"How am I gaining weight in a deficit?" or: You're not losing fat because you're eating too much.
Options
Replies
-
The chart just gets monotonous for those of us that have seen it 1000 times. But is very helpful for newbies who are trying to pinpoint a problem.23
-
Maxematics wrote: »Yes. It gets really annoying when people post here over and over how they're eating 1000 calories and not losing weight. They claim they're so accurate and even weigh food, then when they're asked to open their diary the truth comes out.
Sadly, I feel like I see women do this more often than men. Even with being quick to blame hypothyroidism, PCOS, carbs, etc. I never found it difficult to lose weight at all because I came equipped with a food scale, a realistic outlook, and a love for being active. Of course the same people attribute my success to my "super" metabolism, the fact that I haven't had kids, or my genes. Such nonsense.
Yes! Yes! All of this!2 -
-
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.4 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.3 -
I recently got a food scale and found that I have been logging accurately all along (i.e. what I guessed was a oz of cheddar was an oz of cheddar). Where I go wrong is having difficulty actually eating as few calories as I need to in order to lose weight. Eating 1400 calories is really hard! Not going to come here and complain about that though
4 -
I recently got a food scale and found that I have been logging accurately all along (i.e. what I guessed was a oz of cheddar was an oz of cheddar). Where I go wrong is having difficulty actually eating as few calories as I need to in order to lose weight. Eating 1400 calories is really hard! Not going to come here and complain about that though
This. Measuring out the calories isn't hard if you have the tools. The difficult part for me is sticking to the calorie limit.
But on weeks when I go over I'm not underestimating my calories and claiming that I'm eating less than I am. I know what I ate and why I didn't lose.
Some people have no idea or won't admit that they are not logging everything and estimating a lot.7 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »@VintageFeline Thanks for the explanation. That does makes sense to me. But what if I was overly ambitious and continued to eat to lose 500 calories less - i.e. I don't go to 250 calories. Would my rate of loss automatically slow as I got closer to my goal, or would/should I continue to lose as I originally was losing? Hope that makes sense.
If you have a 500 calorie deficit, and your logging is accurate, you should continue to lose 1 lb/week. The problem is, as you get closer to your goal weight, your maintenance calories are reduced as well, and achieving that size of a deficit can become problematic. Also, if a 500 calorie deficit would take you below the 1200 calorie threshold that is the lowest safe limit for most women, MFP will still only give you 1200 calories. In that case, yes, your loss will slow, because the deficit is not enough to lose 1 lb/week. If you manually determined to eat less than 1200 calories to continue to achieve a 500 calorie deficit, your weight loss would keep pace, but likely at the cost of nutritional deficiencies, loss of lean muscle mass, and other potential health issues.8 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »This is where I get confused. Assuming you are accurate in your logging and eating so that you should be losing weight, what does being close to your goal have anything to do with anything. Why does it take so long to lose the last ten or so pounds if you're adjusting your calories appropriately as you lose weight? It still should be all CICO right?
As I said in another thread in response to the statement from someone else that "a deficit is a deficit":
Whatever the margin of error is, it's going to overlap more and more with our actual caloric requirements the closer we get to an ideal weight since, for many people, it's prohibitively difficult to restrict calories aggressively when we don't have much left to lose. I suspect that if we try, we become especially prone to having our brains shut off about calorie awareness.A deficit is not necessarily a deficit. All these numbers we're working with are estimates, unless we've had our VO2 professionally measured so that we know our RMR precisely. Even then, MFP is using an estimate of our NEAT burn based on our subjective evaluations of our activity levels. The numbers we get for our exercise burns are estimates too. That means there are error margins, sometimes large ones. Allowing for too narrow a deficit will move you to within the margin of error, and in such cases you might not be eating a deficit when you think you are even when tracking your intake precisely.
I don't know how big these margins of error are, but if you're aiming for the deficit equivalent of, say, 3 apples a day, it's not too unreasonable to think you're close.1 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
0 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
Yep, the feedback loop is an important part of CICO because we're working with estimates on all ends of the equation. Start with a formula/estimate that's supposed to put you in the ballpark and tweak it from there. It doesn't mean that CICO isn't valid, it just means that it's not an exact science.4 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
Yep, the feedback loop is an important part of CICO because we're working with estimates on all ends of the equation. Start with a formula/estimate that's supposed to put you in the ballpark and tweak it from there. It doesn't mean that CICO isn't valid, it just means that it's not an exact science.
I in no way suggested that CI is invalid.
I wrote that to say someone is eating too much (CI) needs to be qualified by the fact that 'too much' is relative to a person's caloric expenditure (CO).
3 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
Yep, the feedback loop is an important part of CICO because we're working with estimates on all ends of the equation. Start with a formula/estimate that's supposed to put you in the ballpark and tweak it from there. It doesn't mean that CICO isn't valid, it just means that it's not an exact science.
I in no way suggested that CI is invalid.
I wrote that to say someone is eating too much (CI) needs to be qualified by the fact that 'too much' is relative to a person's caloric expenditure (CO).
I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you.
Or at least so I thought.
0 -
I think I'll be sorry I wrote this post, but I'm going to write it anyway.
First: I 100% agree that the stuff on that standard flowchart, especially inaccurate CI logging, hits the crucial reasons people post "I'm eating so little and still can't lose".
But I also think the community as a generality sometimes overlooks the possibility that a very few people have lower calorie requirements than normal, potentially needing quite a few calories fewer daily than the calculators estimate, and that those people are more likely than average to post that they can't lose weight as expected . . . because they can't (as expected). (They can lose, but they'll need to carefully ratchet down their CI.)
Yes, many/most have logging issues, or medical issues, or whatever. But some probably have adaptive thermogenesis issues from a decade (or three) of yo-yo dieting; have squandered muscle mass over and over by playing with trendy VLCDs, or who knows what all else. (The hyper-frequent yo-yo dieter people are more likely to be women.)
I've seen the community response be pretty harsh on people, never seeming to consider this kind of possibility. Yes, it's not probable. But it is possible.
Too many people think the TDEE calculators calculate, when they actually estimate. (OPs often clearly think this. How often have you seen "I'm eating at maintenance calories, but gaining!")
I regularly see people telling OPs on these kinds of threads that of course OP can eat more calories than X, because the person replying can eat more calories than X. That's just bad science, even if OP and reply-er are the same size/age/activity level.
I've had a couple of people in my MFP friend feed (not many! ) whom I followed closely, looking at diaries & activity, whom I truly believe were low-burn statistical outliers. They were weighing food, they were working at CO, etc. I've seen them succeed. One, whom I really admire, worked amazingly hard at getting excellent nutrition on a calorie level we aren't supposed to admit to here. Her nutrition was better than most people's who were eating 50%+ more calories. Finally, and painfully slowly, she lost weight. Close to goal, she started working with a trainer to build muscle (didn't do it earlier because of injury issues, not lack of will/smarts). Lately she's been working to push her calorie requirements slowly upward on the CI side, to a more normal level. It takes a lot of discipline.
I believe in statistical outliers for two reasons:- Science. Specifically, statistics. (https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
- I am one - on the lucky "can eat more" side of outlier-hood . . . much more, maybe 25%+ above calculator estimates. People have a hard time believing that, too - insist I'm underestimating my activity. No. I'm not. I don't know why. I suspect it's at least in part the counter-case to some of the things I cited above: I've rarely dieted as an adult, never did a VLCD, despite being obese for decades. And I'm more muscular than average for my age. For the last dozen years of being obese, I had high energy flux (high CI, pretty high CO) which is also supposed to be metabolically helpful. Maybe that's part of the "why".
I like that the MFP collective doesn't let people get away with BS reasoning or self-serving self-deception about how little they're eating, and still not losing weight.
I wish, though, that we could consider that perhaps, in a small but meaningful number of cases (maybe 1 in 40 or 50 people?), there's something to what they're saying . . . and on that basis, be at least somewhat kind, rather than piling on with dismissive snark.
Sure, not everyone does that piling-on thing. But, in most such threads, enough people do that it makes me cringe.
It sometimes feels like a bunch of chickens pecking at a hen who got a little blood on her feathers. Not pretty.40 -
Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
Yep, the feedback loop is an important part of CICO because we're working with estimates on all ends of the equation. Start with a formula/estimate that's supposed to put you in the ballpark and tweak it from there. It doesn't mean that CICO isn't valid, it just means that it's not an exact science.
I in no way suggested that CI is invalid.
I wrote that to say someone is eating too much (CI) needs to be qualified by the fact that 'too much' is relative to a person's caloric expenditure (CO).
I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you.
Or at least so I thought.
Cool. I must have misinterpreted.
0 -
@Maxematics yeah. Been there done that. Won't do it again!
@try2again @ccsernica Thank you for the clear explanations. I forget these are all estimates.0 -
If someone is an outlier, there's nothing we can do for them, though. The best advice is to see a doctor or nutritionist or actually get BMR tested, which is usually the advice given if someone *truly* seems to be measuring CICO as accurately as is feasable.4
-
annacole94 wrote: »If someone is an outlier, there's nothing we can do for them, though. The best advice is to see a doctor or nutritionist or actually get BMR tested, which is usually the advice given if someone *truly* seems to be measuring CICO as accurately as is feasable.
We can point out that they may be an outlier, and perhaps even counter some of the "piling on" of sarcastic disbelief and jeering that sometimes happens.
We ought to be able to do something for them about that. MFP members, not just the moderators, help create the culture.
OP on our current thread here wrote (my bolding):ArvinSloane wrote: »Clickbait title, but bear with me. This is a great article at Physiqonomics on why people tend to under-report their calories, and strategies to avoid or minimize the problem: http://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/
I see a lot here that folks will run into issues where they think they should be losing but they aren't, and (barring a few short-term issues like water retention) it's usually because they aren't recording their intake as accurately as they think they are. Questions about their logging strategies are often taken as accusations that they are "lying," when really it's an effort to identify and remove as many barriers as possible in order to get the most accurate logging they can with the tools available. As the article states, literally everyone, even a dietitian, is susceptible to misreporting calorie intake.
So in short: You're not in "starvation mode." Look at your logging first.
What @ArvinSloane says is true; sometimes people are thin-skinned when questioned. But sometimes people are actually accused of lying, explicitly or implicitly, but quite clearly. Or accused of trolling. Or of having secret binges. Or thinking they're special snowflakes. Or of claiming they think they can defy the laws of physics.
When I read some of those threads, imagine being OP . . . if OP were IRL doing things as right as s/he knew how, and telling the truth, though perhaps not in perfect professional prose . . . I don't know what else to call it: There's bullying. Ignorant bullying. Not always, but too often.
Statistics tells us that almost 5% of the people can be 2 standard deviations away from the mean (the number the calculators give us), in either direction . . . that's in the several hundreds of calories away from what the calculators predict.
(How many calories depends on the magnitude of the mean calories for their demographic. The article I linked, uses the example that if the mean is 2000 calories, the range into which 95.45% of the population is predicted to fall is 1680-2320 calories. 4.55% of people, about 1 in 20, would be expected to require fewer than 1680, or more than 2320 calories to maintain. That's quite a spread. Those outlier people will be more likely to post in the forums, even if they're doing everything right . . . maybe especially likely to post if they're doing everything right, and I'd wager that those who can eat less than predicted are the most likely to post looking for help.).
I'm going to drop this line of commentary (well, try ); I've said my piece. It's related to the thread, but not directly on its main point. 18 -
ArvinSloane wrote: »Clickbait title, but bear with me. This is a great article at Physiqonomics on why people tend to under-report their calories, and strategies to avoid or minimize the problem: http://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/
I see a lot here that folks will run into issues where they think they should be losing but they aren't, and (barring a few short-term issues like water retention) it's usually because they aren't recording their intake as accurately as they think they are. Questions about their logging strategies are often taken as accusations that they are "lying," when really it's an effort to identify and remove as many barriers as possible in order to get the most accurate logging they can with the tools available. As the article states, literally everyone, even a dietitian, is susceptible to misreporting calorie intake.
So in short: You're not in "starvation mode." Look at your logging first.
Reminds me of this one. I quote it all the time: http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/1 -
I would wonder if some of these people are sleep eating, but when I've done it, there is always evidence in the morning.
(It's been pretty mild for years, it was much more often when I was in college.)1
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
- 389 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions