Learning from you all... Have I missed anything important? Thank you!

Options
2»

Replies

  • ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Thank you, nowine4me. I do not sleep enough due to back issues. I will try to find ways to improve this.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    A rule that works for me: if something isn't working you don't need to stay married to it. It's okay to experiment with different approaches to find strategies that make things easier, but if after giving it a fair chance you find it makes things harder it's simply not for you, no matter how much others rave about it.

    ETA: as for rate of weight loss relative to how much extra you're carrying, the smaller and closer you are to your target the lower your calories would need to be to achieve a high rate of weight loss, leading to some physical and mental risks because you would essentially need to undereat and/or over-exercise.
  • Evamutt
    Evamutt Posts: 2,374 Member
    Options
    I go by the scale once a week at the same time, altho I do weigh daily just cuz I have a scale & I'm a bit ocd, it does go up to 5lbs during the day sometime, normal. The more I lose, the lower calories mfp gives me so the past couple weeks I clanged my loss rate to .5 lb/wk just so I can eat a little more & still lose. I'm here for the long term so have to make it doable
  • ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Thank you both!
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    Will you adopt me?
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,484 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    A rule that works for me: if something isn't working you don't need to stay married to it. It's okay to experiment with different approaches to find strategies that make things easier, but if after giving it a fair chance you find it makes things harder it's simply not for you, no matter how much others rave about it.

    ETA: as for rate of weight loss relative to how much extra you're carrying, the smaller and closer you are to your target the lower your calories would need to be to achieve a high rate of weight loss, leading to some physical and mental risks because you would essentially need to undereat and/or over-exercise.

    Just to add to the ETA.
    The body can only burn a particular amount of fat per lbs of fat the body is holding (sorry I can't remember the numbers) then it starts using lbm in a higher ratio than normal. This will lead to a loss of muscle, and if the deficit is high enough health problems. (As above)

    If one is obese one has enough fat to lose 2 lbs a week, if one is of normal body weight (as per BMI) the amount of body fat is usually too low to lose 2 lbs without potentially causing problems that is why .5 lbs a week is recommended. (1lbs if overweight/close to normal weight)

    Cheers, h.
  • buffalogal42
    buffalogal42 Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    How about - it doesn't matter WHEN you eat (meal timing) or WHAT you eat (for weight loss, not necessarily health) as long as calories in are less than calories out. Do what works for you!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,988 Member
    Options
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough wrote: »
    Thank you lorrpb. I appreciate your mention of target weight loss in relation to the amount of weight to lose. I still don't quite understand if the amount to lose relative to the speed in which it is lost matters. I need to research this more. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. :)

    When you do that research, keep in mind the reason lorrpb gave -- not that your weight loss will necessarily be more sustainable if you lose slowly, which is a frequently repeated statement with at best conflicting data to support it, as well as something that seems like it would show great variability across individuals, since it is affected by psychology and behavioral traits.

    Lorrpb said that you will improve the ratio of fat loss to lean mass loss by losing more slowly. Hopefully there are some well-designed studies examining that, but I fear there may not be, as lately studies all seem to be about whether some specific food group or specific macro allotment will offer some minor advantage in weight loss. Also, sadly, there doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive in academia to do studies that attempt to confirm or replicate other studies -- everyone's chasing some novel finding. But without replication of studies, you're missing some of the steps that make science science.

    Until we get those well-designed, replicated studies, I'm relying on logic and large pools of anecdotal evidence (which is what you're stuck with without science) as supporting "slow loss = more fat loss, less muscle loss." (It's not as bad as it sounds -- an awful lot of "everybody knows" woo about weight loss and nutrition falls apart completely with just the slightest application of logic, not to mention comparison to observed data, even if the data wasn't gathered in a well-designed study with a control group and subjected to statistical analysis. It's still empirical data, which beats relying on appeals to authority stating that your humors are out of whack.)
  • ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    I appreciate all these comments. JeromeBarry1, you made me laugh! I actually selected a name from the adopt a noob list, hoping to be adopted myself. I contacted the individual to see if they might be able to point me in the right direction, but I never heard back. I'm thinking with all those posts you've probably figured everything out and then some. ;) Middlehaitch, thank you for that information. I am not sure what ibm stands for, but I will look it up and find out. Thank you buffalogal42. I have a lot of family telling me that I need to stop eating past _oclock. I'm also hearing lots about the evils concerning anything white and how they will destroy my body forever if I eat them. ;) lynn_glenmont, I have encountered so much conflicting information. It certainly is a process of weeding through the fads and fiction. Thank you again for all the words of wisdom!
  • melissawill2017
    melissawill2017 Posts: 1,131 Member
    Options
    You could be eating too few calories. Maybe 1200 isn't a good calorie goal for you. It will definitely stall your weight loss if you aren't eating enough. I know that MFP sets a calorie range based on rate of weight loss but there are so many more things that MFP doesn't factor in. It's meant to be used as a guideline and not a strict rule. I had success sticking to 1200 calories a day. However, I was hungry often, struggled a lot of days to not overeat, and was pretty unhappy.. not sustainable for me. I am now eating 1600 calories a day; same rate of weight loss and I never feel hungry. I think I have more energy; therefore I feel like being more active. Sometimes it takes weeks/months of making tweaks to our plan in order to see the greatest results and what works for one doesn't work for the other. You have definitely done your research and if you stick with it you will see results. P.S. I love having a food scale; it's the most accurate way to measure food and I do much better when I weigh food consistently. Good luck!
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough wrote: »
    Thank you lorrpb. I appreciate your mention of target weight loss in relation to the amount of weight to lose. I still don't quite understand if the amount to lose relative to the speed in which it is lost matters. I need to research this more. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. :)

    @middlehaitch explains it:
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Just to add to the ETA.
    The body can only burn a particular amount of fat per lbs of fat the body is holding (sorry I can't remember the numbers) then it starts using lbm in a higher ratio than normal. This will lead to a loss of muscle, and if the deficit is high enough health problems. (As above)

    If one is obese one has enough fat to lose 2 lbs a week, if one is of normal body weight (as per BMI) the amount of body fat is usually too low to lose 2 lbs without potentially causing problems that is why .5 lbs a week is recommended. (1lbs if overweight/close to normal weight)

    Cheers, h.

  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,484 Member
    Options
    Lbm= everything that is in the body that isn't fat.

    Your muscles, bones, organs. All these will be impacted.

    Brain function, hydration, blood volume can be affected.

    Skin elasticity, teeth, gum, hair, and nail health are in there too, and are usually the first indicators of undernourishment that could be due to a too low calorie input, especially protein and fat.

    By the time one sees, or experiences problems with any of the above it means one has not nourished, and loved, oneself adequately for a number of months and it is going to take time to recover.

    A lot of people look at these problems short term and think they don't need to think of the future.

    Everyone needs to look to the future they are the stewards of their life.

    Short term goals can lead to long term problems.

    Cheers, h.

    Sorry, that turned into a bit of a preach. I am an older resident of MFP and really care about how the younger population plan for their future.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    It sounds like you're really on the right track! I know how unpredictable an autoimmune disease can be with pain and mobility, I have Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. For that reason, I set my activity to "sedentary" and always log my activity explicitly, because that can vary so much from day to day.

    I've done that in two different ways: by adding all my major activity (walking, gardening, house cleaning!) directly, and by linking a step counter. They both seem to work about the same (mostly) - there are things each method does very well, and things they miss. My household cleaning and gardening, in particular, turn out a little oddly with each method. Explicit logging clearly overstates the actual calorie burn (If I tell MFP I gardened for 1 hour, it gives me some ridiculous burn like 600+ calories). But logging only steps seriously undercounts the calories burned on those same activities (I got a whopping 57 calories today from the step-count of 90 minutes of moving furniture, vacuuming, sweeping & mopping floors).

    I really distrusted the doctors when they said walking would help ease my pain, but they were right. I think the benefits are multiple.. it helps with a calorie deficit, it helps strengthen muscles and loosen tendons, it helps with balance, and it helps with my attitude (particularly as I walk outdoors). It also helps me get a little Vitamin D production going. At any rate, I really do feel better now when I walk a couple times a day every day, but I had to start very slow (my first walk was less than 10 minutes!), and worked up over many months to my current activity level.

    It was also, for me, super-beneficial to invest in a good bed. I bought a Sleep Number bed with an adjustable base; the ability to raise and lower my head and legs to whatever is comfortable that day has been invaluable, as has the ability to adjust my mattress firmness.

    Best wishes!
  • ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough
    ProgressNotPerfectionIAmEnough Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Thank you so much for all the encouragement and good advice! I am grateful for this site and for all of you who offer support and share wisdom. :)

Categories