I had a doctor yell at me because when I was pregnant, none of the tests they did indicated I was having twins until they did the big ultrasound, and everyone went into panic mode). Just because a test says "normal" doesn't mean something else isn't wrong. It may just be looking at the wrong things. Prior to today, nobody ever mentioned to me to ask for a cortisol test. Nobody ever mentioned to me that losing an ovary could contribute to slow weight loss. So yes, I'm taking the advice into account on a lot of fronts, everything from better logging to what things to discuss with a doctor.0 -
I think that restaurants probably do usually give out portions larger than their specs but in general if all our estimates are 'plus or minus X%' accurate (which is true even of database foods like an apple), the pluses and the minuses cancel out and you're ok with logging the original estimate value.First of all, if you're not familiar with In-n-Out, they're not your typical burger joint.
I've in SoCal for a long time and am very familiar with I-n-0. The nutritional information is at best +/- 20%, so if you want to eat there, and be sure you're not going over, add 20% more calories than it says you're eating (or just put in "1.2" for the number of servings).
The errors are neither evenly nor randomly distributed - they are strongly biased towards under-reporting calories.0 -
Honest question... how far do you trust the packaging and the food database?
The guidelines are that package labeling has to be within 20%, and because there are penalties for selling less than advertised, the errors pile up on the under-reporting side.
But none of this should matter, because if you truly were eating "whole, unprocessed foods" (which you most definitely are not) you wouldn't have any packages to look at.0 -
OP:
I mean this in the nicest way possible… please seek help to address the behaviors associated with your eating disorder. You may not have all active symptoms, but it is evident that you continue to struggle with some major issues in relation to it.0 -
It's really simple. Either your caloric intake is higher than you think, or your daily burn rate is lower than you think.
I don't mean to be disrespectful here - I don't think you're stupid or negligent. Just personal experience: my BMR (and all derivatives such as TDEE, etc.) is lower than the average from the models. I simply have a low metabolism - low body T, low resting heart rate, low respiratory rate. I made the nurse freak out last time I was donating blood since my HR was below 40 - normal in my case! Based on MFP calculators, my "maintenance" calories are off by about 200 daily. More if I work out a lot and count each and every one (and I use an ergometer, very little error on the output side of the equation).
It really is an issue of math: if you're not trending (accepting normal variabilities, I can gain 4 lb in a day between water/glycogen) in the direction you think you should be heading, the estimates are wrong. In most of us we simply are bad at estimating our portions, but in your case it could be that your BMR is not accurate.
MFP and the rest of the online calculators are not doctors. They are not labs. They are not physiologists. They can only give you a generic answer. You need a better one because something doesn't work? Get a proper assessment. Not cheap, unless you volunteer for some sort of study (I did that, twice now).0 -
Hey, I think another way to think about it is that YOU LOST A POUND! Things are going in the right direction! You feel better, you are more fit and strong. I just started 4 weeks ago and lost 7 pounds so far (a record for me in the last decade of going the other direction). I can tell you what has been working for me at age 41. I changed the calorie goals because I know from previous experience that if I eat what is expected I don't lose weight. So I started with a goal of 1600 calories, and have eaten back many of my exercise calories. I usually exercise a lot, but have really stepped it up in the last 4 weeks. I cut out nearly all refined sugar except for some random ice cream splurges. My average in a given week has been under my calorie goal. I think cutting out sugar has made a HUGE difference for me because I'm not crazy hungry anymore. I find it far easier to make healthy conscious choices if I'm not crazy hungry. I have been eating lots of fruits, veges, and whole grains and doing the "salad in a jar" thing on sunday nights has made it so much easier for me to eat a healthy salad every day for lunch. GOOD LUCK, you are doing great. You are making healthier choices. I think it just is hard to lose weight. As I said to my husband "if it were easy, I would have done it already".0
-
The guidelines are that package labeling has to be within 20%, and because there are penalties for selling less than advertised, the errors pile up on the under-reporting side.
But none of this should matter, because if you truly were eating "whole, unprocessed foods" (which you most definitely are not) you wouldn't have any packages to look at.
I think the line people draw in relation to "whole, unprocessed foods" is large and gray. If you want to be technical, eating that way means you never set foot in a grocery store, never eat anything that can't be consumed straight off the plant/vine. I've seen some people consider anything that has to go through any kind of stages to make it edible for humans could be considered processed. That would rule out most meat, all dairy, tea, coffee, or grains. That doesn't leave you with much.
I've always defined "unprocessed" as "can you tell what the food started out as before it got to you?" Meat, fresh fruits and veggies, rinded or hard cheeses, eggs, rice, milk, and cream all count because the processing they're going through makes them safe for human consumption. And all of those foods are going to have a package for transport, so they're going to carry their nutritional information with them too.
But once you start getting into the boxed, bagged, or canned foods, like cereals, pastas, potato chips, cookies, sports drinks, sodas, frozen desserts, pre-made frozen meals, frozen fruits and veggies, that's where manufacturers can screw with things and add HFCS or a ton of sodium.
So if you want to argue that my broccoli and snow peas are processed because they've been shucked off the vine or cut into florets, then a pre-weighed amount is put into a bag or container for sale, fine.0 -
OP:
I mean this in the nicest way possible… please seek help to address the behaviors associated with your eating disorder. You may not have all active symptoms, but it is evident that you continue to struggle with some major issues in relation to it.
This is the first time things have flared (mentally) this badly in many, many years. Then again, this is the first time I've opened myself up to these kinds of discussions, ever. I internalize a lot of things, and I've never been good at "leaning" on anyone else. I'm good at asking questions to get information, not so much with asking for real help.
So... yeah... these wounds are far more raw than even I anticipated.0 -
If we start rounding up all our calories assuming the labels are wrong, we may as well just log things as is (less math) and just lower our calorie intake goal, knowing we're eating a lot more than we think. Which I think is true even of people who swear by their food scales. No one is immune to forgetting to log some things or from picking the wrong food item from the database or picking one with wrong info or mis-converting something's units. It doesn't matter much if you let the scale be your guide and forget all the undereating fear. Or if you be more patient, assuming things are moving, just not at the pace we think is warranted.Honest question... how far do you trust the packaging and the food database?
The guidelines are that package labeling has to be within 20%, and because there are penalties for selling less than advertised, the errors pile up on the under-reporting side.
But none of this should matter, because if you truly were eating "whole, unprocessed foods" (which you most definitely are not) you wouldn't have any packages to look at.0 -
OP:
I mean this in the nicest way possible… please seek help to address the behaviors associated with your eating disorder. You may not have all active symptoms, but it is evident that you continue to struggle with some major issues in relation to it.
This is the first time things have flared (mentally) this badly in many, many years. Then again, this is the first time I've opened myself up to these kinds of discussions, ever. I internalize a lot of things, and I've never been good at "leaning" on anyone else. I'm good at asking questions to get information, not so much with asking for real help.
So... yeah... these wounds are far more raw than even I anticipated.
If you go to the following website, they have an 800 number that you can call or you can click to chat if you are more comfortable with that option.
http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/find-help-support
Wish you the best.0 -
You are pretty much the only poster on here lately that draws the line so wide and so grey that drive thru burgers, donut shop coffee and take out burritos fall on the "whole, unprocessed" side of the line.The guidelines are that package labeling has to be within 20%, and because there are penalties for selling less than advertised, the errors pile up on the under-reporting side.
But none of this should matter, because if you truly were eating "whole, unprocessed foods" (which you most definitely are not) you wouldn't have any packages to look at.
I think the line people draw in relation to "whole, unprocessed foods" is large and gray.
That's not being technical, that's being ludicrous.If you want to be technical...snip long tedious exercise in hyperbole...
Do what you like. It's pretty clear you're looking for a specific answer - one not rooted in reality - so I'll bow out of this conversation and leave you to it.
Cheers.0 -
I believe it is the eating out, period.
Eating out is fine, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to know with complete accuracy the calories in a particular meal. Even between McDonald's you may get 10 more fries in a large than the next McDonalds. At Chipotle the serving size varies incredibly, even at the same locations. If you are eating out a few times a week, this is going to lead to under-reporting, not particularly your fault, but it is what it is.
I would go a month without eating out and weighing everything on a food scale, then see if you lose more than a pound.0 -
Honey, it sound to me like your gaining a bit of muscle mass, which is EXCELLENT as you burn actual fat. Your actual weight may change very slightly as your fat melts away and your muscle grows into a lean mean fat-burning machine...the fact that your jeans were LOOSE should be a good indication to ya =D Congrats on the inch lost!
(( If you truly are concerned, though, I would absolutely recommend seeking advice from your doctor, NOT a bunch of whos-its and whats-its online. All we can give is our opinions/support and that doesn't mean we're RIGHT......although I always AM. *cough*))0 -
Dieting plus regular exercise is providing turtle results. I'm patient, but a pace of 3 years to get to my first goal is kind of ridiculous. So I told myself that if I wasn't getting significant results with diet plus exercise (I figured 5lbs in a month wasn't too much to expect, though I truly expected nothing), I'd see a doctor.
OP, this is coming from a place of sympathy and respect, but if you truly expected nothing, you wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.
Yes, three years to reach a goal is daunting, but this ****? Worthwhile ****?
It takes time.
Our bodies take 20+ years to fully mature. We put a full dozen into high school diplomas. Maybe four to six for college. Kids are a bargain, considering they take a little under a year to cook up.
Good things? The best things? They all take time.
I know three years is daunting, but maybe consider taking the finish line out of the equation? There's a lot less pressure that way, and a lot more building good, healthy habits that'll help you hit a healthy weight and stay there for a lifetime.0 -
Dieting plus regular exercise is providing turtle results. I'm patient, but a pace of 3 years to get to my first goal is kind of ridiculous. So I told myself that if I wasn't getting significant results with diet plus exercise (I figured 5lbs in a month wasn't too much to expect, though I truly expected nothing), I'd see a doctor.
OP, this is coming from a place of sympathy and respect, but if you truly expected nothing, you wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.
Actually, yes I would have... and here's why: this month was an experiment. Dieting alone had no results, so I added regular exercise to the mix. I purposely didn't weigh myself because I didn't want to get discouraged, and I do tend to harp on the number it shows. I wanted to focus on what I was doing at the gym. The point was to prove someone wrong... that someone was either going to be the *kitten* hole doctor who didn't believe me when I tried to explain how hard a time I was having losing weight, or me for ignoring the benefits of exercise for far too long.
So if there'd been no result (like I expected), the next step was going to be to contact an endocrinologist to determine if my bloodwork is out of whack and if something else needs to be adjusted. That's why I posted asking what could be impeding my weight lost other than caloric intake. I was trying to be as careful and as explicit as possible.Yes, three years to reach a goal is daunting, but this ****? Worthwhile ****?
It takes time.
Our bodies take 20+ years to fully mature. We put a full dozen into high school diplomas. Maybe four to six for college. Kids are a bargain, considering they take a little under a year to cook up.
Good things? The best things? They all take time.
I know three years is daunting, but maybe consider taking the finish line out of the equation? There's a lot less pressure that way, and a lot more building good, healthy habits that'll help you hit a healthy weight and stay there for a lifetime.
I know it's about changing my ways of life. That's never been in question. Lack of weight loss isn't going to stop me from going to the gym... I enjoy it too much.0 -
Could the answer be as simple as you're not weighing your butter an oils, but are instead measuring their volume? I'm honestly, and in no way meaning to be anything but 100% supportive here, I don't mean to trigger your anger. But personally I weigh in grams all my butter and fats. I don't trust the volume measurements of anything, personally.
Is it fair to assume that the way things are logged in MFP, with the pre-entered food database, that those calculations have already been made? Butter is 4oz per stick, 8 tablespoons, so 1/2oz per tablespoon. I have a food scale already and do use it when there's going to be a bigger variation between volume and weight (like with shredded cheese... is that a packed half cup or a lightly sprinkled half cup?).
Honest question... how far do you trust the packaging and the food database?
This is why I get frustrated with people in general on here insisting on extremely precise weighing and measuring all the time. While I do weigh and measure my food for accuracy and imprecise estimations are a problem for many, calories themselves are only a measure of potential energy and as such are approximate to some degree! Who knows if that food was 100 calories or 109 calories? Who knows if walking up that particular road with those particular hills burned 150 calories or 163? It's not a perfect measurement and these small differences may not be real, and unless the calculations and measurements are grossly inaccurate, will not affect a person's progress. I think.
And what if one carrot had more sugar than the other carrot? Or there was one more piece of shrimp in one bowl of soup than the other? They'll have different calorie contents but there is no way to know the true calorie value of every piece of food we eat because we can't stick each specific food in a calorie-measuring machine before eating it. No use worrying quite so much, everybody! (OP, this isn't directed at you specifically, it's directed at a big chunk of MFP culture and crowd-knowledge.)
That one's been bugging me for months! :explode:
In a method of measurement you have a variety of errors which lead to variability. And you are right, intrinsic variability is large and unavoidable - the hypothetical variability of the sugar content of your carrot, or the effects of meal timing, or exercise values or the Atwater values for mixed substrates, etc., etc. etc. However, thinking that added extrinsic variability/error doesn't matter is absolutely false.
To the noise of the system you want to add more noise of "sloppy" measurements?
That's not going to help but create a cumulative error effect. One should measure as accurately as lifestyle makes possible - it's important to not obsess but the tighter you run your tracking, the better you will be at understanding what is going on.0 -
OP, there's a popular example of weighing a half cup of oatmeal and finding it to be quite a bit higher than the published weight of the serving. You have a food scale, use it for everything except freely pouring liquids such as milk. Heck, if they listed the thing by weight on nutritional info, I'd weigh it
Someone mentioned not being able to find the link on logging accurately, here it is:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide0 -
Hi, OP.
As a starter, and perhaps my stab at answering the question and the only part of this that won't annoy you, I don't know. The reason I don't know--which others have suggested, but there's been this long analysis anyway--is that two data points don't mean anything. Who knows if the first weight was artificially low, or--especially--if the second weight was artificially high, in essence if you were on a fluctuation up when you happened to weigh. You really have no idea how your weight changed over that month. On top of that there are signs of water retention--the lost inch plus new workout schedule. Given this lack of information there's no way to tell if there's anything to analyze.
To take me for example, my weight gets wonky at one point in the month (no, not TOM, which I would have expected--my worst week tends to be right in the middle of my cycle). So like with my last weigh-in I happened to catch it on a low point high before this monthly occurrence started and got a weight loss of 1.4. If I had weighed in a couple of days later, I would have seen a gain of about the same. If this weren't something I am familiar with I could see it freaking me out, assuming it was all those 4th of July calories, etc., but it's really just a pattern that I see every month. It's also one reason that I weigh every day (not telling you to if it's triggering for you). My weight goes up and down and frankly if there's a trend that's what I'd rather see (if I start at 165 and then the next week it's fluctuating between 163 and 165 and the weigh in falls on 165 that's different than if it's fluctuating between 165 and 168 and the weigh in falls on 165--both of which are quite possible), and I'd also like to know if the weigh-in falls on a fluctuation up or down so I don't mistakenly think the next week is a gain if it isn't or see a gain where there's not one.
Within the short period of a month, even disregarding the water issue, your two data points don't necessarily mean you are really down a lb. You could be down substantially more. What we know is you lost an inch.
Beyond that, even if you had weighed enough to be able to say you stayed flat, that's a common side effect of sharply increasing a workout routine, especially adding lifting. So even that wouldn't be a reason to get frustrated at this point. Honestly, if the scale triggers you I don't think the answer is to weigh once a month unless you can do that without taking it as anything more than one of many data points. Pick out some clothes to use and measure yourself. Focus on increasing specific workout related accomplishments. It sounds to me like you are doing okay.
I'm going to follow with a part 2 with a couple of pointers/things I noticed, but feel free to ignore them--this was my main point.0 -
On logging, I didn't go into your diary beyond the past day, but this is what I noticed. You indicated before that you thought the "generic" entries with the counts based on "leg" or some such were the ones to use if you eat unbranded meats. They aren't, and I think they aren't likely to be accurate. Now, again, I don't think there's necessarily a problem to solve and I logged with estimates like this for a few months and lost fine, so I think the focus on precision you find here can be overstated or may apply more for people who need to use narrower margins (-10% of TDEE or thyroid issues, for example), but I like to use the tool as well as possible, so I found it really helpful to learn this. The best entries to use for unbranded, unprocessed whole foods are generally the MFP-input entries from the USDA without asterisks. I don't know what the "generic" ones are, but I've reviewed them and lots of them are questionable. ALL of the good entries I'm talking about here will have 100 gram options. This is significant, because something like "leg" really means little. Ideally, you'd also weigh boneless meat before cooking and then then particular way or length of time you cook won't matter. As I cook lots of bone-in meat that's not possible, but then it's important to use the best cooked entries (same ones, but those that specific cooked and the method--chicken, breast, skin on, cooked, roasted, for example, no asterisk). Finally, if you cook lots of meat, there's a certain level of inaccuracy that your entries will contain no matter what. I buy various cuts from a farm. How my particular cuts compare to the USDA averages or descriptions, who knows? It seems to work well enough, but it's worth keeping in the back of your head that your calories could be understated still. I do assume mine average out and don't stress about it, but that's just the truth.
Finally, on BMR and TDEE. I think your deficit is sufficient (assuming your logging is roughly accurate and what you say is accurate, which I am), so again this is not the problem. Once again, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to conclude that there is any problem. However, I believe you said you are 5'3 and 41, and if so your stats in the ballpark of my stats when I started actively MFP-ing. You seem to be taking the TDEE and BMR calculations as gospel, somewhat, but they really aren't. As just one example, even setting aside the exercise estimates which vary from one calculator site to the next, the three main calculations give different BMR results, and not moderately different in many cases. Harris-Benedict is invariably the highest, and even Mifflin-St Jeor will give you higher results than Katch-McCardle IF your body fat is higher than average (which it is if you are significantly overweight). Estimating based on various BFP, K-M (which is the most accurate if you know body fat) could well be 200-300 less than H-B as to BMR, which is one reason why the whole "don't eat less than your BMR" thing can be so overstressed here. (And I don't believe that it could possibly be why you aren't losing IF that were the case which we don't know.) Even without getting into possible metabolic damage, then, your deficit could be less than you are assuming.
But that's just to try and correct some stuff and because I've played with those calculators using similar numbers. My main point, again, is that it's silly to go nuts trying to analyze data where the data is insufficient to draw any conclusions from (other than you've lost an inch!). My recommendation is either spend another month doing what you are doing, which seems good and likely working, and collect more data, more regularly, or if that's not something that you can do--and that's an important call only you can make--don't worry about it and focus on those other ways of tracking.0 -
Despite the severely depressing report from the scale, I actually have noticed some other effects. Last night I tried on a pair of reference jeans, and based on that I have probably lost about an inch in my waist (I forgot to get measurements beforehand... my bad). I have more energy and don't want to nap at lunch anymore. I can keep up with my husband when we go places or do yard work. I'm not giving up the gym... I enjoy it too much.
^^This is success. Don't worry about the scale for now. When it's not cooperating, put it in time out for another month. One of these days it'll listen :happy:
:flowerforyou: Good luck to you and don't give up!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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