Losing body fat. Curious of what others in this community would do.
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »
This is not accurate logging sorry.
I see 8.2 oz not grams
I see peanut butter in tbsp not grams.
8.2 oz of chicken thigh is 232.6 grams of meat USDA has those calories at 381 not 369. Small difference but just pointing out logging is not accurate.
I suspect eating more than they think...esp measuring peanut butter in tbsp.
ETA so in any given day this log can be off from anywhere 100-200 calories 700-1400 a week...even with not logging exercise this is not going to work.
Hence the 0.8lbs lost in 3 weeks not the 3 you probably expected.
The scale they use does both grams and ounces, it's the same no matter of conversation, as I tested it myself.
Then I looked into your diary and see you do the same thing. Northumberland - Cereal Cream 10%, 4 tbsp 60 4 6 1 0 0
Cream is a liquid and can be measured with tbsp.
Besides I am not complaining about not losing....I've lost 50+lbs logging accurately and consistently.
Not once did I come here and say "help what am I doing wrong..." because I log(ged) accurately and consistently.
There is a huge difference in losing 50 pounds as it's easier to lose weight if you have more to lose, not the same as trying to lose 4-10 pounds. No, you did not come here asking for advice, but the advice you give goes against what you're doing yourself. I mean bread is not a slice, but it can be logged as one, even though on the back of packages it will say slice then something 26/1.0 oz. So, you're saying this person should be that microscopic with detail? I'll start having them do this.
So you're assuming that the entire time she was losing weight that she was 50 pounds away from goal? That makes no sense. If she was 190 to start and eventually got to 140, at some point she was 144-150. She's been 4-10 pounds from goal. She knows what she's talking about.
I don't know what her goal is. To me it came across as well, I lost this much weight so it has to work for everyone.
Accurate calorie counting, a calorie deficit, and patience will work for anybody (barring medical complications.)
You're still assuming it's inaccurate logging. And though it could be you don't know if the person has already lost weight before February. Did they just start at 160 or were they 175 and go to 160. So instead of helping, you are now ridiculing this person and me over an idea that it has to be poor logging. Even though it could be a plateau, muscle weight gain. You aimed your sights on inaccurate logging.
Inaccurate logging is the most common problem. It's not an insult to suggest it's happening. It's something that most of us (myself included) have done and had to overcome at some point or another.
The person would have to be eating at maintenance which is 1983 (to not gain or lose weight) calories a day, which would be straight up lying not inaccurately logging. Although, I believe 15 calories here and there would matter we're talking about 300 with a deficit of food alone, and an extra 100 a day with workouts/cardio, and the days they are under what is needed in the first place. 400-600 extra inaccurately logged calories a day is a lot to mistakenly do down. This is where I am insulted.
per your post 0.8 lbs lost in 3 weeks.
but you only provided one page of logs which had 3 inaccurate entries totalling about 100 calories...over 7 days regardless of exercise is 700 calories....extrapolate that over 3 weeks 2100 calories which is almost a lb...
so instead of losing 1.5lbs in 3 weeks...which is a good rate they lost .8 which isn't a bad rate either with so little to lose.
but to be frank you are going to argue it's not the logging when 99.9% chance that is exactly what it is..so either take the advice given or don't.0 -
-
Were talking only 130-160 cal difference per day. That's the margin of error in logging, or normal daily variations.
What stats and loss rate were input into MFP to get 1760 or 1730 (you said both, so not sure which it is)? If person is happy with progress , keep doing the same. If they want to eat more than currently, increase to 1760.
Perhaps encourage "this person" to join in the discussion and clarify their intent.
PS As long as food is weighed accurately and the entries are accurate, it doesn't matter ounces or grams are used. That part is math.0 -
Were talking only 130-160 cal difference per day. That's the margin of error in logging, or normal daily variations.
What stats and loss rate were input into MFP to get 1760 or 1730 (you said both, so not sure which it is)? If person is happy with progress , keep doing the same. If they want to eat more than currently, increase to 1760.
Perhaps encourage "this person" to join in the discussion and clarify their intent.
PS As long as food is weighed accurately and the entries are accurate, it doesn't matter ounces or grams are used. That part is math.
Exactly, that is what I thought 130-160 error logging would still make the person in a deficit . I'll have to ask if they are not logging something at all, not sure why they would go through what they've been through to mess it all up. I did find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul-7IGxEY98 0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference
Assuming he has a higher amount of muscle mass the way most males do in comparison to women their height, he would burn more calories per day and be able to lose weight at a faster rate when eating the same number of calories as the woman.
In other words, if he'd be able to lose easily if eating 1600 calories per day.0 -
Who is "this person" OP? If it's you, why not just say so?
And if it's not you, then you can't say that it's not inaccurate logging that's causing the problem as you can't possibly know what (and how much) this person is truly eating.0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference
Assuming he has a higher amount of muscle mass the way most males do in comparison to women their height, he would burn more calories per day and be able to lose weight at a faster rate when eating the same number of calories as the woman.
In other words, if he'd be able to lose easily if eating 1600 calories per day.
Omar a certified fitness coach says you can mess up your metabolism if you go to low really fast, and I think this is what happened. Going to go back maintance then recut calories. I'll tell how and if it works.0 -
Hi, I don't post often it just wanted to say I don't think anyone was trying to insult you. This is a massively common thread on these boards and inaccurate logging seems to be the number 1 reason for stalls .... It has been for me too!
I've made all the mistakes-
-Using cups & spoons for solids
-Using generic database entries
-Using package information and assuming that each bar/ slice etc weighs exactly the same as the portion listed.
- forgotten to add condiments / cooking oils
I've only got 10lb to goal now & my deficit is set for 0.5lb per week. I literally CAN'T do those mistakes anymore, the deficit can be wiped out quickly!!
Are there any other explanations for your friend other than logging errors? Maybe, but unlikely on what you've said so far;
- muscle gains? Muscle isn't built at a deficit except maybe for some newbie gains. Might be a bit of that here but you said the stall started before the weightlifting / exercise so doesn't seem so.
- water retention from muscle soreness / hormones. Probably not for that period of time.
- medical condition? Any other symptoms?
- starvation mode does not exist.
People here speak from experience and try to help. Maybe try what they suggest for a bit and see? It can't make things worse after all.
0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
Ahh, I misread. Then we're exactly the same height.
Agreed, there is zero reason that person wouldn't lose on a gross of 1800. I get a hair over 1800 to lose before exercise. My question still stands though, at said person's ht/wt, have they researched recomp.0 -
At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference
Assuming he has a higher amount of muscle mass the way most males do in comparison to women their height, he would burn more calories per day and be able to lose weight at a faster rate when eating the same number of calories as the woman.
In other words, if he'd be able to lose easily if eating 1600 calories per day.
Omar a certified fitness coach says you can mess up your metabolism if you go to low really fast, and I think this is what happened. Going to go back maintance then recut calories. I'll tell how and if it works.
I've noticed you haven't changed your conclusions from the first post. Seemed you wanted people to tell you it was okay for you (or "this person") to eat more. Everyone told you the same thing, "this person" is eating more than they think they are. But you are still sticking to your theory they are eating too little? Starvation mode is a myth. Some small metabolic differences can happen after losing 10% or more of one's body weight but it is not substantial and would not account for what is being stated here. My guess is the individual feels deprived eating 1600, is occasionally binging/cheating/underlogging as a result, therefore averaging more than they think, therefore losing weight slower, and is frustrated at eating 1600. Eating more might help them stick to their plan better and feel less deprived, but it will not speed up weight loss.0 -
Hi, I don't post often it just wanted to say I don't think anyone was trying to insult you. This is a massively common thread on these boards and inaccurate logging seems to be the number 1 reason for stalls .... It has been for me too!
I've made all the mistakes-
-Using cups & spoons for solids
-Using generic database entries
-Using package information and assuming that each bar/ slice etc weighs exactly the same as the portion listed.
- forgotten to add condiments / cooking oils
I've only got 10lb to goal now & my deficit is set for 0.5lb per week. I literally CAN'T do those mistakes anymore, the deficit can be wiped out quickly!!
Are there any other explanations for your friend other than logging errors? Maybe, but unlikely on what you've said so far;
- muscle gains? Muscle isn't built at a deficit except maybe for some newbie gains. Might be a bit of that here but you said the stall started before the weightlifting / exercise so doesn't seem so.
- water retention from muscle soreness / hormones. Probably not for that period of time.
- medical condition? Any other symptoms?
- starvation mode does not exist.
People here speak from experience and try to help. Maybe try what they suggest for a bit and see? It can't make things worse after all.
There really isn't any advice here to follow but to make sure this person is not lying about what they eat.
I am going to recommend the person goes to a Dr. to make sure there is nothing going on we don't know about.
If that comes back fine. I am going to have them go back to Maintenan/ reset calories then lower calories very slow again, while slightly increasing cardio and NEPA . This way if they are overeating they can eat more and it won't be a bad thing.
Thanks for your post though!0 -
Why don't you tell "this person" to open up their diary and link it to us? If it's so accurate?0
-
blues4miles wrote: »At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference
Assuming he has a higher amount of muscle mass the way most males do in comparison to women their height, he would burn more calories per day and be able to lose weight at a faster rate when eating the same number of calories as the woman.
In other words, if he'd be able to lose easily if eating 1600 calories per day.
Omar a certified fitness coach says you can mess up your metabolism if you go to low really fast, and I think this is what happened. Going to go back maintance then recut calories. I'll tell how and if it works.
I've noticed you haven't changed your conclusions from the first post. Seemed you wanted people to tell you it was okay for you (or "this person") to eat more. Everyone told you the same thing, "this person" is eating more than they think they are. But you are still sticking to your theory they are eating too little? Starvation mode is a myth. Some small metabolic differences can happen after losing 10% or more of one's body weight but it is not substantial and would not account for what is being stated here. My guess is the individual feels deprived eating 1600, is occasionally binging/cheating/underlogging as a result, therefore averaging more than they think, therefore losing weight slower, and is frustrated at eating 1600. Eating more might help them stick to their plan better and feel less deprived, but it will not speed up weight loss.
No, I am NOT thinking the person is in starvation mode, I think their metabolism took a hit and the body is having a response and it's time to reset calories (like Omar said in his video I posted.) I believe this happened from the dramatic caloric decrease in food, then how I had the person introduce even more taxing reduction of calories by having the person do as many burpees as possible in 10-13 mins 3 times a week.
No, I am not going to change my idea it could be something else, just because everyone shots it's logging error. I will take into consideration but I have no reason to believe it's this, unless like I said the person is right out not logging food. Either way I do appreciate the help, but it seems if I don't follow the advice I am auto wrong but no one really knows, so why keep hammering something you already suggested? Just to be right because it can happen? So instead of helping we have a debate, no thanks!0 -
Why don't you tell "this person" to open up their diary and link it to us? If it's so accurate?
Maybe they want to be private. Actually that is the reason, that is why they came to me. I mean look at the responses. Maybe they don't want to be called a liar, this and that. Just offer advice and move on is what they wanted and now we have a debate over what if, it worked for me, it has to be.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »At 5'9" 160 has this person done any research on a recomp.
You're basically the same height as me, and I was in the best shape at about 168-170.
They are 5 ft 6 actually...my height and I lose on a gross 1800 a day...no reason for this person not to be losing if the logs were accurate...
They are male though it will be a difference
Assuming he has a higher amount of muscle mass the way most males do in comparison to women their height, he would burn more calories per day and be able to lose weight at a faster rate when eating the same number of calories as the woman.
In other words, if he'd be able to lose easily if eating 1600 calories per day.
Omar a certified fitness coach says you can mess up your metabolism if you go to low really fast, and I think this is what happened. Going to go back maintance then recut calories. I'll tell how and if it works.
I've noticed you haven't changed your conclusions from the first post. Seemed you wanted people to tell you it was okay for you (or "this person") to eat more. Everyone told you the same thing, "this person" is eating more than they think they are. But you are still sticking to your theory they are eating too little? Starvation mode is a myth. Some small metabolic differences can happen after losing 10% or more of one's body weight but it is not substantial and would not account for what is being stated here. My guess is the individual feels deprived eating 1600, is occasionally binging/cheating/underlogging as a result, therefore averaging more than they think, therefore losing weight slower, and is frustrated at eating 1600. Eating more might help them stick to their plan better and feel less deprived, but it will not speed up weight loss.
No, I am NOT thinking the person is in starvation mode, I think their metabolism took a hit and the body is having a response and it's time to reset calories (like Omar said in his video I posted.) I believe this happened from the dramatic caloric decrease in food, then how I had the person introduce even more taxing reduction of calories by having the person do as many burpees as possible in 10-13 mins 3 times a week.
No, I am not going to change my idea it could be something else, just because everyone shots it's logging error. I will take into consideration but I have no reason to believe it's this, unless like I said the person is right out not logging food. Either way I do appreciate the help, but it seems if I don't follow the advice I am auto wrong but no one really knows, so why keep hammering something you already suggested? Just to be right because it can happen? So instead of helping we have a debate, no thanks!
When and what was the dramatic calorie decrease in food?
10-13 minutes of burpees isn't going to be a significant amount of calories burned.0 -
Why don't you tell "this person" to open up their diary and link it to us? If it's so accurate?
Maybe they want to be private. Actually that is the reason, that is why they came to me. I mean look at the responses. Maybe they don't want to be called a liar, this and that. Just offer advice and move on is what they wanted and now we have a debate over what if, it worked for me, it has to be.
No one said they were a liar. Sometimes people log what they think is correct (putting complete trust in MFP's food database) and don't know the entries are wrong.
The person I mentioned above was logging shredded chicken at like 60 calories. She was weighing her food, but the weight of chicken she was eating was closer to 200+ calories. She thought she was choosing an accurate entry. It took someone else looking at her diary to catch the error. She wasn't deliberately "lying" to anybody. She just didn't know and she got the same response you see here. Logging wasn't accurate and she needed to tighten it up (with examples of why, but she actually opened her diary for us to see).
Saying someone has logging errors =/= liar
Saying someone has logging errors = they are human and made a mistake...here's what you can do to fix it..0 -
I am so confused right now....... everyone one here has been trying to help..... but it seems like you don't want to listen and or agree with them. That is your choice if you "Friend " is having issues or has a question let them speak up. Because Frankley getting information from a third party is not always accurate. You may feel like everyone is attacking you they are not they are trying to figure out what your "Friend" needs to do. Many of the people who have posted have been at this for a while and know what they are doing. Logging food incorrectly is so common , and you refuse to think that your friend may be doing it wrong.
So to me that leaves 2 options, you are lying, your friend is lying to you . Unless you are measuring and weighing your Friends food and with them all the time how do you know that they are NOT being accurate with their food? They may not know what they are doing ....it happens I did it too, we all mess up it is called being human
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions