Plateaued With Heavy Exercise. Troubleshooting?
Options
Replies
-
You can compare your purported caloric balance against your weight trend results and adjust (either your goal or your eat back percentages) based on that.
Weight trend is important. You can't see actual fat changes in less than a few weeks, especially if monthly hormones and changes in exercise interfere.3 -
You've changed your exercise. That can cause water retention. It can also cause compensation with reduction to your NEAT if you're more tired.
Your inches may or may not be real. Hopefully they are. I find it harder to measure than get on a scale.
I don't know what you specifically mean by real, but I know they are taken the same exact way each time, based on my background of once upon a time measuring people day in and out selling men's suits on commission. Still though, it is just a tool.2 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
10 -
How long has it been since you lost weight?0
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »I imagine the general concensus would be that this is an overly complex equation for the same thing?
[(Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) - 55.0969] x Time / 4.184}
"On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63"
No.
There is no direct correlation between the population's HR and their energy expenditure, HR is used as a proxy for oxygen uptake which is particularly difficult to measure outside of a sports science lab.
It can give a rough estimate but there are huge outliers either way with atypical exercise heartrates.14 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »You've changed your exercise. That can cause water retention. It can also cause compensation with reduction to your NEAT if you're more tired.
Your inches may or may not be real. Hopefully they are. I find it harder to measure than get on a scale.
I don't know what you specifically mean by real, but I know they are taken the same exact way each time, based on my background of once upon a time measuring people day in and out selling men's suits on commission. Still though, it is just a tool.
You're self measuring. You can't eyeball yourself the same in a mirror as you do looking at someone else. When you measure someone for a suit I am not sure that a 0.2" is critical.
If you have lost FULL inches, this is large, not small progress and this whole kerfuffle is about nothing.
Given your background it sounds as if you're more likely than most to have measured accurately and the inch reduction is really there.5 -
emmamcgarity wrote: »How long has it been since you lost weight?
I've been fluctuating the same four pounds for ten weeks
4 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »You've changed your exercise. That can cause water retention. It can also cause compensation with reduction to your NEAT if you're more tired.
Your inches may or may not be real. Hopefully they are. I find it harder to measure than get on a scale.
I don't know what you specifically mean by real, but I know they are taken the same exact way each time, based on my background of once upon a time measuring people day in and out selling men's suits on commission. Still though, it is just a tool.
You're self measuring. You can't eyeball yourself the same in a mirror as you do looking at someone else. When you measure someone for a suit I am not sure that a 0.2" is critical.
If you have lost FULL inches, this is large, not small progress and this whole kerfuffle is about nothing.
Given your background it sounds as if you're most likely than most to have measured accurately and the inch reduction is really there.
The 'kerfluffle' (love that word) is mostly about the frustration of not seeing the scale change.
I posted something like an hour before I did the tape measurement2 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
8 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »emmamcgarity wrote: »How long has it been since you lost weight?
I've been fluctuating the same four pounds for ten weeks
Stick the numbers in weightgrapher.com (or if you use fitbit and you've logged your weight there already connect trendweight.com to fitbit instead--I prefer trendweight anyway since it's the one I use
).
What is your actual trend?0 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
I'm saying that your correcting me is accurate.
Though it bears mentioning that my intention had been to credit you at least a little bit for something despite personally attributing you very little credibility due to your attempt to tear apart points. There is a difference in teaching (which you aren't doing) and myth busting (which you are). You can be the most empirically correct scientist in this niche topic and it won't matter one bit if you don't communicate in a way that people can actually follow instead of defaulting to defensive.
To reiterate, I'm collecting information.
To learn.
So, as the person benefiting from this thread (note that I actually AM having a fruitful discussion in places), I'll kinda just keep doing whatever I please organizationwise.
If it is annoying you, at this point, more power to me.
15 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »emmamcgarity wrote: »How long has it been since you lost weight?
I've been fluctuating the same four pounds for ten weeks
Stick the numbers in weightgrapher.com (or if you use fitbit and you've logged your weight there already connect trendweight.com to fitbit instead--I prefer trendweight anyway since it's the one I use ).
What is your actual trend?
Started at 224 Dec 2017 down to 184 now.
2 -
[quote="IDeserveBetter;c-43631444"
Started at 224 Dec 2017 down to 184 now.
[/quote]
First of all, if you hadn't taken a diet break in all that time, now would have been the time to take one. But, if I recall correctly, you've already said you lost and regained this year. So you've taken diet breaks.
The weight trend for the PAST 10 WEEKS is what is the issue right now and your perception at ground level that you're losing and regaining the same x lbs doesn't mean as much as seeing a graph of where you were 20 weeks ago and how you were progressing, then looking at what is happening during the past 10 weeks, then observing the point in which you changed your exercise and how that affected your weight, then looking at your food logging and seeing how much food you've been eating and whether you're compensating for the increased exercise or not, nor does it give us exercise tracker data to see whether the rest of your day changed in response to the increased exercise.
So the point remains... have you plugged your weight in a weight trend application that replaces your perception of un-changing weight trend with a graph showing the same?7 -
[quote="IDeserveBetter;c-43631444"
Started at 224 Dec 2017 down to 184 now.
First of all, if you hadn't taken a diet break in all that time, now would have been the time to take one. But, if I recall correctly, you've already said you lost and regained this year. So you've taken diet breaks.
The weight trend for the PAST 10 WEEKS is what is the issue right now and your perception at ground level that you're losing and regaining the same x lbs doesn't mean as much as seeing a graph of where you were 20 weeks ago and how you were progressing, then looking at what is happening during the past 10 weeks, then observing the point in which you changed your exercise and how that affected your weight, then looking at your food logging and seeing how much food you've been eating and whether you're compensating for the increased exercise or not, nor does it give us exercise tracker data to see whether the rest of your day changed in response to the increased exercise.
So the point remains... have you plugged your weight in a weight trend application that replaces your perception of un-changing weight trend with a graph showing the same?[/quote]
I have not. I was not aware of that tool until I read the suggestion in this thread today.
Will though.
2 -
Might help. Happy Scale iphone. Libra Android. Auto-connect trendweight.com to fitbit.com and MFP (single entry to both via fitbit.com). Or manual entry (or connected scale) to weightgrapher.com. Or spreadsheet with running 10 day averaging.3
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
I'm saying that your correcting me is accurate.
Though it bears mentioning that my intention had been to credit you at least a little bit for something despite personally attributing you very little credibility due to your attempt to tear apart points. There is a difference in teaching (which you aren't doing) and myth busting (which you are). You can be the most empirically correct scientist in this niche topic and it won't matter one bit if you don't communicate in a way that people can actually follow instead of defaulting to defensive.
To reiterate, I'm collecting information.
To learn.
So, as the person benefiting from this thread (note that I actually AM having a fruitful discussion in places), I'll kinda just keep doing whatever I please organizationwise.
If it is annoying you, at this point, more power to me.
Funny that I appear to have taught you about a useful running formula.
Try to remember that contradicting an error isn't an attack on the person who stated the error.
Some people want platitudes, some want facts. You are an interesting conundrum of someone who seems to want to learn but resents being corrected when wrong.
I'm not annoyed that you react in such a peculiar fashion to facts being stated in a direct way, entertained perhaps?
Anyway I'm done, good luck.
16 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
I'm saying that your correcting me is accurate.
Though it bears mentioning that my intention had been to credit you at least a little bit for something despite personally attributing you very little credibility due to your attempt to tear apart points. There is a difference in teaching (which you aren't doing) and myth busting (which you are). You can be the most empirically correct scientist in this niche topic and it won't matter one bit if you don't communicate in a way that people can actually follow instead of defaulting to defensive.
To reiterate, I'm collecting information.
To learn.
So, as the person benefiting from this thread (note that I actually AM having a fruitful discussion in places), I'll kinda just keep doing whatever I please organizationwise.
If it is annoying you, at this point, more power to me.
Funny that I appear to have taught you about a useful running formula.
Try to remember that contradicting an error isn't an attack on the person who stated the error.
Some people want platitudes, some want facts. You are an interesting conundrum of someone who seems to want to learn but resents being corrected when wrong.
I'm not annoyed that you react in such a peculiar fashion to facts being stated in a direct way, entertained perhaps?
Anyway I'm done, good luck.
My initial instinct it to go back, quote point by point to explain my take away to within an inch of it's life.
You agreeing with me is not what determines if something is true or not, and you wouldn't take it anyway.
Your leaving is better anyway.22 -
First, congratulations on your progress so far. I wanted to address each point in turn.1: I'm not allowing myself enough rest. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around exercise more and eat less isn't gospel.
I see where you are going with this - you decrease food and increase activity and see results, so surely adding more activity will yield better results, right? Those rest days leave you feeling antsy, like you should be doing something? You're not the only one who has struggled with this. Yes, on its face it doesn't make sense, but think of it as recharging a battery. Everything works better full charged than just charging part way and going again, because the partial charge means it burns out faster. Your muscles need time to repair in order to perform at the same high level during your workouts. I find that doing something on a rest day helps - that's my day to go for a walk, or do a really good long stretch session (there are some good videos out there). That's my workout, I check the box and move on. I saw huge improvements in my workouts when I stopped fighting the rest days.2: I realize that the huge deficits I'm recording (my food recording is very accurate. I'm very practiced and suuuper careful with it. How I lost 40 pounds) may not exist. I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record.
Is the Fitbit a new addition to what you've been doing? It seems like you were going pretty well before. Have you made sure to keep up with adjustments reflecting your weight loss? Admittedly I am not a Fitbit expert, I just see posts about it and issues with calculating burns. I would probably take those numbers with a grain of salt.3: I academically know I need to vary my exercises; I've started incorporating some weight training and I'm about to start yoga, but I'm having a hard time not doubling those days up with cardio instead of giving cardio a break. I'm not internalizing the lesson
Ok, so you know what you need to do here. Back off the cardio, and give other workouts a chance. The weight training will be awesome for your running. You could add 5-10 minutes of light cardio before a weight workout to warm everything up. That could help check the cardio box without undoing the benefits of the weights and the needed repair time.4: I'm unsure if I should be eating less, or more. If the deficits are accurate, eating more may help because of avoiding starvation mode. If they aren't, I may barely have deficits at all. I'm aware muscle weighs more, and I AM seeing tape measure differences, but not big ones.
If you just added new exercises to your routine, you could be retaining water, which would explain the scale staying the same while seeing a drop in measurements. By and large, no scale movement means not in a deficit. However, since you indicate your Fitbit measurements might be screwed up, my approach would be to go back to basics. Use your MFP number, pick a reasonable estimate for calories burned during exercise, eat back 50-75% of those calories, and just track for a bit and see where you are.
You also might want to look into the TDEE method, in which you eat the same number of calories each day regardless of activity that day. It's more of a weekly calorie count approach than a daily fluctuation based on activity. I found it easier when doing weights/running/rest days because it also helped with the rest day/need to exercise worries; I got the same calories every day, so I didn't pressure myself into feeling like I need to get out and be active on rest days. However, even with TDEE, if you've added in a super long run that is outside the norm for your regular mileage, you may want to eat a little extra to compensate for the extra activity.3 -
IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
I'm saying that your correcting me is accurate.
Though it bears mentioning that my intention had been to credit you at least a little bit for something despite personally attributing you very little credibility due to your attempt to tear apart points. There is a difference in teaching (which you aren't doing) and myth busting (which you are). You can be the most empirically correct scientist in this niche topic and it won't matter one bit if you don't communicate in a way that people can actually follow instead of defaulting to defensive.
To reiterate, I'm collecting information.
To learn.
So, as the person benefiting from this thread (note that I actually AM having a fruitful discussion in places), I'll kinda just keep doing whatever I please organizationwise.
If it is annoying you, at this point, more power to me.
Funny that I appear to have taught you about a useful running formula.
Try to remember that contradicting an error isn't an attack on the person who stated the error.
Some people want platitudes, some want facts. You are an interesting conundrum of someone who seems to want to learn but resents being corrected when wrong.
I'm not annoyed that you react in such a peculiar fashion to facts being stated in a direct way, entertained perhaps?
Anyway I'm done, good luck.
My initial instinct it to go back, quote point by point to explain my take away to within an inch of it's life.
You agreeing with me is not what determines if something is true or not, and you wouldn't take it anyway.
Your leaving is better anyway.
Not necessarily. Other people reading this interaction may be turned off from offering help.
I know that in any thread I start I will get helpful responses and responses that I perceive as unhelpful. I've learned that I will have a better thread if I give the helpful responses more energy, and that calling a post out as unhelpful is more unhelpful than the original unhelpful post.
If I get helpful posts that's great, but I should not act as if I am entitled to only receive responses I perceive as helpful. For example, I started a thread about my elderly mother freaking out about her (very minimal) sugar consumption. Some people totally missed my point. But they were genuinely trying to help, and I just moved on and focused on the posters who did understand my point.20 -
kshama2001 wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »IDeserveBetter wrote: »My point in responding was to help you. As people helped me when I started out - when things I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect....
Take free advice given in good faith or discard it - entirely your choice. You asked for help because you aren't getting the results you expect, you stated many things that are simply incorrect, I thought it was helpful to point out those inaccuracies. I'm very chilled thanks, doesn't spoil my day in any way if my advice is ignored.
The process is more simple than you believe and more in your control than you believe.
Good luck.
BTW - the book The Chimp Paradox would be a very good read for you. It gives a great insight as to how our minds work and tools to improve those aspects that need work (the struggles you mention).
Also, for the record, I totally am on board with the whole 'fat burn zone' being BS.
Part of why I was surprised to not see results with a concerted effort to raise and keep my heart rate up.
Probably best choice is to figure a better way (including the above equation) to calculate my calories burned myself instead of relying on the fitbit.
But this is me thinking out loud.
Actually, know what? I think I'm going to start a new thread on that specific topic.
I've bogged this one down with at least partially unnecessary 'tude and multiple self replies.
What you actually wrote was "I understand that once you hit a peak, you stop burning calories despite what my Fitbit versa might record".
If you had mentioned fat burn zones my response would have addressed that subject instead. Remember people can only respond to what you actually write and not what you intended to write.
You would do better to estimate your running calories from physics rather than HR - or at least validate one method against the other.
On level ground running net calories estimates can be reasonable from using bodyweight in pounds X miles run X (efficeincy ratio) 0.63
Nah, you mentioned the fat burn zone thing in a later post and I didn't feel like dredging up the exact post to quote. That is where I got that
Untrue.
Accurate.
I went back. I mistook someone else for you in a later post.
How can it be accurate saying that I mentioned something when you now admit it was someone else?
Perhaps organise your thoughts before posting.
I'm saying that your correcting me is accurate.
Though it bears mentioning that my intention had been to credit you at least a little bit for something despite personally attributing you very little credibility due to your attempt to tear apart points. There is a difference in teaching (which you aren't doing) and myth busting (which you are). You can be the most empirically correct scientist in this niche topic and it won't matter one bit if you don't communicate in a way that people can actually follow instead of defaulting to defensive.
To reiterate, I'm collecting information.
To learn.
So, as the person benefiting from this thread (note that I actually AM having a fruitful discussion in places), I'll kinda just keep doing whatever I please organizationwise.
If it is annoying you, at this point, more power to me.
Funny that I appear to have taught you about a useful running formula.
Try to remember that contradicting an error isn't an attack on the person who stated the error.
Some people want platitudes, some want facts. You are an interesting conundrum of someone who seems to want to learn but resents being corrected when wrong.
I'm not annoyed that you react in such a peculiar fashion to facts being stated in a direct way, entertained perhaps?
Anyway I'm done, good luck.
My initial instinct it to go back, quote point by point to explain my take away to within an inch of it's life.
You agreeing with me is not what determines if something is true or not, and you wouldn't take it anyway.
Your leaving is better anyway.
Not necessarily. Other people reading this interaction may be turned off from offering help.
I know that in any thread I start I will get helpful responses and responses that I perceive as unhelpful. I've learned that I will have a better thread if I give the helpful responses more energy, and that calling a post out as unhelpful is more unhelpful than the original unhelpful post.
If I get helpful posts that's great, but I should not act as if I am entitled to only receive responses I perceive as helpful. For example, I started a thread about my elderly mother freaking out about her (very minimal) sugar consumption. Some people totally missed my point. But they were genuinely trying to help, and I just moved on and focused on the posters who did understand my point.
I meant him leaving is better than further bickering. I've got a ton of thoughts about reasons, but my point in posting boiled down to 'I've had a bunch of progress, but what I'm doing isn't working anymore'.
For over a year, I've worked on this. Clearly there is an amount of self control involved. Someone coming in with a ton of 'all of these things you are saying are completely wrong and it is on you to elaborate even further on your already long post to prove you aren't an idiot' is infuriating. I admitted that I'm not a professional in this field, but I'm long past letting an ego like the one displayed above push me around.
They say you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, an that is true. The other half of that is it isn't help if the person doesn't want it. That includes pulling someone down Instead of pulling them up. This isn't the Army, you don't have to break someone down all the way and start over.
This is the internet, and I know that it is generally impossible to dictate what kind of responses you get, but it also isn't my obligation to go along to get along.
None of the above is said with malice, and honestly my response was to write it out Instead of ignore FOR the version of me that I was a year ago. Other people reading this can see that though the consensus is that I'm being hypersensitive (I'm okay with that), but at least someone will post a counterpoint to that kind of response being okay. Ideally even if he doesn't ever act on it, previous poster will realize that he comes off aggressive.20
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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions