Strange, but can a lot of exercise slow down weight loss?

Options
13

Replies

  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    I don't understand, on the privacy sharing it says public?
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    mmchhfbt0lpd.jpg


    Can anyone still not see it? It's been set to public for a while?
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Options
    It's public now!

    Here are some items that may be off:
    • Home Made Vegetable Lasagne , 1 serving(s): Did you enter it into the recipe generator?
    • Katie's birthday cake - Home made, 0.111111 th: Did you enter it into the recipe generator? That seems like an odd serving size.
    • Carte noir - Decaf coffee, skimmed milk, 1 sugar, 1 cup: how much skimmed milk? how much sugar? This looks like someone else's entry.
    • Chinese Takeaway - Mixed Veg Chow Mein, 700 g
    • Himalaya Bistro - Vegetables In Garlic Sauce, 1 order
    • Chinese Takeaway - Salted Chilli Chicken, 1 portion
    • Walls - Soft Scoop - Vanilla Light, 1 scoop
    • Tetley Tea - Tea, Semi Skimmed Milk, 1 Sugar, 0.5 cup- how much milk, how much sugar?
  • terar21
    terar21 Posts: 523 Member
    Options
    It's finally open. There appears to be a lot of generic/estimated foods. I'm not one to say you can't estimate some stuff but if you are disappointed in the weight loss total, that's the problem. Tighten up on logging and you should see results.

    Also, someone else pointed out that the exercise calories aren't a problem since you don't eat them back. But if you decide to at any point, I did take a look at the burns and they are really off. 60 minutes of backstroke just won't burn 1000+ calories, not even close to that amount. The light/moderate of freestyle setting for MFP is way more towards the moderate end and even more towards hard. The setting below that is more accurate for a light/moderate swim. This is just based off my experience with swimming as just exercise and back when I was competitively doing it as well.
  • jvt63
    jvt63 Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    In my experience, intense exercise stalls my weight loss. I have to keep my intensity to moderate--like, walking uphill at a slight incline for 45 minutes at a time.

    Could it be that sometimes, the body interprets intense exercise as stress, with too little fuel to sustain it?

    Perhaps cut the exercise a bit. Don't stop completely, but lower the frequency, the amount of time you work out, or the intensity of the effort. It's counterintuitive, but it never hurts to try different things.
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    It wasn't 60 mins of back stroke it was 80 and the 1000 cals was the total for 95 mins swimming not an hour, it was combined or the two lots of swimming. I only burn 1400 cals for just over 2 hours of swimming, and I have it set at leisurely swim when calculating cals, even though back crawl is quite vigorous compared to the breast stroke. It's not like I'm having a slow gentle meander round the pool, when I do back crawl it's quite intense and I do lengths, it feels far more a work out than breast stroke and I physically push myself, I don't keep myself on easy mode.

    Nothing is 'estimated' everything I eat is weighed. All the recipes are my own, weighed.

    The birthday cake I made, and weighed and calculated on the recipe so (after checking everything of course), and cut it into 16 slices, each was 280 odd cals or similar and I had half of one of those slices.

    The takeaway ones are all generic for Chinese New Year takeaway meals, cal on box, I couldn't find the specific meals didn't have internet for barcode so just pointed a generic meal of the same calories - that were label printed, so they are correct. The cals were the same, the meals were not.

    The lasagne again is my recipe made with tortilla instead of pasta, without cheese sauce, it was made on the recipe and I ate it over 2 days.

    The tea and coffee again are my entries from 'my foods' one sugar a dash of skimmed milk, I use to measure exactly a table spoon but don't bother, as I have it strong and it's rare I drink tea or coffee so if anything I over estimate the cals for it.

    So there isn't really any generic/estimated foods, as you can see i even weigh cucumber.

    I suppose when you make your diary, foods and recipes it only needs to make sense to me, no one else. And I know how meticulous I am about weighing and cross referencing calories.
    -
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    1qk05x0daj6n.jpg

    This is the cal burn it gives me for light leisurely swimming for 2 hours. Though I push myself and don't swim leisurely, I just do as much as I can as fast as I can.

    I enter backstroke in separate as back crawl is a lot more intense and faster. I do around 65 lengths of a 35m pool an hour breast stroke and almost double that doing back crawl so it's a lot more intense and vigorous. To say I'm still around 5 stone overweight I think to be fair The back crawl calories are about right.
  • Rashanti1
    Rashanti1 Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    You should never use MFP estimation of calories burned. It goes way over. You could probably be burning only half of what it's giving you.
  • terar21
    terar21 Posts: 523 Member
    Options
    Ok...........I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to help lol.

    If everything is your own recipes weighed by food scale, then that's awesome.

    It doesn't change the fact that the calorie burns are off though. Things like 1000 calories for 60 minutes of breast stroke just aren't right. It's not personal attack and I'm not saying you aren't working hard. I'm sure you are. MFP is just overestimated and incorrectly list calories burned for intensity levels for swimming. The math on your own numbers alone can tell you that. If you were truly burning more than 1000 in a day and not eating it back on top of the deficit you already factored in, you'd be losing upwards of 3 pounds a week.

    Unless you're retaining water and heavy on sodium, there's a number issue. You're losing so you're in a deficit, just not as large as desired.

    As I suggested before, it's likely water retention of new intensity in workouts which will go away...but as a friendly suggestion - just wanted to warn you about the calories burns being very off on MFP swimming estimates in the case you end up trying to eat them back in the future.
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    Rashanti1 wrote: »
    You should never use MFP estimation of calories burned. It goes way over. You could probably be burning only half of what it's giving you.

    But surely that's only an issue if you eat the calories back? I don't eat exercise calories back so the calories are irrelevant really and are just 'in the bank'
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    terar21 wrote: »
    Ok...........I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to help lol.

    If everything is your own recipes weighed by food scale, then that's awesome.

    It doesn't change the fact that the calorie burns are off though. Things like 1000 calories for 60 minutes of breast stroke just aren't right. It's not personal attack and I'm not saying you aren't working hard. I'm sure you are. MFP is just overestimated and incorrectly list calories burned for intensity levels for swimming. The math on your own numbers alone can tell you that. If you were truly burning more than 1000 in a day and not eating it back on top of the deficit you already factored in, you'd be losing upwards of 3 pounds a week.

    Unless you're retaining water and heavy on sodium, there's a number issue. You're losing so you're in a deficit, just not as large as desired.

    As I suggested before, it's likely water retention of new intensity in workouts which will go away...but as a friendly suggestion - just wanted to warn you about the calories burns being very off on MFP swimming estimates in the case you end up trying to eat them back in the future.

    I didn't think for one moment you were arguing? Your post didn't come across that way. :-s

    Breast stroke doesn't come up at 1000 cals for an hour, it's 700. I only got 1000 cal (according to MFP) when I swim for 2 hours, and I suppose calories alter depending on your weight as well?

    That's the point of the post, I should be losing more or something this week, a few ppl seem to think it must be the introduction of strength training, and with it lot being linear it will suddenly drop, I'm hoping so.

    I don't go over my sodium, I do drink a lot and I also have PCOS. I can't do as much 'high impact' as if like as I only have one lung so use things like swimming etc to try to build my lung capacity up.

    I think some time there is no rhyme and reason why we don't lose for a couple of weeks even though we do everything right. I've done the whole cheating and kidding yourself thing when you know really there are issues why you haven't lost weight. I suppose that's why it's so frustrating when you do do everything right and try your damnest for what feels like no result.
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    I just did three online swim calorie calculators, and based on my weight and laps I do and length of pool I burn 624cals an hour breaststroke, and 606 back crawl. MFP a gives me 1,400 for 2 hours as opposed to 1200 the calculators say. So it is out, but not massive let, enough to be a problem if you were eating all your exercise cals.

    I suppose doing online calculators that are specific to you with the weight and exact distance swam in the time are a lot more effective than MFP a would be when it comes to calculating cals. I might start doing all my cal workout online and inputting manually in MFP
  • eshults89
    eshults89 Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    I used to meet with a nutritionist and go into the bod pod every 2 weeks. I would always lose a few pounds every other** session. (once I lost 6, but the previous session I didn't lose anything, even though I followed everything to a t) my body just wanted to hold on to the weight. you could be like that too! good luck!
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    My body seems to be like that too. I basically lose a pound and then the scales will go up again a couple of days or so later and stay there for another 7-10 days and then I'll lose another pound or more below the last loss so the trend is generally going down, but unless you weigh daily and log the trend it feels like nothing is happening.

    I usually burn off at between 400-800 calories through exercise each day so might be having the same problem as you.

    I also weigh and measure my food religiously and usually underestimate calorie burns from exercise in case they are not accurate.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Ok seriously, you eat 1370 calories, don't eat back exercise calories, even if you burn only 600 calories a day... You're surviving on 670 calories. Emphasis on 'surviving'.

    This is not healthy at all.
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    Sorry francl27 but the idea of net calories doesn't exist outside of MFP. 1370 isn't that low, if the OP is burning a lot through exercise maybe she could eat a little more but it's not unhealthy and I've never heard a doctor tell someone eating over 1200 calories and exercising that it's dangerous to their health.

    So yesterday when I had a 550 calorie fast day and did some cardio I was surviving on 200 calories I suppose?
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    JAT74 wrote: »
    Sorry francl27 but the idea of net calories doesn't exist outside of MFP. 1370 isn't that low, if the OP is burning a lot through exercise maybe she could eat a little more but it's not unhealthy and I've never heard a doctor tell someone eating over 1200 calories and exercising that it's dangerous to their health.

    So yesterday when I had a 550 calorie fast day and did some cardio I was surviving on 200 calories I suppose?

    There's a difference between a once in a while thing and an every day occurrence. It's not healthy to net so low.. period. Unless someone wants to lose all their muscle I guess.

    Also... doctors don't know a thing about nutrition.
  • aringdingdong
    aringdingdong Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    JAT74 wrote: »
    So yesterday when I had a 550 calorie fast day and did some cardio I was surviving on 200 calories I suppose?

    Yes. It doesn't work in a strict 24 time frame but for all purposes intended it might as well.

  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    Well I am going to be fasting for 2 days every week from now on, and doing cardio on those days too. This is normal for people following the 5:2 diet. Doctors and scientists have studied this and shown that it is healthy and effective and a great way to lose weight, body fat and improve many other aspects of your health.
  • rayrayfitz
    rayrayfitz Posts: 80 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Ok seriously, you eat 1370 calories, don't eat back exercise calories, even if you burn only 600 calories a day... You're surviving on 670 calories. Emphasis on 'surviving'.

    This is not healthy at all.


    If I was just surviving why wouldn't I be losing weight at a fast rate? I'm not and have averaged a loss over a year at a 1lb a week, I hardly think that's unhealthy or surviving. I don't feel hungry often, I already state if i swim for 2 hours I eat an extra 200 odd cals as I feel hungry. I have plenty of energy, have no deficiencies. If I ate any more than I do now I would put on weight. I'm 5' tall. I hardly think I'm starving myself to death or I'm being unhealthy.

Categories