site tells me to eat almost 3k cals a day,,,but I eat half that and still dont loose
Replies
-
They are people that messaged me and warned me about the site "nazi's"...and pointed out a few different pot stirrers....I laugh at the messages im getting off post re; some of YOU posters,,,its funny...3 or 4 different people and they ALL say the same thing about the same posters...lol and they are CORRECT !
Who are these people? What is the fabulous advice they are giving you that is so different from the other people in this thread who have been trying to help you figure out why the numbers are off?
And you trust these people to be reliable sources of information just because they messaged and said certain people are bad?
What advice did they have for you concerning your situation? I'm curious as to what they are telling you, since earlier in this thread you referenced all the fabulous advice you were getting through PMs that you weren't getting here in the forum. So what's their explanation for your dilemma?
well two offered their opinions...they seemed like they were really trying to help figure it out,,,they were NOT just trying to start trouble...I assume thats why they messaged me off post so they didnt get dragged into the little cat fight that it seems some of these "ladies" live for....
They re: a different site then do a comparison to the numbers they report...they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post.....
Ok, you've got an entire thread full of people who were trying to help you figure out where the problem might be, and comparing your numbers to a different site was suggested here as well. So I'm not sure why you're being combative with users in the forum but nice to the people PMing you when both groups are giving you the same suggestions.
And you say "they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post….." - does that mean they messaged you to tell you how mean everyone was, or they were agreeing with something you said?
Because you're presenting this as you getting a massive influx of messages of "mean people everywhere!" from random posters, when it actually sounds like you started complaining on the PM about the responses here. Two very different scenarios.
And as far as the mods, starting trouble and retaliating are both prohibited, and anyone can report a post. If they really felt that certain people are out of line, they have the ability to report them to the mods, and the mods will handle it. A lot of long-time active posters have gotten strikes or bans just in the short time I've been on the forums.
whatever,,and the ENTIRE thread was NOT trying to help...pls give me a break
You know what? I tried to focus on your initial question, and your response to me was rude. I let it go because of all the other drama in the thread and actually tried to help figure out where the problem was. I haven't been rude to you, but you've been rude to me quite a few times, including the above.
So I'm going to leave you with this: I stand by my previous assessment of your situation. You're either not being honest/realistic in your logging, whether it's food or exercise burn; you're not being honest with the information you entered into MFP; or you've got a medical condition.
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.0 -
[/quote]
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.[/quote]
QFT0 -
-
HipsterWhovian wrote: »libbydoodle11 wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »I've read this whole thread, and all I want to do is correct the spelling and grammar in every single one of the OP's posts.
^^this^^
go right ahead...and when these phone co's start making phones for man size fingers and not little girls fingers then you point would be better made !
I'm on my phone, and I'm a person of male persuasion, therefore using 'man size fingers' and I don't seem to have any issues... #justsaying
im happy for you....and your point ? Other than trying to start trouble ?
Nope, no point. Just joining in with the banter on this thread.
0 -
If anyone is messaging OP to say that I am a "site nazi" or whatever, then OP is being sorely misinformed.
As for the numbers, they are what they are. The USDA lists 1 oz of oatmeal to be 120 calories and to yield 6+oz of final product when cooked. As I do not have any oatmeal in my house, I used the USDA numbers. I also am used to only measuring solids by weight (not volume) and used the standard 2 TBS = 1oz. This is where my 14g per TBS comes from. It's the same as to where I got my expansion ratio (177g / 28g = 6.3) for the amount. I also used the calorie ratio between the USDA number and the food diary number (120 calories / 18 calories = 6.7) to confirm the ratio of dry to cooked product. Those numbers both suggest that a tablespoon of dry oatmeal will yield over 6 tablespoons of prepared oatmeal.
The nutrition information on the box (40g = 150 calories) is not dramatically off from the USDA (which says 40g would be around 170 calories... but that's still pretty close).
The fact that OP is actually eating only 6g of oatmeal a day doesn't change much, aside from making me feel pretty sad for his portion size choices. 6g of oatmeal would be 23-26 calories (depending on whether you trust the box or the USDA more). He's logging 9 calories for it. That means the real value is 2.5-2.9 times the amount being logged. While the absolute amount of calories is tiny, the magnitude of the error is pretty massive. The fact that OP still doesn't recognize why logging 9 calories is incorrect (even tries to argue that it is actually the right number), suggests the possibility of systematic under-estimation of calories in other areas as well.
It's not just oatmeal. There are many questionable entries. For example, that 0.025 cups for cheese. As a quarter cup is usually an ounce, this would mean he's logging 2.8g of cheese. Again, a depressingly small amount of food. But, it is also impossible for that amount to be a real measured value unless he's using a scale with less than 1g precision (he's not... as confirmed from his own photo). So what does that 0.025 cups logged have to be? It has to be a guess. Granted, it could be one of the bags that list 30g as 1/4 cup. Which would allow it. But really, 3g of cheese? Who eats only 3g of cheese?
And it goes on and on. OP can be as mad at me as he wants (must be since my name came up several times after I left last night), but I'm not the one who is going through and making him log inaccurately. Frankly, I suspect there's a whole range of disordered behavior/thinking evident in this thread. But, that's not my problem. OP can work it out for himself.0 -
If anyone is messaging OP to say that I am a "site nazi" or whatever, then OP is being sorely misinformed.
As for the numbers, they are what they are. The USDA lists 1 oz of oatmeal to be 120 calories and to yield 6+oz of final product when cooked. As I do not have any oatmeal in my house, I used the USDA numbers. I also am used to only measuring solids by weight (not volume) and used the standard 2 TBS = 1oz. This is where my 14g per TBS comes from. It's the same as to where I got my expansion ratio (177g / 28g = 6.3) for the amount. I also used the calorie ratio between the USDA number and the food diary number (120 calories / 18 calories = 6.7) to confirm the ratio of dry to cooked product. Those numbers both suggest that a tablespoon of dry oatmeal will yield over 6 tablespoons of prepared oatmeal.
The nutrition information on the box (40g = 150 calories) is not dramatically off from the USDA (which says 40g would be around 170 calories... but that's still pretty close).
The fact that OP is actually eating only 6g of oatmeal a day doesn't change much, aside from making me feel pretty sad for his portion size choices. 6g of oatmeal would be 23-26 calories (depending on whether you trust the box or the USDA more). He's logging 9 calories for it. That means the real value is 2.5-2.9 times the amount being logged. While the absolute amount of calories is tiny, the magnitude of the error is pretty massive. The fact that OP still doesn't recognize why logging 9 calories is incorrect (even tries to argue that it is actually the right number), suggests the possibility of systematic under-estimation of calories in other areas as well.
It's not just oatmeal. There are many questionable entries. For example, that 0.025 cups for cheese. As a quarter cup is usually an ounce, this would mean he's logging 2.8g of cheese. Again, a depressingly small amount of food. But, it is also impossible for that amount to be a real measured value unless he's using a scale with less than 1g precision (he's not... as confirmed from his own photo). So what does that 0.025 cups logged have to be? It has to be a guess.
And it goes on and on. OP can be as mad at me as he wants (must be since my name came up several times after I left last night), but I'm not the one who is going through and making him log inaccurately. Frankly, I suspect there's a whole range of disordered behavior/thinking evident in this thread. But, that's not my problem. OP can work it out for himself.
Im NOT mad..you have your opinion and I have proven the comments you made prior as false....them's the facts Frob...now probably best to just leave it alone...nothing more to gain by adding more incorrect info...I even posted pictures showing that the same tablespoon of dry oatmeal after cooking still fit in the tablespoon...it wasnt 7 tablespoons like you said,,,so ive heard your responses...I will consider the source and pls refrain from further reply...because it very plain to see you entirely missed my ? and point
0 -
HipsterWhovian wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »libbydoodle11 wrote: »HipsterWhovian wrote: »I've read this whole thread, and all I want to do is correct the spelling and grammar in every single one of the OP's posts.
^^this^^
go right ahead...and when these phone co's start making phones for man size fingers and not little girls fingers then you point would be better made !
I'm on my phone, and I'm a person of male persuasion, therefore using 'man size fingers' and I don't seem to have any issues... #justsaying
im happy for you....and your point ? Other than trying to start trouble ?
Nope, no point. Just joining in with the banter on this thread.
I figured that0 -
They are people that messaged me and warned me about the site "nazi's"...and pointed out a few different pot stirrers....I laugh at the messages im getting off post re; some of YOU posters,,,its funny...3 or 4 different people and they ALL say the same thing about the same posters...lol and they are CORRECT !
Who are these people? What is the fabulous advice they are giving you that is so different from the other people in this thread who have been trying to help you figure out why the numbers are off?
And you trust these people to be reliable sources of information just because they messaged and said certain people are bad?
What advice did they have for you concerning your situation? I'm curious as to what they are telling you, since earlier in this thread you referenced all the fabulous advice you were getting through PMs that you weren't getting here in the forum. So what's their explanation for your dilemma?
well two offered their opinions...they seemed like they were really trying to help figure it out,,,they were NOT just trying to start trouble...I assume thats why they messaged me off post so they didnt get dragged into the little cat fight that it seems some of these "ladies" live for....
They re: a different site then do a comparison to the numbers they report...they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post.....
Ok, you've got an entire thread full of people who were trying to help you figure out where the problem might be, and comparing your numbers to a different site was suggested here as well. So I'm not sure why you're being combative with users in the forum but nice to the people PMing you when both groups are giving you the same suggestions.
And you say "they agreed that most here were missing my original ? and that they just loved to start trouble then run to a mod to try and delete a post….." - does that mean they messaged you to tell you how mean everyone was, or they were agreeing with something you said?
Because you're presenting this as you getting a massive influx of messages of "mean people everywhere!" from random posters, when it actually sounds like you started complaining on the PM about the responses here. Two very different scenarios.
And as far as the mods, starting trouble and retaliating are both prohibited, and anyone can report a post. If they really felt that certain people are out of line, they have the ability to report them to the mods, and the mods will handle it. A lot of long-time active posters have gotten strikes or bans just in the short time I've been on the forums.
whatever,,and the ENTIRE thread was NOT trying to help...pls give me a break
You know what? I tried to focus on your initial question, and your response to me was rude. I let it go because of all the other drama in the thread and actually tried to help figure out where the problem was. I haven't been rude to you, but you've been rude to me quite a few times, including the above.
So I'm going to leave you with this: I stand by my previous assessment of your situation. You're either not being honest/realistic in your logging, whether it's food or exercise burn; you're not being honest with the information you entered into MFP; or you've got a medical condition.
Since you know how many calories to eat to maintain your weight and activity level and the "in 5 weeks you would weigh X" message doesn't impact your progress in any way, perhaps you should just stop worrying about the numbers, or contact a site admin who would be able to explain to you more completely how your numbers were calculated and how they arrived at the number that they did.
Dont be such a cry baby.....I wasnt trying to be rude,,,you really should toughen up a bit-3 -
pscarolina wrote: »lol...I don't want them to delete this thread. It's funny. I have a facebook friend who argues like this (including the ,,,, instead of ....) He likes to be told how hard he works out too & accuses me of not getting the point or understanding his question when it was simple. meh...my man at the time was on gear so nothing was gonna impress me.
OP...your question is why don't you weigh 127 in 5 weeks since MFP told you that you would. I will say what others have said. Food or exercise calories are estimated incorrectly or your metabolism has adjusted to the point that you're outside the curve of what this site can do for you.
Don't delete! I need the entertainment!
You probably should get a life
...but it is a great post -1 -
If you exercise that much and don't lose weight on 1800 or whatever it was, you have a medical issue somewhere. There is just no way around that.
My routine is 125 miles on a bike per week. Run 5-10 miles per week, and lift heavy 5 days a week. I would drop so fast on 1800 (currently maintaining at 3600.
ok maintaining what ? what is your age,height,weight, sex ? I run on avg 40 plus miles a week,,,and bike 100 or so...my Garmin says ive biked 3100 miles this year so far and ran 890 something....again I dont make this stuff up and I try to be honest about everything
Male - 36 years old - 6'0 tall - 175lbs. I wasn't questioning what you do. I believe you exercise that much which is why I think you have to have something medically wrong. I have ridden 3500 miles this year (granted, it's faster pace than you) and have ran 310 miles this year. So you run more than me. I lift and ride a bit more than you. Too me, it's pretty close to even as far as calorie burns (with you probably being a bit higher on the burn side). I just can't fathom how you would gain weight at such a low number.
My recent blood work was done complete CBC, lipids etc...my HDL=122...LDL=73...Try's are 53...my Dr thinks the numbers are great...hope he knows what he's talking about
Have you had your thyroid tested? Blood panels are often wrong when it comes to testing thyroids.
I have...its normal...I can post my entire blood panel...pretty boring though0 -
Im NOT mad..you have your opinion and I have proven the comments you made prior as false....them's the facts Frob...now probably best to just leave it alone...nothing more to gain by adding more incorrect info...I even posted pictures showing that the same tablespoon of dry oatmeal after cooking still fit in the tablespoon...it wasnt 7 tablespoons like you said,,,so ive heard your responses...I will consider the source and pls refrain from further reply...because it very plain to see you entirely missed my ? and point
You still don't see it, do you? You still don't understand that you're not logging correctly. You honestly think you are. It's amazing.
You haven't proven anything. Your pictures don't show what you think they show.0 -
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
Or better yet YOU ignore this post and then go to another one to fight0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
ETA: And this assumes (and requires) reasonably accurate and consistent tracking. If you aren't doing that...(and based on a few posts, it seems that may be an issue)...then no amount of math will be able to compensate for that...(unless you're consistently off by the same absolute or relative amount and then you could build a formula around it, but it's probably just easier and more likely accurate to get some good data).0 -
TheStephil wrote: »If you aren't losing weight yet MFP is saying you are then either 1. you have a medical condition 2. you aren't burning as many calories as MFP thinks you are 3. you aren't tracking accurately and are eating more than you are telling MFP.
Either way... why do you care? Obviously you don't want to lose or gain weight so why bother tracking on MFP? Whatever you are doing is allowing you to maintain your current body mass. Leave it to that. MFP doesn't work for everyone and it obviously isn't giving you information that you find helpful. So I suggest you stop fighting with people and just deactivate your account.
Ill file your advise in the trash...thx though,,,one other possible and the same one people have messaged me...the site cal. is off/wrong....have a nice day-1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
I asked and never got a reply,,at least I didnt see it,,,how many cals do YOU think I should be eating after you saw all my stats ??0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »3000 is right at my maintenance as a 6' 185ish pound guy...so not surprising that you aren't losing at 3000. Now 1500 net...(and I mean *actually 1500*, not 1500ish)...is probably a little low for you even at your height and weight. Maybe somewhere closer to 2000?
Wait. If you're a 5'8" guy who weighs 140 pounds, how much are you trying to lose???
again,,,NOT trying to loose but the site keeps telling me I am loosing...
Oh, that. Yeah, the site keeps telling me I should be gaining about 1.5 pounds/week at that consumption...but I'm not, so I don't worry about it. It's unrealistic for a website to be able to predict every person's weight loss/gain.
Solution: Track your data, do some math, and voila!...you'll know your maintenance. From that, you can do some more math to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your goal weight.
/rocketsurgery
I asked and never got a reply,,at least I didnt see it,,,how many cals do YOU think I should be eating after you saw all my stats ??
Same as for everyone else...which is however many it takes to make satisfactory progress towards your weight goal over a reasonable period of time.0 -
Hmmm, so Mr cvc wont accurately measure some foods, doesn't measure other foods at all that he consumes, goes by a HRM for calorie burns which are not really accurate (though relatively good compared to other measures for aerobics), is inaccurate enough with spelling to make consistent inaccuracies with weighing even more probable (loose is not the same word as lose), is a 55yo man of only 140lbs at 5'8" who has already lost 57lbs (reduced muscle probable through weight loss and age risks=reduced daily burn), and then we find it all doesn't matter, he's not trying to lose weight, he just doesn't like MFP's inaccurate "fun" predictor of how much you will weigh "if every day were like today"...
So in summary: if you aren't losing, and you are getting a large enough variety of nutrients and not having health problems: 1) everything is fine 2) you either are making errors (like everyone does) and have a problem measuring your food (already verified) and/or measuring your exercise (also probable, almost everyone does) OR you have a different metabolic rate than the average normal human. I'm going to go with the already proven situation: there are errors in your calculations, you can fix them or not, your choice!
If you come to terms with the idea of portion sizes probably being larger than you record and really want to find out whats going on, here are some probable ideas as to where to look for your most likely errors in things you eat commonly in your log:
-Nuts -do you actually count the nuts? I always go over, 23 nuts in a serving of 160 cals means one nut is getting close to 10 cals, that matters, I can eat a extra serving in a "just a handful".
-wine -do you measure out the volume or just pour a glass? I find everyone fills a glass higher than "standard" at home, actually measure and you will fill far below full for a "full glass".
-pretzels -again, did you actually count out how many you ate of the exact type you ate? Big differences in calories of types and I lose track a lot/dont bother counting and guesstimate all the time.
-cheese -it always, always is more than I think if I measure, and it always is a significant amount of calories. We already found you think its not even important enough to log in some cases, yet still think you are accurate...and you think you are accurate to have 0.025 cup of it?!?! You seriously think you are accurate and are satisfied with 1/40th a cup of cheese...
-pastries -did you measure it to standard size and weigh it? I'll usually pick out one with more frosting or bigger or both when I eat one, and guess what? That can mean double the calories.
-corn with butter? -really? Now that is the most inaccurate type of measure you can get: how much of the corn did you actually eat? Some eat just a light bit off the external kernels, some scrape the kernels to the cobb. How much butter is 'with butter'?? I can get a tiny bit, or a whole 1/4 stick of butter on my ear of corn depending on how hot it is and how deep the troughs are between kernels...I'm just pointing out error sources here, this one alone could be 100 cals easy.
-oatmeal -yes sigh, I'm pretty certain you will shut down here since you are so adamant about this but I'll try: you log one tablespoon cooked, but you say you have one tablespoon dry. Dry swells up, increases volume when cooked, some more than others. A tablespoon of cooked oatmeal has LESS calories than a tablespoon of dry, its just the way things work when you add water to a dried grain. Think of this like popcorn: if you were to log a cup of popcorn, and went and took one whole cup of popcorn kernels and ate that after popping it, you'd eat a ton more calories. Oatmeal is the same way, not quite as dramatic though. I don't think the oatmeal calories are all that significant in the scope of things, but you are still wrong about this and refuse to acknowledge it, continuing a strong pattern of making probable errors and refusing to acknowledge its even possible.
Another tip is try to anticipate servings being a big more than you expect by not recording every single activity and all the minutes of exercise that you do. Try to anticipate how you respond vs the calculator, and customize to your patterns of eating and exercise and forget the exact numbers. I never measure things, and when I have switched to measuring, I have proven errors in serving estimation. Yet, right now I'm in a many month plateau and I still maintain +/-3 to 4lb range with no measurement, that's within scale, hydration and inflammation normal fluctuations. I will remember things I even forgot to log in retrospect...this can be yet another problem for you too. I know I make measurement errors all the time, I know they are there, and I account for them, try to change habits, try to make compensatory choices, don't log some activity here or there, etc.
If I were to think I was measuring accurately and insist on it as you are, I'd be a "miracle" in my own mind too, and get frustrated at why I'm not losing, after all the numbers in MFP say I should be... I'm not even going to go into how inaccurate measuring exercise burns can be, but the more you burn, the bigger an error gets here too, and from what you say you burn a lot = any error is amplified. Its tough to realize all of this sometimes and be honest with yourself and remember every single thing you ate. Good luck in fixing these error sources, should you choose to...I'm actually betting you will dismiss what I wrote, but someone who didn't respond may actually get help from it.0 -
isnt it funny all the DIFFERENT "opinions" here...starvation mode, no starvation mode, eat more, eat less, log exercise,dont log exercise...I wish there was a way to be accurate on the exercise burn...I know for an hour my HR stays at or above 80 percent everyday ...my Garmin shows one burn this site another0
-
shai...thats plain bs....I lost over 50 pounds drinking red wine,,,10 ozs everyday....again a calorie is a calorie no matter what you think...its been proven over and over again...my carbs are high ????? man you are loosing your mind NOT weight lol tell ya what...come run or bike with me and Ill see where you are when we are done...then eat about 150 carbs a day...then we will see where YOU are
Hmm, so people have gone about this the wrong way, and physical performance is what is proof to you? Then, she shouldn't follow you, you should follow ME to the gym, I'll put you and an equal weighted friend on either end of the bar and do bench presses with it. Following your train of thought here, this proves to you I'm right!
0 -
JustFindingMe wrote: »This has gotten really outrageous...
Can I ask, OP? Are you asking, because the "you should weigh _____ Lbs " under your food list, says you should be losing but you're not?
BINGO !!!!! Someone here CAN read,,,wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, so where's the problem?
If you're happy with your weight, what you are eating, and are eating enough to sustain your health and activity level, what does it matter what it says? So somewhere the math is slightly off in your energy balance equation compared to what you think it should be based on the numbers, but you've found what works for you and you've found your maintenance calories. Why worry about it?
Ok,,,,one more time,,,,ill go sllloooowwwww,,,,,,pls try and grasp my point is/was other than some VERY slight errors in my logging entries....I logged my exercise, food etc...I eat WAY under what the site says I should be eating...now im being told..dont log exercise ...and put your goals in as sedentary not active...so.....why ? Shouldnt the site be accurate ? Shouldnt we be honest ? so I need to lie about exercise and lifestyle to come up with daily cals of 1500 to 1700 for somebody that works out 7 days a week ????
The site only gives you calculations based on the information you enter. I'm 5'7", F, 36, about 140 lbs, and the number I get as "lightly active," not counting exercise calories, is around 1700, which is pretty consistent with other calculators I've used. I exercise 6 days a week and end up around 2000 calories per day in reality to lose 1/2 lb per week, which is pretty consistent with what I would get from MFP if I was inputting exercise calorie burns and eating back calories.
So either the information you entered is way off to the point where it gives you 3000 calories, the calories you are logging for food or exercise are off, or there's a glitch in the system that's throwing off your account. Try double checking your account to make sure the settings are correct, or just switch over to the TDEE method. This is a good site for calculating your TDEE:
scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
ive been to Scooby;s before and do his workouts with the weights...when I log honest exercise and food and lifestyle NOT sedentary but active...it tells me to eat like 2900 AFTER exercise...even with errors in my food weights,,,I still DONT eat that much...and it keeps telling me ill weigh 127 pounds and Im not loosing weigh ( I dont really want to either ) or changing size...I wear a 3 waist pants and I could probably go to a 30....I dont go much by that either because I think the clothes co's put smaller size labels to make people feel better
Now what is your 6 day a week workout ? I do 6-8 miles or running a day at a 8 pace or sometimes a little better...I log at 8.5 pace because of cool down...I also bike 3 days a week at about 19mph pace on the road,,,14-16 on my mtn bike,,,min 1 hour,,,some days 2 or more hours...in addition,,,active job and lifestyle and weights and resistance stuff 3 days a week.....
So you are eating 2k a day ? Again curious your workout schd.
Why the hell are you only eating 1500 - 1700 cals a day when you are exercising that much? Seriously? If you are burning that many calories and doing that much exercise, and you are a male with a decent weight... assuming no underlying medical conditions, you SHOULD be eating way more that 1500 - 1700 cals.
I am a 6'1 female, currently not exercising much at all, and I maintain at 2000 - set to just above sedentary. (have been for months)
Perhaps you need to see a doctor to see why you are NOT losing on 1500 -1700 cals...
Also... I think I would kill myself if I exercised that much and didn't eat WAY more.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »shai...thats plain bs....I lost over 50 pounds drinking red wine,,,10 ozs everyday....again a calorie is a calorie no matter what you think...its been proven over and over again...my carbs are high ????? man you are loosing your mind NOT weight lol tell ya what...come run or bike with me and Ill see where you are when we are done...then eat about 150 carbs a day...then we will see where YOU are
Hmm, so people have gone about this the wrong way, and physical performance is what is proof to you? Then, she shouldn't follow you, you should follow ME to the gym, I'll put you and an equal weighted friend on either end of the bar and do bench presses with it. Following your train of thought here, this proves to you I'm right!
no that proves to me nothing...I could do the same !0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »JustFindingMe wrote: »This has gotten really outrageous...
Can I ask, OP? Are you asking, because the "you should weigh _____ Lbs " under your food list, says you should be losing but you're not?
BINGO !!!!! Someone here CAN read,,,wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, so where's the problem?
If you're happy with your weight, what you are eating, and are eating enough to sustain your health and activity level, what does it matter what it says? So somewhere the math is slightly off in your energy balance equation compared to what you think it should be based on the numbers, but you've found what works for you and you've found your maintenance calories. Why worry about it?
Ok,,,,one more time,,,,ill go sllloooowwwww,,,,,,pls try and grasp my point is/was other than some VERY slight errors in my logging entries....I logged my exercise, food etc...I eat WAY under what the site says I should be eating...now im being told..dont log exercise ...and put your goals in as sedentary not active...so.....why ? Shouldnt the site be accurate ? Shouldnt we be honest ? so I need to lie about exercise and lifestyle to come up with daily cals of 1500 to 1700 for somebody that works out 7 days a week ????
The site only gives you calculations based on the information you enter. I'm 5'7", F, 36, about 140 lbs, and the number I get as "lightly active," not counting exercise calories, is around 1700, which is pretty consistent with other calculators I've used. I exercise 6 days a week and end up around 2000 calories per day in reality to lose 1/2 lb per week, which is pretty consistent with what I would get from MFP if I was inputting exercise calorie burns and eating back calories.
So either the information you entered is way off to the point where it gives you 3000 calories, the calories you are logging for food or exercise are off, or there's a glitch in the system that's throwing off your account. Try double checking your account to make sure the settings are correct, or just switch over to the TDEE method. This is a good site for calculating your TDEE:
scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
ive been to Scooby;s before and do his workouts with the weights...when I log honest exercise and food and lifestyle NOT sedentary but active...it tells me to eat like 2900 AFTER exercise...even with errors in my food weights,,,I still DONT eat that much...and it keeps telling me ill weigh 127 pounds and Im not loosing weigh ( I dont really want to either ) or changing size...I wear a 3 waist pants and I could probably go to a 30....I dont go much by that either because I think the clothes co's put smaller size labels to make people feel better
Now what is your 6 day a week workout ? I do 6-8 miles or running a day at a 8 pace or sometimes a little better...I log at 8.5 pace because of cool down...I also bike 3 days a week at about 19mph pace on the road,,,14-16 on my mtn bike,,,min 1 hour,,,some days 2 or more hours...in addition,,,active job and lifestyle and weights and resistance stuff 3 days a week.....
So you are eating 2k a day ? Again curious your workout schd.
Why the hell are you only eating 1500 - 1700 cals a day when you are exercising that much? Seriously? If you are burning that many calories and doing that much exercise, and you are a male with a decent weight... assuming no underlying medical conditions, you SHOULD be eating way more that 1500 - 1700 cals.
I am a 6'1 female, currently not exercising much at all, and I maintain at 2000 - set to just above sedentary. (have been for months)
Perhaps you need to see a doctor to see why you are NOT losing on 1500 -1700 cals...
Also... I think I would kill myself if I exercised that much and didn't eat WAY more.
I eat when im hungry I guess ???...its not like I starve myself0 -
so it was suggested I chg my goals to "sed" and dont log my exercise...this seems pretty silly as the site isnt set up this way but ok...I did it and it tells me to still eat over 1700 cals...now I WILL be doing my daily hard cardio 7 days a week...in addition I WILL be doing weights 3 times a week with resistance workout...in addition to that my job that IS alot of walking and carrying boxes,tools etc....but im not going to log that ??? makes zero sense
I think they mean:
Sedentary & log exercise (including activity at work)
Very active & don't log exercise
If you really want to do both, you could pick moderately active and log 50-100% of estimated calories.
I don't know how many calories you should be eating, but you're in a great spot if you do eat in a surplus with all the exercise and manual labor. I'm guessing MFP thinks you will lose weight if you are eating at maintenance but counting both a high activity level and also logging exercise calories. (I can't remember if you said you were or not. Entertaining thread, but not a re-read thread.
)
0 -
so it was suggested I chg my goals to "sed" and dont log my exercise...this seems pretty silly as the site isnt set up this way but ok...I did it and it tells me to still eat over 1700 cals...now I WILL be doing my daily hard cardio 7 days a week...in addition I WILL be doing weights 3 times a week with resistance workout...in addition to that my job that IS alot of walking and carrying boxes,tools etc....but im not going to log that ??? makes zero sense
I think they mean:
Sedentary & log exercise (including activity at work)
Very active & don't log exercise
If you really want to do both, you could pick moderately active and log 50-100% of estimated calories.
I don't know how many calories you should be eating, but you're in a great spot if you do eat in a surplus with all the exercise and manual labor. I'm guessing MFP thinks you will lose weight if you are eating at maintenance but counting both a high activity level and also logging exercise calories. (I can't remember if you said you were or not. Entertaining thread, but not a re-read thread. )
0 -
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
Or better yet YOU ignore this post and then go to another one to fight
Wow, you are a little testy aren't ya?
I was sincerely trying to be helpful. Good luck here crabby.0 -
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
Or better yet YOU ignore this post and then go to another one to fight
Wow, you are a little testy aren't ya?
I was sincerely trying to be helpful. Good luck here crabby.
crabby ? You were trying to be helpfull...lol thats funny.....good one0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »Hmmm, so Mr cvc wont accurately measure some foods, doesn't measure other foods at all that he consumes, goes by a HRM for calorie burns which are not really accurate (though relatively good compared to other measures for aerobics), is inaccurate enough with spelling to make consistent inaccuracies with weighing even more probable (loose is not the same word as lose), is a 55yo man of only 140lbs at 5'8" who has already lost 57lbs (reduced muscle probable through weight loss and age risks=reduced daily burn), and then we find it all doesn't matter, he's not trying to lose weight, he just doesn't like MFP's inaccurate "fun" predictor of how much you will weigh "if every day were like today"...
So in summary: if you aren't losing, and you are getting a large enough variety of nutrients and not having health problems: 1) everything is fine 2) you either are making errors (like everyone does) and have a problem measuring your food (already verified) and/or measuring your exercise (also probable, almost everyone does) OR you have a different metabolic rate than the average normal human. I'm going to go with the already proven situation: there are errors in your calculations, you can fix them or not, your choice!
If you come to terms with the idea of portion sizes probably being larger than you record and really want to find out whats going on, here are some probable ideas as to where to look for your most likely errors in things you eat commonly in your log:
-Nuts -do you actually count the nuts? I always go over, 23 nuts in a serving of 160 cals means one nut is getting close to 10 cals, that matters, I can eat a extra serving in a "just a handful".
-wine -do you measure out the volume or just pour a glass? I find everyone fills a glass higher than "standard" at home, actually measure and you will fill far below full for a "full glass".
-pretzels -again, did you actually count out how many you ate of the exact type you ate? Big differences in calories of types and I lose track a lot/dont bother counting and guesstimate all the time.
-cheese -it always, always is more than I think if I measure, and it always is a significant amount of calories. We already found you think its not even important enough to log in some cases, yet still think you are accurate...and you think you are accurate to have 0.025 cup of it?!?! You seriously think you are accurate and are satisfied with 1/40th a cup of cheese...
-pastries -did you measure it to standard size and weigh it? I'll usually pick out one with more frosting or bigger or both when I eat one, and guess what? That can mean double the calories.
-corn with butter? -really? Now that is the most inaccurate type of measure you can get: how much of the corn did you actually eat? Some eat just a light bit off the external kernels, some scrape the kernels to the cobb. How much butter is 'with butter'?? I can get a tiny bit, or a whole 1/4 stick of butter on my ear of corn depending on how hot it is and how deep the troughs are between kernels...I'm just pointing out error sources here, this one alone could be 100 cals easy.
-oatmeal -yes sigh, I'm pretty certain you will shut down here since you are so adamant about this but I'll try: you log one tablespoon cooked, but you say you have one tablespoon dry. Dry swells up, increases volume when cooked, some more than others. A tablespoon of cooked oatmeal has LESS calories than a tablespoon of dry, its just the way things work when you add water to a dried grain. Think of this like popcorn: if you were to log a cup of popcorn, and went and took one whole cup of popcorn kernels and ate that after popping it, you'd eat a ton more calories. Oatmeal is the same way, not quite as dramatic though. I don't think the oatmeal calories are all that significant in the scope of things, but you are still wrong about this and refuse to acknowledge it, continuing a strong pattern of making probable errors and refusing to acknowledge its even possible.
Another tip is try to anticipate servings being a big more than you expect by not recording every single activity and all the minutes of exercise that you do. Try to anticipate how you respond vs the calculator, and customize to your patterns of eating and exercise and forget the exact numbers. I never measure things, and when I have switched to measuring, I have proven errors in serving estimation. Yet, right now I'm in a many month plateau and I still maintain +/-3 to 4lb range with no measurement, that's within scale, hydration and inflammation normal fluctuations. I will remember things I even forgot to log in retrospect...this can be yet another problem for you too. I know I make measurement errors all the time, I know they are there, and I account for them, try to change habits, try to make compensatory choices, don't log some activity here or there, etc.
If I were to think I was measuring accurately and insist on it as you are, I'd be a "miracle" in my own mind too, and get frustrated at why I'm not losing, after all the numbers in MFP say I should be... I'm not even going to go into how inaccurate measuring exercise burns can be, but the more you burn, the bigger an error gets here too, and from what you say you burn a lot = any error is amplified. Its tough to realize all of this sometimes and be honest with yourself and remember every single thing you ate. Good luck in fixing these error sources, should you choose to...I'm actually betting you will dismiss what I wrote, but someone who didn't respond may actually get help from it.
Humm I did read your reply...I think people are zooming in on the oatmeal TOOOOO much...adding 10 or 20 cals here and there does NOT make up over 1000 that it said I was undereating UNTIL I chgs my goals to sedentary and no exercise,,,which I still think is stupid to have to do....I also understand cooked vs dry....I USE 1 tblspoon DRY...even after its cooked its still slightly over but still fits in the tablespoon,,,which I posted pics of..
Again my entire point that MOST here missed and just wanted to stir things up was...even though there were some SLIGHT errors in logging food...the site told me I was undereating and I would weigh 127 pounds....not true...then others said " well chg your life style to sedentary, and dont log exercise" well duh thats going to drop down my cals to 1790 that I should be eating but im lying to the site !!
I have a VERY active lifestyle, I exercise hard every day 7 days a week, weights 3 days a week,walk, walk the dog etc....so now IF I lie and say im a slug,,,the site will say eat 1790 cals,,,I will loose weight....smh0 -
Ignore the site. There, I have solved all your problems.
Or better yet YOU ignore this post and then go to another one to fight
Wow, you are a little testy aren't ya?
I was sincerely trying to be helpful. Good luck here crabby.
You just dont want this post to end,,,,you look forward to it....you need it...its your whole life....:)0 -
Well...for the sake of science & to improve MFP, you could do a little experiment. Try eating your current calories in pre-measured things like protein shakes & bars & weighing all the food you eat (every morsel or drop that isn't pre-packaged). After a couple of weeks of that plus this rigorous workout schedule you have, report back & let us know what happened.0
-
pscarolina wrote: »Well...for the sake of science & to improve MFP, you could do a little experiment. Try eating your current calories in pre-measured things like protein shakes & bars & weighing all the food you eat (every morsel or drop that isn't pre-packaged). After a couple of weeks of that plus this rigorous workout schedule you have, report back & let us know what happened.
uh,,,,,no thanks....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions