So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?

sorry for hijacking the threa, but I do have a question on "logging". OK I do use food scale and measure. but I also find it sometimes difficult to get the corresponging data entry in MFP DB, often so many things are measured with "cup", "piece" and "spoon". So what should I do? thank you~

I, personally, like this thread/explanation...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

You guys realize that you don't need to weigh almonds to get enough accuracy, right? And that even when you do weigh your almonds, it's an estimate. Your scale is estimating the weight. The database value is average calories for almonds. Your almond is not necessarily average. It doesn't matter. We don't need pinpoint accuracy. I wouldn't eyeball a cup of peanut butter but I also wouldn't weigh 4 almonds.

I don't know what kind of scale you use, but my kitchen scale is calibrated and accurate to .1 grams. Quality, functional kitchen scales do not 'estimate'... they actually measure.

I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.

soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?

Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.

I don't believe everything. That doesn't mean I don't believe anything.

300 calories per hour for walking sounds reasonable. 3mph is a slow amble and 100 calories per mile is feasible (gross). At least Fitbit runs around there. It's probably more like 75-80 for 120lbs. but you could also cover closer to 4 miles.

None of her burns look ridiculous to me, and I'm closer to her size. But double-counting any of that is going to show a skewed picture, for sure.

I understand it doesn't look that way to you. Can we analyze this neutrally without you thinking I'm attacking you? I'll do it the way I analyze just by checking against other sources here. So, if I postulate you are right, this means all my burns are UNDER estimates by a lot since I am double her weight. So if you are correct, I am burning upwards of 300-600 calories more per day than I think, but I just dont see that with my weight loss. Or, I am eating HUGELY over what I say, even though I measure and already detect errors in my measurements. Both of these are unlikely. Next, I check online, it takes me a couple minutes to test several website calorie estimators, they show around 195 calories/hr for a 130lb woman, 300 for a 205lb man. Next, I check MFP data, which says 328 for me at about 220lbs I think it was, put in a 3mph walk for your weight and see what MFP comes up with, I bet its not in the 300's.

Now lets also check another possible error source: your perception and estimation. 3mph is a slow amble??? Well I'm about 6' and this is not categorized as a slow for me unless I'm walking a flat road maybe. So, unless you are very tall or walk exceedingly fast, I'd think its more than likely you are over-estimating what speed you think you walk at. Have you actually taken a 3 mi stretch of road and walked it to see how long you took? I have, 3mph I dont even quite reach when walking my dogs all the time, I even thought I was walking 3.5mph at times and found that to be wrong too. Thus I corrected my speed downwards, it was embarrasing. Granted I do have to stop here and there for the dogs, but I am at no time "slowly ambling". I'd categorize 2mph as a slow amble after actually measuring how long its taken me to reach measured walks and hikes of 3 and 2 miles 100s of times now.

So really if we analyze for errors, your "hunch" goes against all these points, logically you need to show all the sources wrong to be right, correct? It also appears to be that either you mis-estimate the actual walking speed of 3mph, or are very tall or an exceedingly fast walker. So the next tests would be to find a 3mi stretch and see how long it takes you to walk it. I bet your burn is also high. Its very common, most people over estimate!

I find all her burns to be grossly overestimated, and her fitbit compounds the problem, more than doubling her over-burns.

I don't understand why this is a debate. She has posted her weight loss numbers. People have analyzed her diary. The weight loss doesn't match the calorie totals so obviously something is off. It's not that difficult.

I don't understand why this is a debate. She has posted her weight loss numbers. People have analyzed her diary. The weight loss doesn't match the calorie totals so obviously something is off. It's not that difficult.

because she spent the entirety of the first 3 pages INSISTING that her numbers were completely accurate and that any inconsistencies in the diary entries were just confusion on our part.

i completely agree with you, btw

I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.

soooo.....people started sharing the stories that you claimed they weren't and when they get rejected out of hand. would you like to critique the other stories in the same manner as you rejected the first one?

Honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in MFP forum stories about starvation mode and hair falling out, I'm sorry. I tend to believe what I read in books and journals instead. So yeah, I pretty much reject them out of hand.

THEN WHY DID YOU BOTHER TO COMMENT THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T SHARE STORIES? so that you could call them liars to their faces?


Why are you even here?

I thought you were saying the 'shared stories' were definitive evidence. I don't think they are. I didn't suggest I would think three more would be?

I'm not calling anyone a liar. Personal anecdote is not very reliable as data. Hair falls out. Memories fade over 20 years. We misunderstand our own symptoms and even our own doctors. And, yes, some do sometimes post a little b.s. on the internet to bolster the argument they wish to bolster.

Back when everyone truly believed that it was dangerous to eat below your BMR you could find all kinds of horror stories about that, too. Back when people believed you couldn't intermittently fast, there were horror stories about short fasts. There were horror stories about women lifting over 5 lb. weights at one time.

Believe it or not, I do help people here. Just because I don't agree with everyone on every point, I should not post? That pretty much means no one should.

I don't understand why this is a debate. She has posted her weight loss numbers. People have analyzed her diary. The weight loss doesn't match the calorie totals so obviously something is off. It's not that difficult.

I do agree with you there. Not that I saw the diary but if it doesn't add up... yeah, it doesn't add up. (I still agree that there is generally exaggerated fear over low net calories, though.)

Are you losing 1.5lbs per week WalkingAlong? Curious because your picture suggests it.