Not lost any weight!!
Replies
-
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Jayj180894 wrote: »Ounces or grams? Grams are quite a bit more accurate. If you think that your logging is tight, then that's really the only other constructive criticism to be made.
Grams. All my scales are grams. Makes it easier for me lol! How much can water retention weigh up to? How many lbs? Give or take? Surely it can't be all water retention. The thing is when I've done the exact same thing before I have lost weight. I lost around 3lbs in the first week then gradually got slower as expected
don't eat your exercise calories back, keep your tracking tight and you'll see results. It really is that simple (even if it's not easy!
)
Careful with that part. MFP is designed for you to eat your exercise calories back. That concept should not change. The only time it would not make sense is if your logging errors are making things out of whack and you're compensating for that. Trial and error.
But conceptually, assuming correct logging, definitely do eat your exercise calories back - or percentage (same basic concept, i.e. accounting for logging or estimating errors).
That was based on a discussion earlier in the thread - I had suggested that OP not eat exercise calories back for a couple of days to see if that made a difference. I haven't been able to find out how OP is tracking calories burned, but suggested dropping goal lbs lost/week (increase in calories) and not eating exercise calories back (decrease) to find a sustainable, effective net.
Gotcha...probably didn't read the thread closely enough.
No worries! I take my woo's seriously and try to fix my mistakes. 2 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Jayj180894 wrote: »Ounces or grams? Grams are quite a bit more accurate. If you think that your logging is tight, then that's really the only other constructive criticism to be made.
Grams. All my scales are grams. Makes it easier for me lol! How much can water retention weigh up to? How many lbs? Give or take? Surely it can't be all water retention. The thing is when I've done the exact same thing before I have lost weight. I lost around 3lbs in the first week then gradually got slower as expected
don't eat your exercise calories back, keep your tracking tight and you'll see results. It really is that simple (even if it's not easy! )
Careful with that part. MFP is designed for you to eat your exercise calories back. That concept should not change. The only time it would not make sense is if your logging errors are making things out of whack and you're compensating for that. Trial and error.
But conceptually, assuming correct logging, definitely do eat your exercise calories back - or percentage (same basic concept, i.e. accounting for logging or estimating errors).
That was based on a discussion earlier in the thread - I had suggested that OP not eat exercise calories back for a couple of days to see if that made a difference. I haven't been able to find out how OP is tracking calories burned, but suggested dropping goal lbs lost/week (increase in calories) and not eating exercise calories back (decrease) to find a sustainable, effective net.
I don't have a HRM so have been using MFP and exercise machines to track my calories burned. Hence why I was only eating back 50-75% back (which I thought was correct) but I've dropped my goal of 2lbs to 1.5lbs per week and its given me around an extra 200 kcal a day. So I'll not eat any exercise calories back for 3 days, then I'll just eat 25-50% back. Which from your chart you provided is correct
2 -
Jayj180894 wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Jayj180894 wrote: »Ounces or grams? Grams are quite a bit more accurate. If you think that your logging is tight, then that's really the only other constructive criticism to be made.
Grams. All my scales are grams. Makes it easier for me lol! How much can water retention weigh up to? How many lbs? Give or take? Surely it can't be all water retention. The thing is when I've done the exact same thing before I have lost weight. I lost around 3lbs in the first week then gradually got slower as expected
don't eat your exercise calories back, keep your tracking tight and you'll see results. It really is that simple (even if it's not easy! )
Careful with that part. MFP is designed for you to eat your exercise calories back. That concept should not change. The only time it would not make sense is if your logging errors are making things out of whack and you're compensating for that. Trial and error.
But conceptually, assuming correct logging, definitely do eat your exercise calories back - or percentage (same basic concept, i.e. accounting for logging or estimating errors).
That was based on a discussion earlier in the thread - I had suggested that OP not eat exercise calories back for a couple of days to see if that made a difference. I haven't been able to find out how OP is tracking calories burned, but suggested dropping goal lbs lost/week (increase in calories) and not eating exercise calories back (decrease) to find a sustainable, effective net.
I don't have a HRM so have been using MFP and exercise machines to track my calories burned. Hence why I was only eating back 50-75% back (which I thought was correct) but I've dropped my goal of 2lbs to 1.5lbs per week and its given me around an extra 200 kcal a day. So I'll not eat any exercise calories back for 3 days, then I'll just eat 25-50% back. Which from your chart you provided is correct
Awesome! Best of luck! Let us know if it works!1 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Jayj180894 wrote: »Ounces or grams? Grams are quite a bit more accurate. If you think that your logging is tight, then that's really the only other constructive criticism to be made.
Grams. All my scales are grams. Makes it easier for me lol! How much can water retention weigh up to? How many lbs? Give or take? Surely it can't be all water retention. The thing is when I've done the exact same thing before I have lost weight. I lost around 3lbs in the first week then gradually got slower as expected
don't eat your exercise calories back, keep your tracking tight and you'll see results. It really is that simple (even if it's not easy! )
Careful with that part. MFP is designed for you to eat your exercise calories back. That concept should not change. The only time it would not make sense is if your logging errors are making things out of whack and you're compensating for that. Trial and error.
But conceptually, assuming correct logging, definitely do eat your exercise calories back - or percentage (same basic concept, i.e. accounting for logging or estimating errors).
That was based on a discussion earlier in the thread - I had suggested that OP not eat exercise calories back for a couple of days to see if that made a difference. I haven't been able to find out how OP is tracking calories burned, but suggested dropping goal lbs lost/week (increase in calories) and not eating exercise calories back (decrease) to find a sustainable, effective net.
Gotcha...probably didn't read the thread closely enough.
No worries! I take my woo's seriously and try to fix my mistakes.
I do too, but I'm not the wooer this time....1 -
Sounds like it's the salt. Back of the salt, eat the same foods, and see what the scale looks like in three weeks. Drink a crapload of water to push the excess water out.1
-
Jayj180894 wrote: »poisonedcandi wrote: »How are you measuring your food intake and your exercise burns? Unfortunately it's very easy to underestimate how many calories you consume and/or overestimate how many you burn. That could potentially have an impact on your weight loss.
Additionally, starting a new exercise regime can lead to (temporary) water retention while your muscles repair. Combined with a high sodium intake, water weight could be masking some fat loss.
I just weigh everything. I do also weigh my butter or oil I'm using. I do think I am very accurate. I have just started aqua arobics, kettlebell classes and spin in the space of 2 weeks. I'll leave it a week longer cut my sodium intake, drink more water, see what happens. Thanks
If you just increased your exercise, that will also cause water retention.1 -
It could be poop..lol
I read today that your colon can hold between 5 and 20 pounds of poop.:)0 -
karintalley wrote: »It could be poop..lol
I read today that your colon can hold between 5 and 20 pounds of poop.:)
20lbs of poop!
that's a lot of poop that the body can hold lol!! 0 -
why would you salt your toast? :huh:2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions