Been tracking for 1 month and haven't lost 1 pound, ugh so frustrated
Replies
-
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 -
Hi! It can be very frustrating, can't it?! My advice, and I used MFP for all of 2014 and still do, is to be VERY accurate in entering what you eat and how much. And I NEVER eat the calories I get in exercise. I would definitely either not lose, or gain, if I did that. (But I'm older than you, fyi.) Stick with it, and I think you'll see results if you're a stickler for accurate measurements of your food, EVERY BITE, and try not adding your exercise calories to your calories for the day. : ) Best wishes!0
-
First thing I'd check - Are you logging cooking oils, butter, and other things like that? When I stop losing, I look at that (I normally don't log cooking oil, but that's it)
Secondly - are you eating back your exerise calories? There was a MFP article a while back that our regular 30-60 minute workouts are great, but the calories shouldn't be eaten back because we really don't burn nearly as much as we think. I stopped eating back my calories, and started losing again. It was a MFP sponsored article, so I hope it's fine. It makes since - I sit all day at work, so my 60 minute cycling class isn't going to really make up for all of the stationary time.
Third - are you measuring. Some can lose 10 lbs without losing an inch, but some people only lose 1-2 lbs, and lose all kinds of inches! Bodies are weird LoL! Tracking inches lost might be a motivation.
Just some things to think about.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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
Area is a square function. Multiplying it by another dimension to get volume makes it a cube function. And volume is typically a double integral - raising the power twice turns a linear variable into a cubic one.
And of course this is ignoring the context of the conversation, which is based on heaping things in the palm of the hand, which will approximate a hemispherical mound, and a hemisphere is just part of a sphere, and the volume of a spherical is, surprise surprise, proportional to the cube of the radius.
I am grateful for your post, however, as it puts everything else in context.
:drinker:
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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
Just stop.
Again, why do you have to make every thread about you making sure to throw out all these equations and crap to make sure you can strut how smart you are? No one (but you apparently) gives a rip. For being in your 30's you have a lot of growing up to do.
The OP doesn't care about the BS. She has already responding with that. She got her USEFUL info.0 -
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
Just stop.
Again, why do you have to make every thread about you making sure to throw out all these equations and crap to make sure you can strut how smart you are? No one (but you apparently) gives a rip. For being in your 30's you have a lot of growing up to do.
The OP doesn't care about the BS. She has already responding with that. She got her USEFUL info.
He's in his 30s? I thought he was 19. I was making some allowances for youth.0 -
I log my exercise calories but pay attention to CI, not CO. Works for me. Slowly but surely.0
-
I stopped logging my exercise and I just pay attention to CI. It's working a little better because if I see green I'm going to fill it.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.
I was just wondering, since you're a highly respected and long term member of this site. When something comes from me, people criticize it, when it comes from you, they don't. Even if we're saying the same thing.
What i was looking for was the statement in bold. It seems like you're just saying, "try something within reason, give it a little bit of time and notice your results. Adjust your caloric intake based on your results despite the inaccuracies in all our estimates."
No one can be completely accurate, there will always be inconsistencies, but your argument that people do not need to log accurately as long as they are consistent in their inaccuracies is wrong, sorry, (It assumes that people have the ability to guess how inaccurate they are being, and be consistent about it) and will only confuse new people who are already struggling to figure out logging and portion sizes.
And if my tiny 17 year old used her palm to decide portion size, she would die of starvation. (18.72 BMI with high LBM)
I hope the OP abandoned this a long time ago.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
Just stop.
Again, why do you have to make every thread about you making sure to throw out all these equations and crap to make sure you can strut how smart you are? No one (but you apparently) gives a rip. For being in your 30's you have a lot of growing up to do.
The OP doesn't care about the BS. She has already responding with that. She got her USEFUL info.
He's in his 30s? I thought he was 19. I was making some allowances for youth.
Yes i am in my 30's, i know it's kind of impressive. How i don't sit here and criticizes others despite the fact people want to jump on my case and criticize.
If you're truly in your 30s, you should understand that people disagreeing with your theories about weight loss doesn't equal anyone "jumping on your case."0 -
You should pay attention to what happened. I mentioned the hand eye method. and i said "i bet my palm is bigger than yours." Then someone said(not going to mention names) made a reference to volume, which is now being discussed. Yet you jump on my case, ok.
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
And everything of whether it was a cubic function and that isn't quite right because that would mean a formula with only one variable yadda yadda yadda makes a difference in this convo? IT DOESNT. At all. The point to you posting any of it isn't to help others, its to make it about yourself. Which only adds to confusion/frustration of the op or others reading the thread for help of a similar issue.
0 -
You should pay attention to what happened. I mentioned the hand eye method. and i said "i bet my palm is bigger than yours." Then someone said(not going to mention names) made a reference to volume, which is now being discussed. Yet you jump on my case, ok.
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
And everything of whether it was a cubic function and that isn't quite right because that would mean a formula with only one variable yadda yadda yadda makes a difference in this convo? IT DOESNT. At all. The point to you posting any of it isn't to help others, its to make it about yourself. Which only adds to confusion/frustration of the op or others reading the thread for help of a similar issue.
The whole point of me starting the "cube" example is that using the eye test to guess at volume based on palm size is a process fraught with error because humans suck at guesstimating non-linearities unless they have *huge* experience at it. And even then....
Oy.
My sincere apologies for opening the door to that....
:drinker:
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.
I was just wondering, since you're a highly respected and long term member of this site. When something comes from me, people criticize it, when it comes from you, they don't. Even if we're saying the same thing.
What i was looking for was the statement in bold. It seems like you're just saying, "try something within reason, give it a little bit of time and notice your results. Adjust your caloric intake based on your results despite the inaccuracies in all our estimates."
Because what heybales said allowed for normal inaccuracies, while your method would lead to gross inaccuracies.
Again, this thread isn't about you.
0 -
You should pay attention to what happened. I mentioned the hand eye method. and i said "i bet my palm is bigger than yours." Then someone said(not going to mention names) made a reference to volume, which is now being discussed. Yet you jump on my case, ok.
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
And everything of whether it was a cubic function and that isn't quite right because that would mean a formula with only one variable yadda yadda yadda makes a difference in this convo? IT DOESNT. At all. The point to you posting any of it isn't to help others, its to make it about yourself. Which only adds to confusion/frustration of the op or others reading the thread for help of a similar issue.
The whole point of me starting the "cube" example is that using the eye test to guess at volume based on palm size is a process fraught with error because humans suck at guesstimating non-linearities unless they have *huge* experience at it. And even then....
Oy.
My sincere apologies for opening the door to that....
:drinker:
LOL
But but but but it isn't "volume" technically because our palms aren't cubes
0 -
You should pay attention to what happened. I mentioned the hand eye method. and i said "i bet my palm is bigger than yours." Then someone said(not going to mention names) made a reference to volume, which is now being discussed. Yet you jump on my case, ok.
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
And everything of whether it was a cubic function and that isn't quite right because that would mean a formula with only one variable yadda yadda yadda makes a difference in this convo? IT DOESNT. At all. The point to you posting any of it isn't to help others, its to make it about yourself. Which only adds to confusion/frustration of the op or others reading the thread for help of a similar issue.
The whole point of me starting the "cube" example is that using the eye test to guess at volume based on palm size is a process fraught with error because humans suck at guesstimating non-linearities unless they have *huge* experience at it. And even then....
Oy.
My sincere apologies for opening the door to that....
:drinker:
In other words, I, with my small hand, could pile the almonds really high and end up taking a larger portion than my 6'2" husband whole takes a meager bit barely covering the surface of his palm.
Even with that, I'm terrible at eyeballing portions, I know it. It's not a skill everyone has. And maybe I am quite a bulldog on this subject because I'm short and older and don't have wiggle room, but a little bit off here and there means no movement on the scale for me.
What I don't get, what I really, really don't get... is WHY it's such an issue for certain posters (the one in this thread isn't the only one) to see people recommend a food scale?
I would fully understand them coming in with their advice if someone posted about not wanting to use a food scale for whatever reason. Then their method and what they have to say would be appropriate. But to go on an anti-scale crusade of sorts... I simply do not get the point.
It's like having a "thing" against Phillips head screwdrivers because a flat head will do. WHY?
0 -
Do the best you can, don't get so fixated on the numbers.
A good example right now, I cooked 1.5 sausages. I know 3 of them are 10oz.
I just cut one in half, these sausages vary in size, so it's "about half"
my butter i used... was "about" 1tbs
...
As I said countless times, try something, notice the results, then adjust accordingly.
...
As bales said and I have said, "eat less" if you're not losing.
You and I are eating well over 2200 calories on average while continuing to lose weight.
An oz of butter at 200 calories, a half sausage at say 120 calories here and there are NOT going to stop our weight loss.
But on 1200 calories these mistakes would be 10% or 15% of the total.
You might feel differently about accuracy if your margins were tighter.0 -
NO one is saying don't use a scale. I recommend one, i never said I didn't. I think you and others may not be understanding what i am really saying. Do the best you can, don't get so fixated on the numbers. A good example right now, I cooked 1.5 sausages. I know 3 of them are 10oz. I just cut one in half, these sausages vary in size, so it's "about half" my butter i used... was "about" 1tbs... i used the lines on the wrapper to measure it, as you probably know a stick has lines on it showing you where to cut for 1tbs, that's not accurate either. I also used some dressing. I said to myself 2 serving in grams, but it's in mL no grams. So i estimated about 2 tbs.mamapeach910 wrote: »
You should pay attention to what happened. I mentioned the hand eye method. and i said "i bet my palm is bigger than yours." Then someone said(not going to mention names) made a reference to volume, which is now being discussed. Yet you jump on my case, ok.
And P.S. AREA IS LxW. So volume = l x w x hmamapeach910 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.
a cube is a cubic function, x*x*x = x^3 . volume isn't necessary a cubic function. For example our palm isn't a cube or rectangle. To solve for volumes of 3d objects iterated integrals are used. Riemann sum is used to solve integrals, which is a 2D object, so in fact we use rectangles(length * width). volumes are solved by having a constant e.g area
length*width = Area, area is a constant.
Area * height(variable) = volume
if area is 5
5*x = volume
which is a linear function.
And everything of whether it was a cubic function and that isn't quite right because that would mean a formula with only one variable yadda yadda yadda makes a difference in this convo? IT DOESNT. At all. The point to you posting any of it isn't to help others, its to make it about yourself. Which only adds to confusion/frustration of the op or others reading the thread for help of a similar issue.
The whole point of me starting the "cube" example is that using the eye test to guess at volume based on palm size is a process fraught with error because humans suck at guesstimating non-linearities unless they have *huge* experience at it. And even then....
Oy.
My sincere apologies for opening the door to that....
:drinker:
In other words, I, with my small hand, could pile the almonds really high and end up taking a larger portion than my 6'2" husband whole takes a meager bit barely covering the surface of his palm.
Even with that, I'm terrible at eyeballing portions, I know it. It's not a skill everyone has. And maybe I am quite a bulldog on this subject because I'm short and older and don't have wiggle room, but a little bit off here and there means no movement on the scale for me.
What I don't get, what I really, really don't get... is WHY it's such an issue for certain posters (the one in this thread isn't the only one) to see people recommend a food scale?
I would fully understand them coming in with their advice if someone posted about not wanting to use a food scale for whatever reason. Then their method and what they have to say would be appropriate. But to go on an anti-scale crusade of sorts... I simply do not get the point.
It's like having a "thing" against Phillips head screwdrivers because a flat head will do. WHY?
I am not there as a anal scale weigher trying to get everything to the exact gram. I'll monitor my progress, and I am diong it daily, body fat and body weight. So I can see the results i get. I'll give it about a week or 2. No results? Adjust my calories.
Do i know what m TDEE is? Do i know what my BRM is? No, i don't care.
As I said countless times, try something, notice the results, then adjust accordingly. I have given some "extreme" examples, to drive the point home, they are... just "examples"
As bales said and I have said, "eat less" if you're not losing.
....honestly did you even read the things she posted?
People with few calories (shorter ladies, like me at 5' tall) HAVE to fixate on the numbers, and, we often weigh in grams and don't even bother with tablespoons and such, other than for liquids.
I would weigh the 1.5 sausages and log it accordingly, rather than guessing at the amount! The butter would get weighed, the dressing logged exactly too.
You have more calories to work with so cookie for you - estimating is fine! With 1200-1300 to work with, precision is much more important. Underestimating by even 10 calories here and there throughout the day can completely screw up the deficit we're working with.
Your way isn't the be all and end all. Neither is mine. To each their own and all that jazz.
But geez Louise learn to comprehend things.
~Lyssa0 -
Actually, there are reasons beyond calories & exercise. I am 63 years old, 5' 3" and was always petite. 5 years ago, I started gaining weight. It began one Christmas....always put on a few pounds, but they'd come off in Jan or Feb. After a year of dieting, I went to my doctor who said to eat less and exercise more. After another year of the same from my doctor, I went to an acupuncturist who put me on a cleanse....2 months on that & I gained 18 pounds.
My doctor said to eat less & exercise more. I did. 1200 calories a day. Bought a bicycle. Continued to gain. Doctor did all the bloodwork, said thyroid was just fine. LOW IN VITAMIN D. Increased exercise.
Went from 5 miles on the bike twice a week to 20 miles on the (new) bike every other day. Had the Alcat Test which diagnosed 'Leaky Gut', so I did that diet for a year (didn't eat a potato or a slice of bread, a pancake, etc for over a year)....VERY LIMITED DIET...continued to gain.
After 4 years, I'd gained 42 pounds and continuing. FINALLY, went to a doctor who is trained in alternative medicine, Eastern, as well as being a GP......she said that even though my thyroid numbers are within the normal range, my body might just need more. Still had a VITAMIN D deficiency, but also a PREGNENALONE deficiency. (Regular GP is still saying to eat less and exercise more which I know now is total BS because that doesn't work for me!!!)
So this new Doc started me out on 25 mcg thyroid meds (despite my being in the normal range). After a few months, she increased it to 50 mcg. I take 10,000 units of Vitamin D & 50 mg of Prenenalone. A couple of months ago, I added resistance training....thought lifting weights at the gym would be boring, but now I love it. I go to the Gym for a 1 hr to 2 hr workout 2 or 3 times a week & ride bike on the off days. I take off 1 or 2 days a week.
I am now able to MAINTAIN my weight....via EXCESSIVE exercise. And Doc has just upped my thyroid meds to 75 mcg. I am hopeful that one day my thyroid will kick in, or my adrenals, or whatever it is that is preventing my weight loss. It is terribly frustrating to go from 128 lbs to 170 lbs (from a size 6 to a size 16) despite all efforts. I have a food scale. I am diligent about recording every morsel that goes into my mouth (except when I travel.....and I'm convinced that the weight I always gain when traveling has more to do with less exercise than with what I eat).
I never eat candy or cake, donuts, cookies....my big splurge is a cup of Kemp's Frozen Yogurt (0% fat, 140 calories). I haven't had a soft drink in nearly 20 years. I eat only Organic (except when traveling), no soy ever, and have my own organic vegetable garden. I do eat back most calories burned by exercise (net calories 1200).
My weight now fluctuates between 165 and 170....usually a salt/water retention issue.
Oh, and I agree...MapMyRide grossly overestimates the calories burned. I use it to map my route, the distance and speed, then plug those numbers into MyFitnessPal.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
- 427 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