My Philosophy on Diet and Weight Loss
Options
Replies
-
OsricTheKnight wrote: »trendweight.com is a bit overdamped in my opinion, the yellow line shown below is a similar moving average but less heavily damped. The clue was in the original always being above the data, which is flattering but an unlikely scenario of losing weight all the time
So I do think it'd be nice if trendweight let each person choose their moving average window size. Libra, a very similar app for Android, does that and it's handy.
However I do not think trendweight.com is "overdamped", if by that you mean "there ought to be at least one weigh-in where this person gained, they can't lose constantly". I use a bodymedia fit device to track calories out, and MFP to log, and my daily deficit by that mechanism is always significant, and my day to day eating is pretty consistent. Here are daily deficits for the last two weeks:
September 16 needs to be ignored, because it looks like I didn't log at all that day. Sept 9 I reviewed my food log and it is likely accurate (within my usual 250/day error). Sept 10 looks like I missed lunch, and I did miss a lunch recently but I am not sure if it was that day. Even if you ignore all three of those deficits, it is clear that I am in fact losing weight every day, and this is not "optimistic".
So why does your moving average show weight gain? The answer is simple: daily scale fluctuation is dominated by water. Here's NASA's daily weight in/out model:
As you can see, with 9-11 lbs of water passing through your body every day, any scale movement of more than about 0.5 lbs in a day is almost certain to be water weight.
So a relatively long term trend is needed to average that away and leave you with the important underlying signal, which is actually weight lost via the air you breathe.
(I'd never really realized it before - where does lost weight go? It's the carbon atoms in your exhale - O2 -> CO2 ... that's where your lost weight is going. Mind-blowing. The solids were never used by your body - they are the unusable waste products. The liquids you drank or were in your food. The air you breathe - that's how you lose weight. Whoah.)
Osric
[Edit: image credit: "The Hacker's Diet" by John Walker]
I wonder if those with lung problems like COPD or emphysema have issues with weight loss?
Any idea?0 -
This post is FANTASTIC!! It clearly shows that if your calories in is less than your calories out, you'll typically lose weight. There will be fluctuations; there will be frustration. However, consistent and realistic logging is the way to go.
I always try to eat a few hundred calories less than what MFP recommends in my 1.5/week setting. I'm down 68 pounds since mid-January, so I know that's what works for me.0 -
145 lbs target weight for 5'8" women? isn't that overweight ?0
-
It's 22 on BMI, close to being in middle of normal.FoodFitnessTravel wrote: »145 lbs target weight for 5'8" women? isn't that overweight ?
0 -
FoodFitnessTravel wrote: »145 lbs target weight for 5'8" women? isn't that overweight ?
I picked the target by using the bottom weight for "large frame" women, which is also pretty good for "medium frame". If you're small boned, the targets would be too high for you.
Osric0 -
I wonder if those with lung problems like COPD or emphysema have issues with weight loss?
Any idea?
Commonly people who are sufferering from these diseases have issues with maintaining their weight because it is more work to breathe.
Osric
0 -
Redbeard333 wrote: »I'm down 68 pounds since mid-January, so I know that's what works for me.
68lbs - nice work!
Osric
0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »I wonder if those with lung problems like COPD or emphysema have issues with weight loss?
Any idea?
Commonly people who are sufferering from these diseases have issues with maintaining their weight because it is more work to breathe.
Osric
I am sure. The O2 to CO2 exchange you mentioned made me wonder if it impacted weight loss. I've enjoyed reading your posts...BTW.
0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »Redbeard333 wrote: »I'm down 68 pounds since mid-January, so I know that's what works for me.
68lbs - nice work!
Osric
Well thanks, man!0 -
This was a fantastic post! Thanks for writing it. I learned a lot. I've been using Libra for a few weeks, but it only made a little sense to me. Now I truly understand how to use it. Thanks so much!0
-
FoodFitnessTravel wrote: »145 lbs target weight for 5'8" women? isn't that overweight ?
Nope.0 -
I also think it's a good post. The message I get is that it's CICO for weight management, which is based in science. Of course, how you get to a calorie deficit is individual.
The weight chart is too general, and I believe the numbers are off. Here is a more accurate one with weight ranges.
I also discovered my TDEE without exercise is about 1980 (I'm 5 ft 5), but with exercise it's anywhere from 2100 to 2300.
All in all, good discussion material.0 -
@Can_Do_Gal I love Libra too. In libra you can adjust how the trend is calculated to make it track closer or further from your data points. I like it at around 10 days, but you can fiddle with it if you like to play with the numbers. The essential trade off is a tighter trendline will give you bad news when it isn't warranted, but a slower trendline will take longer to warn you of danger if you actually have made a change. For me, 10 days is a happy medium that gets rid of any weekend adventures...without making me feel too guilty.
@SLLRunner the weight chart is definitely just a guesstimation to make it understandable, but close enough for a lot of people. I just took the lowest number off the large frame column of a chart similar to what you linked. It's quite interesting to note how it's different - the chart I was using allows more weight at taller heights and less at shorter heights for "large frame".
Your TDEE is excellent, you must be super fit. I'd guess you have a lean body mass advantage vs many women at your height.
Osric0 -
@OsricTheKnight. I am only 5ft and on 1200 cals a day - According to your post the only way to be sure I am in deficit is to under log by several hundred calories a day because of the discrepancies you point out. This will mean I will only be logging 800-900 cals per day.0
-
OsricTheKnight wrote: »However I do not think trendweight.com is "overdamped", if by that you mean "there ought to be at least one weigh-in where this person gained, they can't lose constantly
By overdamped I mean the signal is filtered and attenuated too much - it takes too long to fully show a change. As an example you can plug in a weight loss on Day 1 that then stays constant and the trend line will take a long time to show the new weight. In process control this is generally not a good thing, as it may mean it takes several days to spot a reversal in the trend too.
I think the trendweight approach is soothing rather than smoothing in that you can lose for a few days and then gain for a few days and it'll keep the trend plodding downward. You lose the data that tells you there were a few days where maybe you should have done something different.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »@OsricTheKnight. I am only 5ft and on 1200 cals a day - According to your post the only way to be sure I am in deficit is to under log by several hundred calories a day because of the discrepancies you point out. This will mean I will only be logging 800-900 cals per day.
Please don't do that. Instead look to make your logging as accurate as possible by way of weighing your food.
I didn't underlogged my food, I ate back my exercise calories and I lost weight each and every week in the weight loss phase.
Thank you for your concern but please don't worry. I weigh and log all my food and any drinks with calories and am as meticulous as I can be. By planning my day I am able to come in at just a smidgen under my 1200 cals and mostly go over my protein and fibre goals every day. This is my sixth week and so far I have lost 9lbs, which I am very happy with. I was just making the point to OsricTheKnight that his sweeping statement that people should underlog by several hundred calories per day is not viable to everyone.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »I was just making the point to OsricTheKnight that his sweeping statement that people should underlog by several hundred calories per day is not viable to everyone.
This is not what I mean. I mean that if you make a trend chart, and after 3 weeks you have a straight trendline, you can use the deficit from there vs the deficit you are logging to adjust. Once you've proven to yourself that you're not really eating what you log, then it is reasonable to underlog to compensate.
So I think this approach is applicable to anyone willing to take the time to figure out what their personal situation actually is. Logging meticulously is another option, but one which I think most everyone must fail at due to the forces at work against us: inaccurate labels, social situations, restaurants. Unless you can live like a hermit, truly accurate logging is not in the cards.
The third option is to log as accurately as possible and live with the fact that you'll lose a bit slower. This is quite reasonable; you can make sure you're healthy and on a sustainable path.
Osric
0 -
@OsricTheKnight - I take your point, thanks - I'm going for a combination of options 2 and 3 because although I am a bit of a hermit I am coming out of my cave for a weekend away next week and wont be able to log (I don't have a smart phone, so am also a dinosaur lol).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 948 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions