Y am I not losing weight?
Replies
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
Actually it is true. She ate 1200. Burned maybe 100, giving her a net of 1100. She could eat back the 100 to get back to 1200. That's the point - that's how you use MFP as it is intended.
However... she thinks she burned over 500 calories and is eating 100 to 300 back. And is probably eating a lot more than 1200 calories if she doesn't measure properly or gives herself free-bees (including veggies and fruits maybe).
According 2 the app that is linked to MFP called map my walk, it measures my calories burned and links it 2 MFP by itself, I still alot of times eat for Foo only 1,200 calories. Maybe 100 to 200 more at some times even if my exercise is burned 516 calories, so it's not what I think, it's what the app from MFP says.
You don't know how much you're eating if you're not measuring properly, though. You may think you are eating 1200 cals, but you're not if you're not losing weight.
The general rule is that you burn about 100 cals per mile. How many miles are you walking? I have to walk about 10,000 steps which for me is about 5 miles to burn 500 cals, according to my Fitbit.
I too have a young one, my babe is almost 19 months old. It's really easy to weigh and log though. If you are not willing to get a food scale then it will be very hard to make progress.
100kcal per mile is running. That's a completely different movement than walking. Plus the 100kcal are goss calories. They do include the BMR, the amount that TO would be burning for just existing.
For a 188 lb person, walking burns about a hundred cals per mile. Running burns about 138 cals per mile. Just multiple your weight by .57 for walking, and weight by .72 for running to get a rough estimate. So for my weight, it's more like 90 cals for walking per mile and 113 cals per mile for running.
of course, I let my Fitbit do the work :P
No, those are the gross calories. For running it's around 0.64 and for walking a tiny 0.3 for net calories, which is what you should be logging. Not 0.57, but 0.3. if you log gross calories then you're counting your BMR into the equation, which MFP gives you already in your daily calorie allowance.
Well like I said, I use a Fitbit so it does all the work for me. I don't have to calculate anything.
And you trust it, like you trust the calorie indications per measuring cups on food packages, right?
I didn't trust my Fitbit at first, but after a few weeks of my calculated deficit and my actual weight loss being +\- 10% of each other I've started putting a bit more faith in what it tells me.
I trust it, but I'll continue to verify.5 -
deluxmary2000 wrote: »This thread wins hands down for the largest amount of crappy information shoved into 2 pages.
Srsly, fml, kwim?
Omg, my thoughts exactly.4 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »Apologies if this has been said before in the thread but how do you know what you are burning with your walk? Are you using a heart rate monitor or just going but what the internet etc says you should lose with your walk. If you are estimating then I'd bet that's the issue, you are probably burning less than you think then eating it.
I agree with this. I only burn about 40/50 calories walking a mile. However, I use the Apple Watch that has a heart rate monitor and it also subtracts the regular calories that I burn just living. According to my Apple Watch, I don't even burn 100 calories a mile running! It's more like 70 or 80 cal/mile for that. It was really eye opening.
I think the MFP calculations and others take into account calories burned just living while working out also. Which is why a lot of them are overestimated because in MFP, you already account for what your body burns just existing.
This! I find that my calories when running at 7:50ish minutes per kilometer correspond best to the data base entry of 'Walking, 8 mins per km, very, very brisk pace' here in MFP! That's a huge difference!
Walking, 8 mins per km, very, very brisk pace for 60 minutes gives me: 360kcal
Running (jogging), 8 kph (7.5 min per km) for 60 minutes gives me: 457kcal.
Small difference?
Yes!
Example, here's my run from yesterday.
Total time: 1 hour
Total distance: 6.43 miles
Average heart rate: 159 bpm
Total active calories: 499 calories
Total calories (including bmr): 575 calories0 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.
My dietary aid would kill if she knew a diet program actually told you to do that!
Omg, I can't....5 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
Actually it is true. She ate 1200. Burned maybe 100, giving her a net of 1100. She could eat back the 100 to get back to 1200. That's the point - that's how you use MFP as it is intended.
However... she thinks she burned over 500 calories and is eating 100 to 300 back. And is probably eating a lot more than 1200 calories if she doesn't measure properly or gives herself free-bees (including veggies and fruits maybe).
According 2 the app that is linked to MFP called map my walk, it measures my calories burned and links it 2 MFP by itself, I still alot of times eat for Foo only 1,200 calories. Maybe 100 to 200 more at some times even if my exercise is burned 516 calories, so it's not what I think, it's what the app from MFP says.
You don't know how much you're eating if you're not measuring properly, though. You may think you are eating 1200 cals, but you're not if you're not losing weight.
The general rule is that you burn about 100 cals per mile. How many miles are you walking? I have to walk about 10,000 steps which for me is about 5 miles to burn 500 cals, according to my Fitbit.
I too have a young one, my babe is almost 19 months old. It's really easy to weigh and log though. If you are not willing to get a food scale then it will be very hard to make progress.
100kcal per mile is running. That's a completely different movement than walking. Plus the 100kcal are goss calories. They do include the BMR, the amount that TO would be burning for just existing.
For a 188 lb person, walking burns about a hundred cals per mile. Running burns about 138 cals per mile. Just multiple your weight by .57 for walking, and weight by .72 for running to get a rough estimate. So for my weight, it's more like 90 cals for walking per mile and 113 cals per mile for running.
of course, I let my Fitbit do the work :P
No, those are the gross calories. For running it's around 0.64 and for walking a tiny 0.3 for net calories, which is what you should be logging. Not 0.57, but 0.3. if you log gross calories then you're counting your BMR into the equation, which MFP gives you already in your daily calorie allowance.
Well like I said, I use a Fitbit so it does all the work for me. I don't have to calculate anything.
And you trust it, like you trust the calorie indications per measuring cups on food packages, right?
Huh? I weigh my food on a food scale. But yes I do trust my fitbit because I am losing weight.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Just to reiterate:
1. If it's been less than 3 weeks or so, don't sweat it! Normal fluctuations happen and unfortunately sometimes we stall for a week or two even when we're doing everything right. Give your body some time to catch up with the changes you're making.
2. If you aren't already, be sure that you're logging everything. Sometimes people forget about things like veggies, drinks, cooking oils, and condiments. For some people these can add up to enough to halt your weight loss progress.
3. Consider buying a food scale if you don't already have one. They're about $10-$20 dollars in the US and easily found at places like Amazon, Target, and Walmart. Measuring cups and spoons are great, but they do come with some degree of inaccuracy. A food scale will be more accurate, and for some people it makes a big difference.
4. Logging accurately also means choosing accurate entries in the database. There are a lot of user-entered entries that are off. Double-check that you're using good entries and/or using the recipe builder instead of someone else's homemade entries.
5. Recalculate your goals if you haven't lately. As you lose weight your body requires fewer calories to run. Be sure you update your goals every ten pounds or so.
6. If you're eating back your exercise calories and you're relying on gym machine readouts or MFP's estimates, it might be best to eat back just 50-75% of those. Certain activities tend to be overestimated. If you're using an HRM or activity tracker, it might be a good idea to look into their accuracy and be sure that yours is calibrated properly.
7. If you're taking any cheat days that go over your calorie limits, it might be best to cut them out for a few weeks and see what happens. Some people go way over their calorie needs without realizing it when they don't track.
8. If you weigh yourself frequently, consider using a program like trendweight to even out the fluctuations. You could be losing weight but just don't see it because of the daily ups and downs.
9. Some people just burn fewer calories than the calculators predict. If you continue to have problems after 4-6 weeks, then it might be worth a trip to the doctor or a registered dietitian who can give you more specific advice.
Ok, most.of this I do, I use the recipe builder thing and I do log everything, my fiance says I'm ocd about it. I am not always hungry, so I don't eat all the calories back, I usually only eat cereal 4 breakfast and a glass of oj, for lunch a salad or sandwich, or a sub from subway, I use the barcode mostly for everything and I do make sure it correct. I do have stress and a 1 yr old I deal with. But it has only been 2 weeks so I guess I'm just expecting 2 see results right away.
yes,but a bowl of cereal to you and what the serving size states can be two different things, you will be surprised how little cereal a bowl actually is by weight,and all cereals have different weights for a serving.IF you use a measuring cup,you may end up with 1.5-2 bowls of cereal just in the measuring cup. if you dont weigh it and you log it,you think you are only eating one serving when its actually more,it will add up too and fast. measuring cups aren't accurate,I even weigh my liquids in the measuring cup on the scale to be accurate,and what I think is half a cup is usually more may not be by much but its enough sometimes.2 -
butterfli7o wrote: »deluxmary2000 wrote: »This thread wins hands down for the largest amount of crappy information shoved into 2 pages.
Srsly, fml, kwim?
Omg, my thoughts exactly.
It's Friday. ...its always a car crash on friday1 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
Yes, she literally is.
She thought that if she excersized it off that she could eat more but that is not the case at all.
Wow so happy I read this because I actually was doing the same thing and I'm not losing just maintaining and I weigh my food also and exercise an hour a day0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.
That's what I thought.
How wonderful that you managed to pull out the correct information from the plethora of misinformation in this thread! Impressive.3 -
Desire2DoRight wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
Yes, she literally is.
She thought that if she excersized it off that she could eat more but that is not the case at all.
Wow so happy I read this because I actually was doing the same thing and I'm not losing just maintaining and I weigh my food also and exercise an hour a day
No, sorry @Desire2DoRight , if you are using MFP calorie goals, he is dead wrong. He is assuming MFP works from TDEE, and it doesn't, it uses NEAT. You ARE supposed to eat (at least part) of your exercise calories back. Unless your estimates are too high, that is not your issue.9 -
Can I raise my hand in another show of support to WEIGH your food? Here are just 4 examples of what I eat regularly to show how inaccurate serving size and measuring cups/spoons, etc can be wrong and de-rail your efforts.
1) Trader Joe sliced lite Havarti. Serving size is 1 slice or 33 grams. Guess what? When you weigh the damn slice, it's 36 grams or 35 grams, sometimes it is 33 grams. No way of knowing because all the slices look the same.
2) Quaker Rolled Oats. Service size is 1/2 a cup or 40 grams. I was measuring 1/4 cup and guess what, when I weighed that 1/4 cup serving, it was 25 grams instead of 20 grams. The measuring cup was off by 25%!
3) Trader Joe's California Style Sprouted Wheat Bread. Serving size is 1 slice or 33 grams. When you weigh the slice, it is often more than 33 grams. Some days it'll be 36 grams, some days it's 39 grams.
4) General Mills Fiber/protein bar. Serving size is 1 bar or 33 grams. Actual weight is typically 36 grams. Sometimes it is 33 but again, more often than not, it's 36 grams.
Do you see a trend here?? What you think is a serving size or what you measure can be widely different from the actual weight.
I'm keeping my deficit small so I'm cutting out about 15% of my calories. If I went by using just the serving sizes, I'd totally be screwed. On just the 4 examples alone, the serving size or measuring cups were off by 8-25%!
10 -
I fluctuate 5 pounds in a given week. If I exercise to the point where I am sore, my body retains extra water for a while. Any time I make any change, really, my body will gain weight (probably water) for a few days.
When I got 'back on the wagon" I immediately GAINED weight, and muscle mass.
The best thing you can do is weigh yourself and measure yourself (invest $10 in a measuring tape for bodies) consistently to see that fluctuation is normal. I'll also go through 'plateaus and whooshes' where all of a sudden my body will let go of weight, after being stubborn for a while.0 -
aquablue_1111 wrote: »Can I raise my hand in another show of support to WEIGH your food? Here are just 4 examples of what I eat regularly to show how inaccurate serving size and measuring cups/spoons, etc can be wrong and de-rail your efforts.
1) Trader Joe sliced lite Havarti. Serving size is 1 slice or 33 grams. Guess what? When you weigh the damn slice, it's 36 grams or 35 grams, sometimes it is 33 grams. No way of knowing because all the slices look the same.
2) Quaker Rolled Oats. Service size is 1/2 a cup or 40 grams. I was measuring 1/4 cup and guess what, when I weighed that 1/4 cup serving, it was 25 grams instead of 20 grams. The measuring cup was off by 25%!
3) Trader Joe's California Style Sprouted Wheat Bread. Serving size is 1 slice or 33 grams. When you weigh the slice, it is often more than 33 grams. Some days it'll be 36 grams, some days it's 39 grams.
4) General Mills Fiber/protein bar. Serving size is 1 bar or 33 grams. Actual weight is typically 36 grams. Sometimes it is 33 but again, more often than not, it's 36 grams.
Do you see a trend here?? What you think is a serving size or what you measure can be widely different from the actual weight.
I'm keeping my deficit small so I'm cutting out about 15% of my calories. If I went by using just the serving sizes, I'd totally be screwed. On just the 4 examples alone, the serving size or measuring cups were off by 8-25%!
Ok0 -
ronigrant594 wrote: »Weighing food really helps but so does eating the right amount. If you are supposed to eat 1200 Kcal a day then you need to eat at least that much. Never mind about the extra calories your exercise gives you. Also, watch the amount of salt you take in as it can cause you to retain water which adds pounds.
That's what I'm trying now. I don't use salt or spices cuz my fiance don't like it.0 -
If your activity is set on light you probably don't need to be logging your walking as exercise, unless you are doing a ton of daily walking in addition to your logged walks....1
-
deluxmary2000 wrote: »This thread wins hands down for the largest amount of crappy information shoved into 2 pages.
Srsly, fml, kwim?
Lol0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
Actually it is true. She ate 1200. Burned maybe 100, giving her a net of 1100. She could eat back the 100 to get back to 1200. That's the point - that's how you use MFP as it is intended.
However... she thinks she burned over 500 calories and is eating 100 to 300 back. And is probably eating a lot more than 1200 calories if she doesn't measure properly or gives herself free-bees (including veggies and fruits maybe).
According 2 the app that is linked to MFP called map my walk, it measures my calories burned and links it 2 MFP by itself, I still alot of times eat for Foo only 1,200 calories. Maybe 100 to 200 more at some times even if my exercise is burned 516 calories, so it's not what I think, it's what the app from MFP says.
You don't know how much you're eating if you're not measuring properly, though. You may think you are eating 1200 cals, but you're not if you're not losing weight.
The general rule is that you burn about 100 cals per mile. How many miles are you walking? I have to walk about 10,000 steps which for me is about 5 miles to burn 500 cals, according to my Fitbit.
I too have a young one, my babe is almost 19 months old. It's really easy to weigh and log though. If you are not willing to get a food scale then it will be very hard to make progress.
I walk 5.50 miles so burning 516 calories should b right if that's what u just said.0 -
TresaAswegan wrote: »If your activity is set on light you probably don't need to be logging your walking as exercise, unless you are doing a ton of daily walking in addition to your logged walks....
Well I am a stay at home.mom with a 1 yr old so I do the daily.cleaning and cooking. Plus I walk every day the same path. 5.50 miles.0 -
I agree with above posted statement to watch your sodium intake. People concentrate so much on calories (still important to track them) and ignore sodium. That is where you'll see a difference. My trainer told me to keep my sodium intake below 2000mg per day. I try to keep it at 1200. You also may not be drinking enough water every day. You should be drinking at least half of your body weight in water. I drink a gallon of water every single day (well over the half my body weight). Sometimes more depending on my workouts-I sweat a lot!!!!!
0 -
if you are a women your monthly cycle plays a part due to water retenetion and muscle weighs as much as fat it is just that muscles takes up less room1
-
The first 2 pages of this were pure entertainment. Literally laughed out loud at some points.
Op, you legitimately need a scale. Even tonight, I had an, "A ha!" Moment with my scale.
I love butter. It's my favorite food. since I started counting calories, I switched to whipped butter because it had less calories while not skimping on the fat.
Tonight I wanted to have butter with my fish and my whipped butter was all gone.
I went to the regular stick butter. In the beginning of my counting calories journey, I would just cut it where it would say 1 tablespoon was and count that.
Tonight I weighed it.
Instead of the 14g it was suppose to be, it weighed 20g.
That's 90 calories that I wouldn't have accounted for.
4 -
Ok so my MFP is set for 1,200 calories and losing 2 lbs a week, it's been about 2 weeks for me and I havnt lost at all. I walk 5 miles or more a day and burn about average 516 or more calories from the walk. Then most of the time the extra remaining calories ur supposed 2 eat I usually leave 200 or 400 left. Cuz I'm just not hungry. So y have I not lost anything?
You could be under eating causing your body to enter into starvation mode. Try to hit the 1200 target everday with healthy foods0 -
cameliabutler1992 wrote: »Ok so my MFP is set for 1,200 calories and losing 2 lbs a week, it's been about 2 weeks for me and I havnt lost at all. I walk 5 miles or more a day and burn about average 516 or more calories from the walk. Then most of the time the extra remaining calories ur supposed 2 eat I usually leave 200 or 400 left. Cuz I'm just not hungry. So y have I not lost anything?
You could be under eating causing your body to enter into starvation mode. Try to hit the 1200 target everday with healthy foods
Please no with starvation mode. The truth is she is far more likely not logging food and/or exercise correctly.5 -
Colorscheme wrote: »I had the same problem until I read that if you eat too FEW calories for you body your body thinks you are starving and conserves - burns muscle instead of fat even. I had my calorie goal set at 1200 - tried bumping it up to 1400 (even though that seems counterproductive) - upped my cardio exercise 30 minutes per day - tried to get as close as possible to eating 1400 calories (I eat extremely healthy so its hard for me to eat so much sometimes) and... like magic I started losing .04 to .05 ounces per day!
Nope. Starvation mode doesn't exist. If it did, no one would starve to death.
How does that make sense thst death proves our body doesn't have strategies for conserving energy when food is scarce? Your body tries to preserve its reserves and burn muscle. Obviously if you are consuming nothing it doesn't magically create new reserves from air-its a finite resource. To original poster: anorexia is dangerous and does cause death so please don't listen to extreme starvation advice.0 -
cameliabutler1992 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »I had the same problem until I read that if you eat too FEW calories for you body your body thinks you are starving and conserves - burns muscle instead of fat even. I had my calorie goal set at 1200 - tried bumping it up to 1400 (even though that seems counterproductive) - upped my cardio exercise 30 minutes per day - tried to get as close as possible to eating 1400 calories (I eat extremely healthy so its hard for me to eat so much sometimes) and... like magic I started losing .04 to .05 ounces per day!
Nope. Starvation mode doesn't exist. If it did, no one would starve to death.
How does that make sense thst death proves our body doesn't have strategies for conserving energy when food is scarce? Your body tries to preserve its reserves and burn muscle. Obviously if you are consuming nothing it doesn't magically create new reserves from air-its a finite resource. To original poster: anorexia is dangerous and does cause death so please don't listen to extreme starvation advice.
Muscle has mass and less calories per pound than fat. You would lose weight even faster if your body chose to burn your muscles, not stop losing altogether, that would be creating energy out of nothing.1 -
Okay, I've finally read up on all the comments I've missed in this thread and now I have some questions.
RE: Calories from walking. I see a lot of people in here saying you don't earn much from walking, but I'm 5'3.5" and 111 pounds and I earn around 300 to 400 from walking for an hour as per my Fitbit Charge HR, depending on where I'm walking. I know it's accurate because I eat back my calories and haven't gained weight at all. In fact, my rate of loss is faster than expected and I'm only in the process of shedding a few post-bulk pounds. I walk 4 miles per hour though, so is that the reason why? Is the average speed of walking really that much slower? For example, yesterday I walked for 1:33:43 and burned 529 calories. There were some hills and some level surfaces. The total distance was 6 miles. Anyone else have a similar calorie burn for walking?
[edited by MFP Mods]0 -
Okay, I've finally read up on all the comments I've missed in this thread and now I have some questions.
RE: Calories from walking. I see a lot of people in here saying you don't earn much from walking, but I'm 5'3.5" and 111 pounds and I earn around 300 to 400 from walking for an hour as per my Fitbit Charge HR, depending on where I'm walking. I know it's accurate because I eat back my calories and haven't gained weight at all. In fact, my rate of loss is faster than expected and I'm only in the process of shedding a few post-bulk pounds. I walk 4 miles per hour though, so is that the reason why? Is the average speed of walking really that much slower? For example, yesterday I walked for 1:33:43 and burned 529 calories. There were some hills and some level surfaces. The total distance was 6 miles. Anyone else have a similar calorie burn for walking?
For the walking calories, your speed and hills may be what burns extra, especially because your Fitbit measures heart rate. I walk around 3 mph when I'm just walking somewhere (it's a mile to the gym and it takes me about 20 minutes to walk there). There are also no hills where I live. The biggest incline I end up walking on is if there's a slight crack in the cement!
so I think that's why you can get bigger burns for that!
[edited by MFP Mods]0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions