I exercise and eat healthy - but get fatter
Replies
-
remnantkin wrote: »"eating healthy"....
"eating healthy"....
As others have said, start quantifying this. Calories. Numbers. Tracking.
The science is sound and the numbers don't lie. The sooner you start measuring your input vs output in regards to calories, the sooner you'll start to figure out where the problem is.
Then you can adjust and start losing weight again.
Simple maths is all that's required to work out your approximate calorie limits. Current weight (in lbs) x10 = max daily calories for loss/deficit, x14 for sustain, x16 for gain. Work out whatever calories you burn through physical exertion each day and add that to give you your total max limit for the day.
I.e. My current weight, 218lbs, my calorie limit = 2180. 5k run = ~550 calories; Walk to work 350 calories. New max limit: 2180 + 550 + 350 = 3080. If i eat under this, I'll weigh less the next day. If i make sure that I've eaten an appropriate amount of protein that day, more fat will be lost than lean muscle.
Repeat until target weight (I've been losing 2lbs a week since November)
Keep it simple. Don't over think things. Limit your calories and use the macros to control how you feel, i.e. protein to quell hunger, carbs to give you energy. The weight should gradually fall off if you stick to this.
Measuring calories burned through exercise is trickier. The calculations on this site aren't always the most accurate but when used in combination with other online calculators, can give you a bit of clearer idea of how much you've burned.
Also, if you're standing all day as a teacher, wear a pedometer. Chances are you'll clock up a good few hundred calories of exercise from all the walking about throughout the day.
No, dear God no, do NOT peddle this kind of message to people. Like HELL I'm eating 1450 calories to lose weight when I only have ~15lbs to go. I didn't even eat that little when I was 188lbs! This is a TERRIBLE thing to recommend to people - it is going to work for very few people.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »I am not saying this to insult you, so don't think I'm trying to imply you're not an intelligent or self aware person, or anything.
But chances are extremely good that you're not as accurate on your intake as you think you are.
No problem
I'm here to get a good advice. So I'm happy when there are suggestions of what I could change.
OK. I'll track everything I consume. Sounds reasonable.
Now I really think that I may have eaten a little bit too much. Or maybe my good-morning-smoothie was too much fruit - I eat pretty much fruit.... > sugar
From now on I'll have a veggie-smoothie in the morning instead0 -
Sugar from fruit is not a bad thing. There's really no need to cut that out for most people. Fruit is healthy and good for you, and tasty.
Even some added sugar from processed foods isn't gonna throw you off, as long as it's not the only thing you eat morning to night.
It's the calorie deficit, is all.0 -
No, dear God no, do NOT peddle this kind of message to people. Like HELL I'm eating 1450 calories to lose weight when I only have ~15lbs to go. I didn't even eat that little when I was 188lbs! This is a TERRIBLE thing to recommend to people - it is going to work for very few people.
You wouldn't have been eating that low at 188lbs because you should have been eating at most around 1880 calories (before exercise). It's a basic (rough) calorie deficit/sustain/growth calculation determined by your current bodyweight. The more you weigh, the more you can eat. If you're looking to drop from 10stone to 9 (145 to 130lbs) you can't be sitting around the house all day scoffing 2000 calories.0 -
you have to track your calories, period.0
-
0
-
@ everybody: thanks a lot for your help!!0
-
__nicole__ wrote: »NoelFigart1 wrote: »I am not saying this to insult you, so don't think I'm trying to imply you're not an intelligent or self aware person, or anything.
But chances are extremely good that you're not as accurate on your intake as you think you are.
No problem I'm here to get a good advice. So I'm happy when there are suggestions of what I could change.
OK. I'll track everything I consume. Sounds reasonable.
Now I really think that I may have eaten a little bit too much. Or maybe my good-morning-smoothie was too much fruit - I eat pretty much fruit.... > sugar
From now on I'll have a veggie-smoothie in the morning instead
Have a McDonalds Mocha Milkshake if that's what you want.
Look - you have to get past this "healthy" thing that's still apparent even in your last post I quoted above.
Fruit (sugar) is just fine amd you can lose plenty of weight enjoying both your ftuit and your sugar. NO vegetable smoothie is better/healthier in terms of your problem. It's the calories. You will continue to put on weight, even on veggie smoothies if you continue to overconsume.
"Healthy" eating is not the issue.
*Over*eating is.
0 -
remnantkin wrote: »No, dear God no, do NOT peddle this kind of message to people. Like HELL I'm eating 1450 calories to lose weight when I only have ~15lbs to go. I didn't even eat that little when I was 188lbs! This is a TERRIBLE thing to recommend to people - it is going to work for very few people.
You wouldn't have been eating that low at 188lbs because you should have been eating at most around 1880 calories (before exercise). It's a basic (rough) calorie deficit/sustain/growth calculation determined by your current bodyweight. The more you weigh, the more you can eat. If you're looking to drop from 10stone to 9 (145 to 130lbs) you can't be sitting around the house all day scoffing 2000 calories.
Sorry, I should have clarified and I did read it a bit wrong (another user suggests 10x your GOAL weight for weight loss). But I didnt' even only eat 1880 when I was at my heaviest. I quickly bumped it up to 2000-2250 calories. Which still may have been lower than needed.
If you want to lose weight, you need to figure out your energy expenditure. So no, if all I did was sit on my *kitten* all day I probably wouldn't lose that much eating 2000 calories (but I would still lose at my weight of 160lbs). But because I lift weights 4x a week for ~40 minutes or more and because I do ~1.5hrs of cardio a week, I CAN lose weight easily on 2000 calories. I actually had to increase it because I didn't feel great eating only 2000 calories. Whether you do TDEE (gross) or net calorie methods (MFP), it's about basing your intake on your energy needs, not on some generic calculation of your weight times some random number. So again, please do not tell people to use that type of calculation. You can most likely eat more than you are currently eating as well to lose weight.0 -
__nicole__ wrote: »No, currently not. I did it for a while to get a feeling for how many calories/fat etc I eat, but I didn't do it here on myfitnesspal. I used another app.
I eat about 1300-1500 calories a day. Sometimes more. But I think I should definately not gain weight or even fat that way... I also don't think that I undereat...??
You're eating more than you think you are. Start weighing food, logging, and eat at a calorie deficit, and you will lose weight.
Under eating does not make a person fat, overeating does.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »I am not saying this to insult you, so don't think I'm trying to imply you're not an intelligent or self aware person, or anything.
But chances are extremely good that you're not as accurate on your intake as you think you are. Please understand this is coming from someone who has been dieting off and on since she was TWELVE. I know that a serving of meat is supposed to be about the size of a deck of cards, I know that serving of pasta is half a cup which is about half the size of a tennis ball -- all that smack.
If you do not measure (and I mean use a scale rather than volume measurement) every damn gram that goes in your mouth, you cannot be sure of your intake.
The handful of raisins you eat because you're starving when you get home from work while you're prepping dinner... That counts and needs to be weighed. The creamer in your coffee counts. (IF you're like me and use half-n-half that does add up quick). The oil you use to sautee those very healthy veggies -- totally counts and needs to be accounted for in your diet.
If I am making this out to be a tedious, obsessive pain in the butt... Well, you're right. It totally is. But after doing that for a period of time, you WILL have a much greater and more accurate understanding of your caloric intake.
(I say this as someone who would have sworn on a stack of Bibles I had to exercise a million hours a week and eat less than 1,200 calories a day to lose weight. Not really true. I do work out about five hours a week, true enough, but I am losing a pound a week pretty steadily at an average of 1773 calories a day and I'm a short, middle-aged yo-yo dieter!)
Yep. So well said.
0 -
I agree that those type calculations often do not work for a lot of people. I'm not even that active but yet I'd lose weight at 14 calories per pound. I'm maintaining at 18 calories per pound of bodyweight as it is.remnantkin wrote: »No, dear God no, do NOT peddle this kind of message to people. Like HELL I'm eating 1450 calories to lose weight when I only have ~15lbs to go. I didn't even eat that little when I was 188lbs! This is a TERRIBLE thing to recommend to people - it is going to work for very few people.
You wouldn't have been eating that low at 188lbs because you should have been eating at most around 1880 calories (before exercise). It's a basic (rough) calorie deficit/sustain/growth calculation determined by your current bodyweight. The more you weigh, the more you can eat. If you're looking to drop from 10stone to 9 (145 to 130lbs) you can't be sitting around the house all day scoffing 2000 calories.
Sorry, I should have clarified and I did read it a bit wrong (another user suggests 10x your GOAL weight for weight loss). But I didnt' even only eat 1880 when I was at my heaviest. I quickly bumped it up to 2000-2250 calories. Which still may have been lower than needed.
If you want to lose weight, you need to figure out your energy expenditure. So no, if all I did was sit on my *kitten* all day I probably wouldn't lose that much eating 2000 calories (but I would still lose at my weight of 160lbs). But because I lift weights 4x a week for ~40 minutes or more and because I do ~1.5hrs of cardio a week, I CAN lose weight easily on 2000 calories. I actually had to increase it because I didn't feel great eating only 2000 calories. Whether you do TDEE (gross) or net calorie methods (MFP), it's about basing your intake on your energy needs, not on some generic calculation of your weight times some random number. So again, please do not tell people to use that type of calculation. You can most likely eat more than you are currently eating as well to lose weight.
0 -
Sorry, I should have clarified and I did read it a bit wrong (another user suggests 10x your GOAL weight for weight loss). But I didnt' even only eat 1880 when I was at my heaviest. I quickly bumped it up to 2000-2250 calories. Which still may have been lower than needed.
If you want to lose weight, you need to figure out your energy expenditure. So no, if all I did was sit on my *kitten* all day I probably wouldn't lose that much eating 2000 calories (but I would still lose at my weight of 160lbs). But because I lift weights 4x a week for ~40 minutes or more and because I do ~1.5hrs of cardio a week, I CAN lose weight easily on 2000 calories. I actually had to increase it because I didn't feel great eating only 2000 calories. Whether you do TDEE (gross) or net calorie methods (MFP), it's about basing your intake on your energy needs, not on some generic calculation of your weight times some random number. So again, please do not tell people to use that type of calculation. You can most likely eat more than you are currently eating as well to lose weight.
There's a bit in my post where i covered added calories limits through exercise and advised calculating energy expended at work through the use of a pedometer. I also mentioned that i could eat up to ~3000 calories a day and still lose weight, so i think we're on the same page but just disagreeing on the minimum calorie threshold.
The 10/14/16 thing is just a rough guideline that gives you a straightforward calorie limit to aim for without overburdening and putting yourself off the whole weightloss thing by trying to work out complex calculations. From my experience, both personally and with other people trying to lose, anything seen as a "complexity" is a barrier to entry and just puts people off. So simplifying things gets them through that first door and into the habit of just watching what they eat.
10x is like the lowest I'd consider ever going before you start to feel like *kitten*, but if you're still feeling like *kitten* at that after using macros to manage how you feel then you can adjust to eat more until you stop seeing weight drop week to week.
edit: Like, there are a lot of people in my work drastically cutting calories relative to their bodyweight who think that 10x is too many calories and keep talking about how hard it all is despite me telling them they could eat more and still lose weight (without feeling crappy).0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »I was thinking the same thing as the other person who questioned this. I would lose weight at 2100 calories (155 lbs x 1.4 per your formula to maintain.) My MFP intake without exercise is 2430 to maintain and my TDEE falls around 2600. I'm 5'4" and 48 years old. General statements like that tend to make a lot of assumptions and aren't always helpful. Everyone is different.
Not that I'm wanting to derail the thread any further, but i punched your stats into 3 different TDEE non MFP calculators and unless I've used them wrong, the only way I could get it up to 2600 is if I set it to extremely active.
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
http://thefastdiet.co.uk/how-many-calories-on-a-non-fast-day/
Is there a reason why the MFP calculations would indicate higher numbers?
edit: i should clarify, why does the MFP calculation show a higher number when 3 other different ones all show lower, but fairly consistant, numbers?0 -
remnantkin wrote: »Is there a reason why the MFP calculations would indicate higher numbers?
Because calculators are only estimates, based on average people and imperfect formulae. They aren't going to apply exactly to everyone. It depends on body fat percentage, resting metabolism, and a whole host of other factors.
The only true way to know your actual TDEE is to calculate it based on actual calories consumed and weight lost over a period of time. Any calculator is only ever going to give you a rough idea.0 -
Less rice; more healthy fat--cook with coconut oil, add some flax oil to your salad. It will induce faster satiety and deter gluconeogenesis. Also, try a few rounds of high-intensity exercise per week--some sprints, for example. Something you can do all-out for less than 30 seconds... But do several rounds.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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