Calories & Weight Loss - not working
Replies
-
The only thing possibly classier for outdoor wine enjoyment would be the wine sippy cup.
17 -
- The 2600 you burned is not calories burned on top of... it includes your BMR
- You will not burn 700 calories playing hockey - you can half that - for safety (but at most for your weight you'd
be looking at burning around 450 max. same with soccer. half it.
- weight loss is a simple calories in vs calories out formula. Science is science - so if you're training all that hard then the issue lies with the nutrition. even if you ate and tracked 2000 calories a day you will still be losing weight at the level you're training.
- go to IIFYM.com and work out your own macros. eat according to macros if you're not doing so already. this will make a big difference to your body composition.
- you will lose weight anyway on eating less calories than you burn anyway.. but if you're eating or focusing on eating the proper macros for your body and activity level and goals - your body composition will look different. (ie I weigh the same as I did when i did weight lifting 2 years ago.. same weight.. but I am now 2 sizes bigger in clothing. my own fault really. but my life changed. point is: you can be lean and weigh a lot.. so don't look at the scale. MEASURE yourself.
- get yourself a proper trainer. but seriously... get someone who does macro eating (iifym) - if you're going to count - then count macro nutrients. your calories will automatically work out if you stick to your macros.
- ps do more weight training
13 -
one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
16 -
kshama2001 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »A prime example of why eyeballing doesn't work....
I want to add some reinforcement to this. 2 tbsp is not a whole lot, easy to get it wrong. 2 tbsp x 7 days a week = a whopping 1330 calories. There are so many other calorie dense foods out there - it's not hard to get it way wrong when guessing
Not to mention the fact that a tbsp generally means a level tablespoon, not what most people dig out with a tablespoon lol
I only had one glass of wine!
Oh, yeah, before Weight Watchers opened my eyes to wine points/calories my glass when gardening outdoors was one of the big red ones - and I could put away two on a good night.
Nice! Keeping it classy
I drink diet ginger ale out of wine glasses sometimes...
I drink milk out of mine. Perfect for cookie dipping!1 -
DomesticKat wrote: »The only thing possibly classier for outdoor wine enjoyment would be the wine sippy cup.
Classier, but way too small for my gardening wine bibbing 2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »The only thing possibly classier for outdoor wine enjoyment would be the wine sippy cup.
Classier, but way too small for my gardening wine bibbing
10 -
-
I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh21 -
I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh
It's been said before - watch Naked and Afraid, or if one is gutsy enough, there's plenty out there about starving people all over the world.
I get that "Starvation mode" and "Starvation" are two different things, but I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to make it work.
I mean, does the # of calories required to simply stay alive drop to the point where we just kind of shamble around in starvation mode until we decide to eat more?
I don't know...just an old fart trying to learn stuff.3 -
Earlier this week I was cooking pasta. I was going to divide the cooked pasta into several servings, so weighed the full package (spaghetti - a pretty normal thing to eat when it comes to pasta, and you'd think measurements would be pretty standard).
Package printed total weight was 254 grams.
Actual weight of the contents: 293 grams.
Considering that 56 grams is considered a 200 calorie serving, that weight difference means an extra 139 calories just in my box of pasta.
Now, start considering that for pretty much everything you eat, eyeball, and "measure." How about what you put on said pasta? Anything you ate on the side? Anything you cooked the side dishes in? That pat of butter - was that a 50 or 75 calorie pat of butter?
The differences add up VERY quickly, especially when you are only trying to lose a few pounds.14 -
I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh
It's been said before - watch Naked and Afraid, or if one is gutsy enough, there's plenty out there about starving people all over the world.
I get that "Starvation mode" and "Starvation" are two different things, but I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to make it work.
I mean, does the # of calories required to simply stay alive drop to the point where we just kind of shamble around in starvation mode until we decide to eat more?
I don't know...just an old fart trying to learn stuff.
starvation is when you dont get enough calories and your body needs energy so it will use your fat,lean mass,muscle(including organs) and break them down into fuel to run your body.you keep losing weight and in extreme cases your organs and body will start to shut down and death will often follow if taken too far. not to mention that it will cause tooth loss,hair loss and so on.
you wont have the energy to even get out of bed. look up videos of these women who starve themselves. now starvation mode since it doesnt exist is said to be when you stop losing weight and fat from eating too little because the belief was your body would fight to prevent famine. Not so.starvation mode is NOT a think you dont just stop losing weight, you do end up with adaptive thermogenesis which can slow weight loss and cause you to burn less energy to keep your body running. that can happen with low calories but not low enough for starvation.
the body will slow its energy production down if not getting adequate calories but eventually you will lose the weight if you dont start eating enough as your body will use what resources it has.4 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh
It's been said before - watch Naked and Afraid, or if one is gutsy enough, there's plenty out there about starving people all over the world.
I get that "Starvation mode" and "Starvation" are two different things, but I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to make it work.
I mean, does the # of calories required to simply stay alive drop to the point where we just kind of shamble around in starvation mode until we decide to eat more?
I don't know...just an old fart trying to learn stuff.
starvation is when you dont get enough calories and your body needs energy so it will use your fat,lean mass,muscle(including organs) and break them down into fuel to run your body.you keep losing weight and in extreme cases your organs and body will start to shut down and death will often follow if taken too far. not to mention that it will cause tooth loss,hair loss and so on.
you wont have the energy to even get out of bed. look up videos of these women who starve themselves. now starvation mode since it doesnt exist is said to be when you stop losing weight and fat from eating too little because the belief was your body would fight to prevent famine. Not so.starvation mode is NOT a think you dont just stop losing weight, you do end up with adaptive thermogenesis which can slow weight loss and cause you to burn less energy to keep your body running. that can happen with low calories but not low enough for starvation.
the body will slow its energy production down if not getting adequate calories but eventually you will lose the weight if you dont start eating enough as your body will use what resources it has.
Ok thanks, basically what I thought. The notion just seemed a bit ridiculous. Thanks
1 -
LisaMorris1985 wrote: »one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
So you exercise, which you know burns SOME calories, but because you aren’t sure how many you choose the only number that is definitively wrong, which is zero.
Additionally, losing weight faster is not always advisable.14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »LisaMorris1985 wrote: »one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
So you exercise, which you know burns SOME calories, but because you aren’t sure how many you choose the only number that is definitively wrong, which is zero.
Additionally, losing weight faster is not always advisable.
That's a very eye-opening way of looking at a practice so many are prone to do!10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »LisaMorris1985 wrote: »one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
So you exercise, which you know burns SOME calories, but because you aren’t sure how many you choose the only number that is definitively wrong, which is zero.
Additionally, losing weight faster is not always advisable.
That's a very eye-opening way of looking at a practice so many are prone to do!
Man and I am not sure which of the awesome guys around here posted it that way and it totally resonated with me as well.
@heybales or @PAV8888 or @stevencloser maybe?5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »LisaMorris1985 wrote: »one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
So you exercise, which you know burns SOME calories, but because you aren’t sure how many you choose the only number that is definitively wrong, which is zero.
Additionally, losing weight faster is not always advisable.
That's a very eye-opening way of looking at a practice so many are prone to do!
Man and I am not sure which of the awesome guys around here posted it that way and it totally resonated with me as well.
@heybales or @PAV8888 or @stevencloser maybe?
Sounds like a @PAV8888 thing Now I won't feel bad about stealing it too. 3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »LisaMorris1985 wrote: »one more thing: I don't track training I don't log it. because it's ALWAYS over estimated. Track your calories and stop worrying about how much you burn in exercise. calculate your TDEE and eat 500 cal under that and you WILL lose weight regardless if you train 5 times a day. so any calories burned after TDEE is a bonus.
So you exercise, which you know burns SOME calories, but because you aren’t sure how many you choose the only number that is definitively wrong, which is zero.
Additionally, losing weight faster is not always advisable.
That's a very eye-opening way of looking at a practice so many are prone to do!
Man and I am not sure which of the awesome guys around here posted it that way and it totally resonated with me as well.
@heybales or @PAV8888 or @stevencloser maybe?
I vote that @heybales said it first... cause that's what I remember (and it's so true, too!)
4 -
The I don't count exercise calories "just to be safe" thing has always seemed like an oxymoron to me. What exactly is "safe" about that?9
-
And how does one fuel one's workouts?1
-
I didn’t see this put out yet, but I personally found it eye opening in the beginning:
https://youtu.be/vjKPIcI51lU 2 -
LookingforWhatsHerName wrote: »I didn’t see this put out yet, but I personally found it eye opening in the beginning:https://youtu.be/vjKPIcI51lU
Yep, that is well worth the watch, short and makes the point about guesstimates quite clearly.0 -
I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh
It's been said before - watch Naked and Afraid, or if one is gutsy enough, there's plenty out there about starving people all over the world.
I get that "Starvation mode" and "Starvation" are two different things, but I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to make it work.
I mean, does the # of calories required to simply stay alive drop to the point where we just kind of shamble around in starvation mode until we decide to eat more?
I don't know...just an old fart trying to learn stuff.
7 -
I've never understood the logic behind the idea of starvation mode. The idea that you're not eating enough calories to sustain yourself so you start storing energy instead of using it to sustain yourself makes absolutely zero sense.
It's like walking into work to find out that your hours have been cut and you'll be earning half what you previously did, then thinking to yourself "Damn, I don't have enough money coming in now to pay the rent or buy food for the family. I know! I'll just put what little money I am getting into a savings account and leave it there instead of spending it. That'll work!"
Kinda ridiculous huh
It's been said before - watch Naked and Afraid, or if one is gutsy enough, there's plenty out there about starving people all over the world.
I get that "Starvation mode" and "Starvation" are two different things, but I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to make it work.
I mean, does the # of calories required to simply stay alive drop to the point where we just kind of shamble around in starvation mode until we decide to eat more?
I don't know...just an old fart trying to learn stuff.
Gracias mi amiga - that's a nice, graphic way to get the point across 2 -
Hey, calories and macros on nutrition labels can be upwards of 20% off as allow by law. (US anyway, not sure about other countries)
Which means it's not correct and could be overestimated.
Guess who is eating 0 calorie food now!
Right - log as 0 since it's not accurate?8
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions