Been tracking for 1 month and haven't lost 1 pound, ugh so frustrated
Options
Replies
-
I run 9/10 min. mile and can easily burn 350 in 35 minutes. I try to underestimate my exercise and overestimate my calorie intake. Agree with the others...log everything you eat.
How tall are you?
How much do you weigh?
Where do you get exercise burn numbers from?
Why would you try to overestimate calorie intake?
Why do you underestimate exercise?0 -
itsfuntobenormal wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Just a note for people coming in quoting your exercise burns... please remember that they are relative to your weight, and ideally other factors. What you burn has no bearing on what the OP burns unless you have similar stats.
You and your quest for accuracy. Just stop. It's not real. Nothing is real. Not even science.
Wait a minute. I beg to differ that science is not real.
The rest is your opinion. Nobody has to stop doing anything.0 -
An online calculator? LOL.>"running for 35 minutes does burn 350 calories, I run 9/10 minute miles.
>Actually, that is inaccurate. MFP and internet databases have overestimated calorie burns,
> as do the treadmills."
Let's put this to rest. http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
The OP is giving a figure slightly below the NET calorie burn for this activity assuming zero grade and 10'00" miles, i.e. 6.0 mph.
If all her activities are calculated in an equally conservative fashion, and if she is basing her eating on MFP's sedentary calculation, the she should eat back 100% of her exercise calories.
If she is not estimating her exercise speed or distance correctly... that's a whole other ballgame!
Most are inaccurate, and that particular one is so wrong. It says I burn 451 calories running 6 mph for 40 minutes. Riiigggght. My heart rate monitor gives me about 330 or so, and I've been maintaining my weight for well over a year.
0 -
I suggest taking about 200 calories off of that amount. Others suggested half. It's trial and error.Quick question, I just finished a stair workout and according to the machine, I burned 500 calories in 40 minutes. Do you all think this is accurate and should I log this accordingly?
0 -
No, Mercola believes microwaves do bad things to the food heated in them.0
-
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
I see several comments that HRM is the end all and be all of calorie burn.
It's a calculation too, and depending on how nice/expensive a model, could be making several big bad assumptions to estimate required stats to calculate calorie burn with.
But even the nice/expensive models with self-test and/or ability to input best known stats, could leave much to be desired.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Considering exercise is only 1 of 4 categories of calorie burn normally used, and the other 3 are perhaps not estimated anywhere near close, one indeed may balance the other and appear to be accurate.0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
I see several comments that HRM is the end all and be all of calorie burn.
It's a calculation too, and depending on how nice/expensive a model, could be making several big bad assumptions to estimate required stats to calculate calorie burn with.
But even the nice/expensive models with self-test and/or ability to input best known stats, could leave much to be desired.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Considering exercise is only 1 of 4 categories of calorie burn normally used, and the other 3 are perhaps not estimated anywhere near close, one indeed may balance the other and appear to be accurate.
So bales, are you saying that we all are making assumptions with our caloric intake and caloric burn?
Why do you keep bringing this subject up?0 -
I feel like im doing everything right, but my scale says otherwise...smh so frustrating.!
0 -
Has anyone tried using the portion control plate? Wondering how successful you've been since using it. I recently purchased one from Amazon.0
-
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
I see several comments that HRM is the end all and be all of calorie burn.
It's a calculation too, and depending on how nice/expensive a model, could be making several big bad assumptions to estimate required stats to calculate calorie burn with.
But even the nice/expensive models with self-test and/or ability to input best known stats, could leave much to be desired.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Considering exercise is only 1 of 4 categories of calorie burn normally used, and the other 3 are perhaps not estimated anywhere near close, one indeed may balance the other and appear to be accurate.
So bales, are you saying that we all are making assumptions with our caloric intake and caloric burn?
Let's say over the course of a month you increase calories enough and don't lose or gain weight.
Let's say your accurate as possible food logging showed you ate 2500 calories.
So that is TDEE - 2500.
Let's say you have an RMR test done, and it shows 1600 RMR.
That just means the TEF, EAT, and NEAT are 900 combined, but unless you have some more tests, you can't accurately say what one of those is.
Or perhaps you have a HRM that is dead on accurate, and you burn on average daily 500 in exercise.
That just means the BMR, TEF, and NEAT are 2000 combined. But you can't break that out.
Or your results based TDEE is 2500 and you have a HRM reporting 500 burn but you really don't know for sure, but you also don't know the other categories either.
Doesn't mean the HRM is the dead on correct one, since you have no values of the others to separate them.
Now, go a month with no exercise maintaining weight, then go a month doing exercise and eating back those HRM calories - and still maintain weight.
Now you got something to go on.0 -
I did mention a bit how they work by stimulating the water molecule in food. It causes the water molecule to vibrate, causing frictional heat, which warms up the food, obviously depending on how much time the water can boil/evaporate out dehydrating the food. No harm done.mamapeach910 wrote: »No, Mercola believes microwaves do bad things to the food heated in them.
Nobody in this thread is claiming that microwaves cause harm. I brought it up as an example of the pseudoscience that Mercola peddles on his website.0 -
Bubbalicious1101 wrote: »I feel like im doing everything right, but my scale says otherwise...smh so frustrating.!
You started exercising lately?
Exercise does not cause weight loss as side effect, almost always weight gain. And at start - water weight for many reasons.
Even in the face of a true deficit losing fat inches, you can gain water weight.
But only so much for reasons of exercise.
You can keep gaining because of body stress though, perhaps aggressive diet, unrecovered intense exercise, life, food allergies, ect.
Increased cortisol and retained water purely for that effect. That can have you plateau.
Other problem is sometimes people forget the binge meals/days because of attempting an aggressive diet, that really isn't reasonable for them.
"I only eat 1200 and gain weight" many times isn't followed up with the caveat "except on weekends when I eat 2500-3000".
The goal may indeed be 1200, and mainly hit, but it's the other days that are killers.0 -
I did mention a bit how they work by stimulating the water molecule in food. It causes the water molecule to vibrate, causing frictional heat, which warms up the food, obviously depending on how much time the water can boil/evaporate out dehydrating the food. No harm done.mamapeach910 wrote: »No, Mercola believes microwaves do bad things to the food heated in them.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with what you posted about microwaves being dangerous.
Mercola believes they're dangerous. To the food. He's a quack. That was the point. You jumped on one thing in the post and pulled it out, took it out of context, and responded to it.
0 -
Bubbalicious1101 wrote: »Has anyone tried using the portion control plate? Wondering how successful you've been since using it. I recently purchased one from Amazon.
Frankly, I find weighing food to be the best way to control my portions.
I do like using small plates to fool my eye into thinking I'm eating a lot, though.
0 -
With all that said, what if i still can't lose weight, what would you recommend?
Depends. And this is outside known water weight gain related to exercise or stress.
Are you attempting to eat a reasonable deficit to what you burn daily based on decent estimates?
Or are you attempting to start at bare bones bottom of barrel level?
If higher level, estimates of burn may be off (more BF% than BMR assumes), less exercise calorie burn than estimated, ect. Or food logging may be off, and 10% inaccurate eating higher levels could be off enough to wipe out reasonable deficit with other wrong estimates.
Start eating less slowly but surely until weight loss starts. While logged food may say eating X, you are actually eating X+ 200 with inaccuracies.
If lower level, unless food and exercise logging is just terribly dishonest, not likely to wipe out a huge deficit with normal inaccuracies, and depends on how long not losing.
2 directions to go.
Eat even less and less until you lose, and suffer the fact a suppressed body is a stressed body, likely to get less out of exercise, other physical aspects of body may suffer, eating level may be so low adherence sucks, maintenance level may be so low it sucks and weight is gained back, ect.
Or start slowing eating more to get the body back to healthy unstressed state and accept no weight loss for a time, and then take a reasonable deficit approach.
It's interesting how many lose the same amount doing reasonable as when they did aggressive, and how much better exercise transforms their body too.
0 -
Bubbalicious1101 wrote: »Has anyone tried using the portion control plate? Wondering how successful you've been since using it. I recently purchased one from Amazon.
You can buy a plate like that, or you can simple do a hand eye method. For example get a plate get a piece of protein the size of your palm put it on the plate, that's 1/3 of the volume of food. now you have 2/3's left, you can do 1/3 starchy foods, 1/3 vegetables, drizzle on a bit of fat. If you stall out on that, get rid of the starch and do 2/3's vegetables.
You know what? You're a ... how tall are you??? Male who weighs ... how much????
She's a 5'2" female.
Let me tell you something about being a short female. We don't get a lot of calories to make mistakes with. Your methods of playing fast a loose with "hand-eye" estimations are just wastes of time. You have no idea what size the plate is, how she's preparing the food, or anything like that.
We shorties have to watch calories and aim to be as accurate as possible with very, very little margin for error. You like to throw that 500 calories off number around a lot. Well, maybe for a taller man, that is within the realm of possibility of being off and still being at just a standstill. For a short woman? It only would spell weight gain.
Please, just stop.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Bubbalicious1101 wrote: »Has anyone tried using the portion control plate? Wondering how successful you've been since using it. I recently purchased one from Amazon.
You can buy a plate like that, or you can simple do a hand eye method. For example get a plate get a piece of protein the size of your palm put it on the plate, that's 1/3 of the volume of food. now you have 2/3's left, you can do 1/3 starchy foods, 1/3 vegetables, drizzle on a bit of fat. If you stall out on that, get rid of the starch and do 2/3's vegetables.
You know what? You're a ... how tall are you??? Male who weighs ... how much????
She's a 5'2" female.
Let me tell you something about being a short female. We don't get a lot of calories to make mistakes with. Your methods of playing fast a loose with "hand-eye" estimations are just wastes of time. You have no idea what size the plate is, how she's preparing the food, or anything like that.
We shorties have to watch calories and aim to be as accurate as possible with very, very little margin for error. You like to throw that 500 calories off number around a lot. Well, maybe for a taller man, that is within the realm of possibility of being off and still being at just a standstill. For a short woman? It only would spell weight gain.
Please, just stop.
I am 6'2'', i bet you a million to one 1 palm is larger than yours...
What does that have to do with anything I said? My husband is 6'2". His hands are indeed much larger than mine.
My daughter is 5'6". Her hands are smaller than mine.
Hand size isn't the point. Margin for error when you don't have a lot of difference between your TDEE and the lowest recommended amount of calories to eat IS.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Bubbalicious1101 wrote: »Has anyone tried using the portion control plate? Wondering how successful you've been since using it. I recently purchased one from Amazon.
You can buy a plate like that, or you can simple do a hand eye method. For example get a plate get a piece of protein the size of your palm put it on the plate, that's 1/3 of the volume of food. now you have 2/3's left, you can do 1/3 starchy foods, 1/3 vegetables, drizzle on a bit of fat. If you stall out on that, get rid of the starch and do 2/3's vegetables.
You know what? You're a ... how tall are you??? Male who weighs ... how much????
She's a 5'2" female.
Let me tell you something about being a short female. We don't get a lot of calories to make mistakes with. Your methods of playing fast a loose with "hand-eye" estimations are just wastes of time. You have no idea what size the plate is, how she's preparing the food, or anything like that.
We shorties have to watch calories and aim to be as accurate as possible with very, very little margin for error. You like to throw that 500 calories off number around a lot. Well, maybe for a taller man, that is within the realm of possibility of being off and still being at just a standstill. For a short woman? It only would spell weight gain.
Please, just stop.
I am 6'2'', i bet you a million to one 1 palm is larger than yours...
Volume is a cubic function, not a linear one.
0 -
I was inexplicably gaining weight once I started working out regularly, and I know it wasn't just muscle. My body fat percentage was definitely increasing. Nutrition was definitely the problem. I needed to re-evaluate everything I was eating, figure out what was helping me and hurting me, and I even tried a nutritional rebalancing program to rid my body of impurities and kick start my metabolism. It definitely helped. You just need to find what works for you, because everybody is different. Some people of more intolerant to a certain level of carbs, and etc. It's not just about caloric intake, and one size fits all diets definitely don't fit everyone! Good luck, girl. You'll get there!0
-
batelmiller wrote: »Lift weights, cardio will only take you so far your body probably got used to running so you plateaued. To get off the plateau you need to start lifting, and I promise the weight will come off. Also try to incorporate some HIIT into your workout. High intensity interval training is an amazing way to lose weight. For weightlifting plans just go to bodybuilding.com they have a ton of plans for free. For HIIT workouts you can either YouTube them or just do like 1 min of running on the treadmill at 6.0-9.0 speed and then walk for 2 minute at 3.5 speed and you will see you will be swearing like mad and losing weight when after your workout.
I'm all for lifting weights, but some of the things in this post are flat out wrong.
Body got used to running so you plateaued? No
To get off plateau, start lifting? No
HIIT is an amazing way to lose weight? Not exactly.
Diet. It mostly comes down to diet. She can do all the workouts she wants; if her diet sucks, the scale won't move.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions