one... freaking... pound...
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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-guide
Thank you. That post was incredibly helpful. I didn't realize we had the ability to edit the database entries and then have them show up as our own for use later.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.
Forgive me for my "wait... what?" reaction, but eating back the exercise calories really does seem counter-intuitive. A few other people have asked me the same thing and my first thought was "of course not! Exercise isn't an excuse to overeat!"
However, dietary fat isn't a problem. I've got my macros set as 50% protein, 40% fat, 10% carbs. My problem is usually getting enough protein.0 -
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.
Staying away from the scale has been hard. There have been a few times that I've had to forceably argue with myself about getting on the scale "just to check". Sometimes it's a trigger, sometimes not.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.
That's a doubly frustrating part for me, and yes something I'm trying to take into account. Historically, when I'm going to have fluctuations like that, they're not just a pound or two. I've watched the scale bounce up 5-7 pounds in one day, and then that weight doesn't go away. That scares me, and not for ED reasons but because I know that even for healthy eaters, that is NOT normal.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.
Another responder was kind enough to post the link to the MFP accurate logging thread, which helps a LOT. I hadn't realized that we had the ability to adjust nutritional info and to have it saved as the ones we've personally created or fixed. That's going to go a long way in helping me be more accurate with my logging.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.
Forgive me for my "wait... what?" reaction, but eating back the exercise calories really does seem counter-intuitive. A few other people have asked me the same thing and my first thought was "of course not! Exercise isn't an excuse to overeat!"
However, dietary fat isn't a problem. I've got my macros set as 50% protein, 40% fat, 10% carbs. My problem is usually getting enough protein.
Um, eating back exercise calories is fuel....
MFP builds in your deficit, assuming that you will do NO exercise.
Person 1 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they do no exercise and eat 2000 calories so they'll properly lose weight, right?
Person 2 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they burn off 500 so now they can eat 2500. 2500 - 500 = 2000 calories. So they still meet their goal and will lose weight, right? How would that be overeating. Wouldn't netting 1500 potentially be under eating for said person?
Can a larger person get away with skipping it...ya, but the closer you get to your goal weight the more you need that fuel if you exercise. Again, how would that be overeating?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.
Forgive me for my "wait... what?" reaction, but eating back the exercise calories really does seem counter-intuitive. A few other people have asked me the same thing and my first thought was "of course not! Exercise isn't an excuse to overeat!"
However, dietary fat isn't a problem. I've got my macros set as 50% protein, 40% fat, 10% carbs. My problem is usually getting enough protein.
BMR is the minimum amount of energy that your body requires for organs to function properly. If your energy consumption nets below that amount, then your body must draw upon stored fat. However, body fat is also a required organ. Once your body fat slips below a certain percentage, your body will distribute the energy demand on all required organs, and not just body fat alone. This is a stressful state for the body. Cortisol is released to make the body perform more efficiently to lessen the energy demand.
Basically, if you don't give your body the energy it needs to make all of your organs work, then your organs will become weakened. That is basically what happens as a result of anorexia. You are presently eating just a little above BMR while exercising, creating a total energy demand that deprives your body of the minimum energy it requires to function.0 -
Hello. First of all, I should say that you are an excellent writer, and I enjoyed your subtle sense of humor. Thanks for sharing your experience. I think we can all relate to times when we felt good about following a healthy eating plan but it didn't show at the scale. Not everything is under our control. But I'm glad to see that you are going to keep up your exercise. You are toning and building muscles with each visit...so good for you! More and more, I've come to believe that the mental component is as important as the physical one. Your mind has to be right with this weight loss journey and fully committed. I am making "a fresh start" again in my attempt to lose 15 pounds. We'll see if I can stick with it this time. As an aside, I'll just share that I started eating gluten-free six years ago, and it's make a big difference for me (less joint pain in knees and wrists). My sisters are also eating gluten-free (its a genetic condition) and have had even better results.
Keep up the good work!0 -
Are you eating your exercise calories back?
Ah. I see. Based on my report function, my thresshold still shows up as 1780, and I've had 3 instances in 30 days where I've gone significantly over, enough to cancel out the exercise for that day.
What I can't log in my exercise charts is the circuit training. It only provides for the reps of each exercise and doesn't show calories burned the way cardio does.
Lifting weights doesn't burn much in the way of calories unless you are doing it crazy cardio style. Hence no calories listed. BUT, overall, resistance is better than cardio because you are building muscle that will increase your metabolism.
And exercise calories or not is up to you. I don't eat them back unless my net is then under 1,000. I still average 1300 cals a day because my weekends aren't great in terms of food choices, booze and skipping the gym.
0 -
Um, eating back exercise calories is fuel....
Ok... honest question, how does that differ from the fuel we're eating normally, or the fuel from body fat? I always thought that part of the point of exercise, aside from increasing metabolism and building muscle, was to help create a larger daily caloric deficit.MFP builds in your deficit, assuming that you will do NO exercise.
Person 1 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they do no exercise and eat 2000 calories so they'll properly lose weight, right?
Person 2 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they burn off 500 so now they can eat 2500. 2500 - 500 = 2000 calories. So they still meet their goal and will lose weight, right? How would that be overeating. Wouldn't netting 1500 potentially be under eating for said person?
Honestly, I don't know. I was under the impression that when dieting, you should never drop below 1200 calories.Can a larger person get away with skipping it...ya, but the closer you get to your goal weight the more you need that fuel if you exercise. Again, how would that be overeating?
I guess because I've seen too many other posts on other boards where people attempt to justify "extras" because they've exercised that day. "Oh, I ran half a mile so that lets me have this can of Coke/cookie/doughnut/extra helping/massive slice of cheesecake."
And this confusion just adds to my problems with the calories in < calories out mantra, since that just indicates that the bigger the deficit, the better. So I understand it from a goal weight perspective, and understand why eating more would be required by someone like Michael Phelps who's burning through 7,000 calories a day just in exercise alone. It's harder to understand from a weight loss perspective, at least for me.0 -
It doesn't. No one argues you need to eat your calorie you burn this minute in food taken in this minute but for some reason if you make the time span 24 hours and the energy need a 'workout', calorie timing/source is important to people. If you put in MFP that you're "very active" you don't have to eat back. If you put in that you're sedentary with workouts, you do. There is no difference. Your TDEE is your TDEE. If you need more food for blood sugar regularity or something, that's timing you can manage but for 'fuel', it's more analagous to gas in a tank. It's all mixed, not dated.Um, eating back exercise calories is fuel....
Ok... honest question, how does that differ from the fuel we're eating normally, or the fuel from body fat?0 -
It's not true that the bigger the deficit the better, although many, many people believe that. Especially for someone with a history of restrictive eating problems, you want to be careful not to buy into that message, since it could be triggering for you.And this confusion just adds to my problems with the calories in < calories out mantra, since that just indicates that the bigger the deficit, the better. So I understand it from a goal weight perspective, and understand why eating more would be required by someone like Michael Phelps who's burning through 7,000 calories a day just in exercise alone. It's harder to understand from a weight loss perspective, at least for me.
The goal shouldn't be to eat as little as possible -- if it were, we could all just fast for a week and drop a ton of weight, and of course it doesn't work that way. The goal should be to eat as many calories as possible while still losing weight. Your body needs the nutrition that comes along with those calories, and if you restrict too much, you're not adequately fueling your body or giving it what it needs to function optimally.
Think of it this way: if you get sick and the doctor prescribes you medicine, you won't get better faster if you double up on the dose for half the time. You won't lose weight faster and faster if you keep increasing your deficit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions