Of refeeds and diet breaks
Options
Replies
-
Sodium is ... not my friend. I now understand why the dietitian said to focus on improving the sodium levels before we tackle the calories... because well, another pound of that loss came back.
I think I need to find another "safe" food that is lower in sodium that I can pick up on rough days to have for dinner -- I've been doing sushi, because it's higher in protein and a moderate amount of carbs, but that's really messing with my heads. Right now, it's taking a lot of teeth-gritting to not be all "Well, nope, that idea didn't work."0 -
Could you have the sushi without soy sauce? Because really it's the soy sauce with all the sodium. It's also carb heavy which can cause some water weight.0
-
collectingblues wrote: »Sodium is ... not my friend. I now understand why the dietitian said to focus on improving the sodium levels before we tackle the calories... because well, another pound of that loss came back.
I think I need to find another "safe" food that is lower in sodium that I can pick up on rough days to have for dinner -- I've been doing sushi, because it's higher in protein and a moderate amount of carbs, but that's really messing with my heads. Right now, it's taking a lot of teeth-gritting to not be all "Well, nope, that idea didn't work."
The bigger issue with sodium is two fold: when people don't maintain consistent levels of sodium (i.e., huge swings from day to day) and when they don't consume adequate potassium and magnesium for electrolyte balance. I have a fairly consistent range of sodium (~ 4-5k/day) and don't have issues with water retention.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Could you have the sushi without soy sauce? Because really it's the soy sauce with all the sodium. It's also carb heavy which can cause some water weight.
I never have the soy sauce because it makes it too salty.
0 -
collectingblues wrote: »Sodium is ... not my friend. I now understand why the dietitian said to focus on improving the sodium levels before we tackle the calories... because well, another pound of that loss came back.
I think I need to find another "safe" food that is lower in sodium that I can pick up on rough days to have for dinner -- I've been doing sushi, because it's higher in protein and a moderate amount of carbs, but that's really messing with my heads. Right now, it's taking a lot of teeth-gritting to not be all "Well, nope, that idea didn't work."
The bigger issue with sodium is two fold: when people don't maintain consistent levels of sodium (i.e., huge swings from day to day) and when they don't consume adequate potassium and magnesium for electrolyte balance. I have a fairly consistent range of sodium (~ 4-5k/day) and don't have issues with water retention.
Yeah, that's the bigger problem we're trying to fix right now. I tend to swing between 1500 to 1900 on a "normal" day, and then get spun into this loop when I actually eat stuff with salt in it.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Thanks guys for the responses.
I asked because I'm usually very low in sat fats most days (around 15-20g or so) and wondered whether it caused hormonal issues.
I've had and continue to have hair loss issues (because of hereditary reasons and made worse when I stopped BC). I've tried the supplements (biotin, kelp, Omega 3 and so on) but they didn't really help. TBH though, I never stuck to them for long anyway.
@anubis609, thanks for the links. I'll have a read through the articles.
@psuLemon, lol, I had to google to see what SFA meant and found the first result being Sweet Furry Animals!!! I finally scrolled down the results to saturated fatty acids.
ETA: I read through my last post and clearly did not say what I wanted to say! My sat fat is usually low and fat meets RDI%.
There is potential that your fats are too low. Most RDI standards are barely adequate, especially when in a deficit. It make be worth evaluating it. Interestingly enough, if one does not consume enough SFA, your body will produce its own..
Yeah, I'll try to adjust percentages (...again, sigh).
Thanks.
How many grams are you eating at the moment @maybyn? The recommendation I usually see is 0.35-0.45g per lb of 'ideal' weight as a minimum, but I've also seen up to 0.6g. I'm generally in the 0.45-0.6g range, with no real qualms about going over.
@Nony_Mouse, mine is supposed to be 50g fat, 225g carbs and 113 protein. I usually focus only on protein and fibre goals (latter generally takes care of carbs). I try to incorporate fat purposefully (avos, eggs, butter) and every so often, treats, so sat fats are usually low.
From your formula, it seems like 50g should be fine then.collectingblues wrote: »Sodium is ... not my friend. I now understand why the dietitian said to focus on improving the sodium levels before we tackle the calories... because well, another pound of that loss came back.
I think I need to find another "safe" food that is lower in sodium that I can pick up on rough days to have for dinner -- I've been doing sushi, because it's higher in protein and a moderate amount of carbs, but that's really messing with my heads. Right now, it's taking a lot of teeth-gritting to not be all "Well, nope, that idea didn't work."
The bigger issue with sodium is two fold: when people don't maintain consistent levels of sodium (i.e., huge swings from day to day) and when they don't consume adequate potassium and magnesium for electrolyte balance. I have a fairly consistent range of sodium (~ 4-5k/day) and don't have issues with water retention.
I find that when my sodium is low, I get headaches. Hits me immediately on the day itself so I've learnt to be very, very careful with sodium.
Re water retention, I agree that I don't have issues with water retention and sodium per se, and it's only when I'm eating out where my sodium spikes that I get water retention issues.2 -
collectingblues wrote: »Sodium is ... not my friend. I now understand why the dietitian said to focus on improving the sodium levels before we tackle the calories... because well, another pound of that loss came back.
I think I need to find another "safe" food that is lower in sodium that I can pick up on rough days to have for dinner -- I've been doing sushi, because it's higher in protein and a moderate amount of carbs, but that's really messing with my heads. Right now, it's taking a lot of teeth-gritting to not be all "Well, nope, that idea didn't work."
The bigger issue with sodium is two fold: when people don't maintain consistent levels of sodium (i.e., huge swings from day to day) and when they don't consume adequate potassium and magnesium for electrolyte balance. I have a fairly consistent range of sodium (~ 4-5k/day) and don't have issues with water retention.
3-5g of Na+ per day is actually recommended across the board as a normal intake. It's misleading to hear that sodium is related to blood pressure/cv risk/etc. because that's actually not the case. Improper sodium intake can lead to deficiencies in potassium and resultantly, magnesium.
http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/116/6/1046.short4 -
So it's Spring in my little corner of the world. The weather is warming up, tramping tracks are drying out, my knee is almost back to 100%, and thus day hikes are calling to me, and obviously I generally do those of weekends. The problem here is that I will easily hit a TDEE of 3500-4000 cals on a decent hike. That's a lot of food! (you men folk are probably going 'yeah, nah'
). There's no way I can do it on 50-60 grams of fat, and I really don't think that's a big deal because it's not like higher fat will be squeezing out carbs. I'm not convinced I can actually hit TDEE though (to be clear, I am more than capable of putting away that many cals, just not in a particularly healthy non-binge way).
Not really looking for suggestions (though if you have 'em, let me know!), more of an 'argh, how am I going to do this??', which I will no doubt work out with some thought and planning. Super carby snack bars are out unless I can find something gluten-free that doesn't taste like cardboard.3 -
Dried fruit is tasty and calorie dense and hike friendly!3
-
-
I seriously never even usually log on hike days, cos I know my TDEE is almost certainly going to exceed my intake. I did happen to log the last one I did, I was at an 800 cal deficit at the end of the day. So, yeah.
Another option of course is to move refeeds to Fri/Sat with hike on Sunday. Bit of a pain doing refeed on a week day, but nothing I can't manage.
Now to decide which hike I'm doing!3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
You might want to save it for when you're near a toilet if you eat a lot.........4 -
Considering we're dabbling in longer averages (delayed responses), sometimes those days we attempt to front load or back load calories to meet expected TDEE may not happen as calculated, though we can make up for them on days following. Of course, you could opt for the more energy dense foods to front load prior to/during the hike, like dried fruit/trail mix/jerky.3
-
So I've been going through my numbers for the last 2.5 years, which by the way is a very head hurty endeavor, and it would appear my TDEE is higher than I thought. Much higher. Because if my numbers are correct (and I went through them several times with randomised checks of random weeks to check everything was logged correctly with food and exercise with no wacky numbers) then I have lost 3 x times the amount I should have and I was significantly less compliant than I thought. Which would be accounted for by the fact I was under-eating and so had weeks where I would eat what i thought was maintenance or would have really high days.
I am trying to wrap my head around it because it doesn't feel possible my TDEE is 3-500 calories higher than it should be. Possibly accounted for in part by higher lean mass than the average female and higher NEAT than I thought just from pottering round my flat (I really genuinely don't get out much, I'm anxious agoraphobic reclusive weirdo).
And this year I have had even higher deficits than I should have for my closeness to goal and those losses have actually been smaller. Possible I am especially sensitive to downregulation of hormones and NEAT? Nony will tell you, my head really really hurts. I'm still doubting it's true.
That said, new tracker is giving me quite a lot more calories than my previous two so could well be possible. We shall have to see!2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »
You might want to save it for when you're near a toilet if you eat a lot.........
Lol that's actually quite a helpful reminder. I don't hike, so I have no idea what the general energy requirement is, but I gather it to be laborious if it's a steep hike?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »
You might want to save it for when you're near a toilet if you eat a lot.........
Lol that's actually quite a helpful reminder. I don't hike, so I have no idea what the general energy requirement is, but I gather it to be laborious if it's a steep hike?
They can be very laborious, hard work and huge calorie burners. I've been known to take sharer bags of mini snickers with me to much on my way round.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So I've been going through my numbers for the last 2.5 years, which by the way is a very head hurty endeavor, and it would appear my TDEE is higher than I thought. Much higher. Because if my numbers are correct (and I went through them several times with randomised checks of random weeks to check everything was logged correctly with food and exercise with no wacky numbers) then I have lost 3 x times the amount I should have and I was significantly less compliant than I thought. Which would be accounted for by the fact I was under-eating and so had weeks where I would eat what i thought was maintenance or would have really high days.
I am trying to wrap my head around it because it doesn't feel possible my TDEE is 3-500 calories higher than it should be. Possibly accounted for in part by higher lean mass than the average female and higher NEAT than I thought just from pottering round my flat (I really genuinely don't get out much, I'm anxious agoraphobic reclusive weirdo).
And this year I have had even higher deficits than I should have for my closeness to goal and those losses have actually been smaller. Possible I am especially sensitive to downregulation of hormones and NEAT? Nony will tell you, my head really really hurts. I'm still doubting it's true.
That said, new tracker is giving me quite a lot more calories than my previous two so could well be possible. We shall have to see!
Being formerly obese, my maintenance is generally on the low end, which sucks, but that's the way it goes. TDEE is a moving target on a daily basis, so trying to be precise is going to be a hassle. But just to give a rough estimate for the average person according to Lyle based on his most recent injury book TDEE = RMR * Activity multiplier ( * Stress factor for injuries).
Rough RMR estimate would be body weight * 10-11 (10 for females, 11 for males), but for completeness use this: https://wpcalc.com/en/mifflin-st-jeor/
Activity multiplier ( + Stress factor):
Anyone trying to calculate or factor in NEAT on a daily basis is going to have wild shifts in accuracy simply due to the relative needs of the day (though activity trackers do help with providing a more accurate estimate), but this is why Lyle just leaves NEAT out of the equation and just includes it in general activity.
That said, based on real world application, my personal maintenance is generally around 2100-2200kcal/day, factoring in former obesity, a typical 9-5 desk job, some fashion of metabolic or resistance training >30+ minutes, 5-7 days/week. That and diet style does play a relative role in caloric needs. Being generally low carb puts me in the lower range of maintenance as well. Carbs are a bit entropic in terms of their usage and storage, so more calories are needed to utilize them as the primary macro in a standard diet.
So, it would usually be advisable to see a weekly average range (3-day minimum) to see where weight is shifting, or if it's stable.
But if you're unintentionally losing weight @VintageFeline, then definitely, real world application might put you higher in terms of TDEE for whatever reason.3 -
Considering we're dabbling in longer averages (delayed responses), sometimes those days we attempt to front load or back load calories to meet expected TDEE may not happen as calculated, though we can make up for them on days following. Of course, you could opt for the more energy dense foods to front load prior to/during the hike, like dried fruit/trail mix/jerky.VintageFeline wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »
You might want to save it for when you're near a toilet if you eat a lot.........
Lol that's actually quite a helpful reminder. I don't hike, so I have no idea what the general energy requirement is, but I gather it to be laborious if it's a steep hike?
Yep, I always have pretty dense stuff with me (which is also convenient in terms of not taking up too much room in my pack). And yes, a big climb can be pretty labourious! The one I'm leaning towards has a 950 m (3117 ft) elevation gain. Having plenty of carbs in my system, and plenty more in my pack, is rather desirable if one doesn't want to run out of steam half way up a mountain. Only time I eat bananas (I like them, but only when they're super firm still, so never buy unless I'm going to eat it pretty much straight away). I also always have extra food. Basically, I assume on any hike that I could fall and break my ankle or something else equally dumb, and am prepared to be in the bush overnight if necessary.
Anyway, I have ~3500 cals prelogged into my diary for Sunday, 500g of which is carbs
From experience, I'm good with the dried fruit
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So I've been going through my numbers for the last 2.5 years, which by the way is a very head hurty endeavor, and it would appear my TDEE is higher than I thought. Much higher. Because if my numbers are correct (and I went through them several times with randomised checks of random weeks to check everything was logged correctly with food and exercise with no wacky numbers) then I have lost 3 x times the amount I should have and I was significantly less compliant than I thought. Which would be accounted for by the fact I was under-eating and so had weeks where I would eat what i thought was maintenance or would have really high days.
I am trying to wrap my head around it because it doesn't feel possible my TDEE is 3-500 calories higher than it should be. Possibly accounted for in part by higher lean mass than the average female and higher NEAT than I thought just from pottering round my flat (I really genuinely don't get out much, I'm anxious agoraphobic reclusive weirdo).
And this year I have had even higher deficits than I should have for my closeness to goal and those losses have actually been smaller. Possible I am especially sensitive to downregulation of hormones and NEAT? Nony will tell you, my head really really hurts. I'm still doubting it's true.
That said, new tracker is giving me quite a lot more calories than my previous two so could well be possible. We shall have to see!
Being formerly obese, my maintenance is generally on the low end, which sucks, but that's the way it goes. TDEE is a moving target on a daily basis, so trying to be precise is going to be a hassle. But just to give a rough estimate for the average person according to Lyle based on his most recent injury book TDEE = RMR * Activity multiplier ( * Stress factor for injuries).
Rough RMR estimate would be body weight * 10-11 (10 for females, 11 for males), but for completeness use this: https://wpcalc.com/en/mifflin-st-jeor/
Activity multiplier ( + Stress factor):
Anyone trying to calculate or factor in NEAT on a daily basis is going to have wild shifts in accuracy simply due to the relative needs of the day (though activity trackers do help with providing a more accurate estimate), but this is why Lyle just leaves NEAT out of the equation and just includes it in general activity.
That said, based on real world application, my personal maintenance is generally around 2100-2200kcal/day, factoring in former obesity, a typical 9-5 desk job, some fashion of metabolic or resistance training >30+ minutes, 5-7 days/week. That and diet style does play a relative role in caloric needs. Being generally low carb puts me in the lower range of maintenance as well. Carbs are a bit entropic in terms of their usage and storage, so more calories are needed to utilize them as the primary macro in a standard diet.
So, it would usually be advisable to see a weekly average range (3-day minimum) to see where weight is shifting, or if it's stable.
But if you're unintentionally losing weight @VintageFeline, then definitely, real world application might put you higher in terms of TDEE for whatever reason.
This is why I went through the entire year with all numbers using gross and net then totalling and dividing as required to arrive at an average TDEE. Mine does vary quite a lot and is why I use the MFP method of NEAT plus exercise and steps/incidental activity. The 500 difference was year 1, 400 difference year 2 and not enough data and it was kind of all over the place logging wise for this year but it's looking like it is in the 300 ballpark. I have also checked several TDEE calculators and again, those are lower than what appears reality. Again, significantly lower.
For reference, I am about 25% body fat, 159lbs-ish and still 10lbs from healthy BMI. And of course female. It is looking my TDEE is around 2700 currently which feels like madness! My exercise is max 5 days a week, 40-50 minutes at most with about 50/50 bodyweight intervals and supersets.
Just noticed I put 3 x the amount of losses, it's actually 2 x. And if it higher than average then of course I'm delighted! I am intentionally losing but my data shows weeks and weeks and weeks of no apparent deficit and yet lose I continued to do.
I will definitely be keeping a much closer eye on things and my experiment with weekly refeeds just became even more interesting.
ETA: I use Happyscale to track the trend, I need a good 8-10 weeks to see what's really going on and unfortunately lost a bunch of data because I changed phones but didn't pay for premium membership to move data over. Otherwise I'd have cross referenced that too. I also got a bit lazy for a few months and didn't enter my weigh ins. I shall be ultra precise now!3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So I've been going through my numbers for the last 2.5 years, which by the way is a very head hurty endeavor, and it would appear my TDEE is higher than I thought. Much higher. Because if my numbers are correct (and I went through them several times with randomised checks of random weeks to check everything was logged correctly with food and exercise with no wacky numbers) then I have lost 3 x times the amount I should have and I was significantly less compliant than I thought. Which would be accounted for by the fact I was under-eating and so had weeks where I would eat what i thought was maintenance or would have really high days.
I am trying to wrap my head around it because it doesn't feel possible my TDEE is 3-500 calories higher than it should be. Possibly accounted for in part by higher lean mass than the average female and higher NEAT than I thought just from pottering round my flat (I really genuinely don't get out much, I'm anxious agoraphobic reclusive weirdo).
And this year I have had even higher deficits than I should have for my closeness to goal and those losses have actually been smaller. Possible I am especially sensitive to downregulation of hormones and NEAT? Nony will tell you, my head really really hurts. I'm still doubting it's true.
That said, new tracker is giving me quite a lot more calories than my previous two so could well be possible. We shall have to see!
Being formerly obese, my maintenance is generally on the low end, which sucks, but that's the way it goes. TDEE is a moving target on a daily basis, so trying to be precise is going to be a hassle. But just to give a rough estimate for the average person according to Lyle based on his most recent injury book TDEE = RMR * Activity multiplier ( * Stress factor for injuries).
Rough RMR estimate would be body weight * 10-11 (10 for females, 11 for males), but for completeness use this: https://wpcalc.com/en/mifflin-st-jeor/
Activity multiplier ( + Stress factor):
Anyone trying to calculate or factor in NEAT on a daily basis is going to have wild shifts in accuracy simply due to the relative needs of the day (though activity trackers do help with providing a more accurate estimate), but this is why Lyle just leaves NEAT out of the equation and just includes it in general activity.
That said, based on real world application, my personal maintenance is generally around 2100-2200kcal/day, factoring in former obesity, a typical 9-5 desk job, some fashion of metabolic or resistance training >30+ minutes, 5-7 days/week. That and diet style does play a relative role in caloric needs. Being generally low carb puts me in the lower range of maintenance as well. Carbs are a bit entropic in terms of their usage and storage, so more calories are needed to utilize them as the primary macro in a standard diet.
So, it would usually be advisable to see a weekly average range (3-day minimum) to see where weight is shifting, or if it's stable.
But if you're unintentionally losing weight @VintageFeline, then definitely, real world application might put you higher in terms of TDEE for whatever reason.
How much do you weigh and how tall are you? I am 5'11, 35, 175, desk job and lift 5x/cardio 1x per week. And wven when i was 220, my maintenace was 3k.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions