Plateaued With Heavy Exercise. Troubleshooting?
Replies
-
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another (
).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway. 5 -
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
You and sijomial are clearly the same person And I even typically like the posts that both of you make - more proof of this...or something. 13 -
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
7 -
[
4 -
So if you are about 184lbs, and you ran 5miles then you burned about 580kcal, and not over 700 as the app is stating.1
-
-
-
Maxematics wrote: »
Possibly, but those apps generally don't say so. With a fitbit you at least end up with a daily calorie burn that takes any tracked workout into account. A stand-alone app doesn't do that.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.1 -
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?0 -
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?
Whatever general collection of annoyances I have that day.1 -
Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.9 -
Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
Sorry, I combined 2 responses in one.
It was the OP that said she was going to disregard those cals. Since she is struggling with her plan, I just thought I’d mention that.0 -
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
0 -
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
Fitbit indeed shows gross calories for exercise; there was never a question about that. My question was if Map My Run does the same which would account for the discrepancy of the calories given by MFPs database or the equation above. Either way, yes, the difference can be accounted for this way or by just eating back a smaller portion of exercise calories.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »
,Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »
When the Map My Run info syncs with MFP, the calorie adjustment should take that into account. Those shouldn’t be disregarded.
I didn't say they should be disregarded; I simply asked if the reason for the calorie discrepancy was due to BMR being taken into account.
I have a Fitbit and I'm aware of how the adjustments work but many people aren't aware. Instead of syncing their device to their account and letting adjustments be made, they make note of their calories burned, enter it in as exercise, and double dip every time they do so because they don't understand that BMR is being included in the calorie burn.
It's like that one thread where that guy thought Fitbit's TDEE readout was what he should eat on top of his MFP allowance. Needless to say he was gaining weight rapidly and blaming Fitbit when it was actually user error.
could be that her fitbit is calculating gross calories, whereas the calcualtion 0.63xweightxdistance is net calories, so if the OP backs out maintnance calories from the 728 should, 100 ish/hour, would give gross of 628, still higher than the 580 (184*0.63*5) from the calc, but in the same ball park
Fitbit indeed shows gross calories for exercise; there was never a question about that. My question was if Map My Run does the same which would account for the discrepancy of the calories given by MFPs database or the equation above. Either way, yes, the difference can be accounted for this way or by just eating back a smaller portion of exercise calories.
Ah, I misunderstood the question. I don't think MFP is smart enough to back out BMR or maintenance cals from added exercise cals, unless the device sending the data to MFP is already calculating net cals (which most don't)0 -
When was the last time you adjusted goals for your updated lower weight? Apologies if this was asked already1
-
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.
It was me with the fat burning zone comment, I think. We do look confusingly alike, as we're both bare backs of one sort or another ( ).
I think I might have beat you to the running calorie formula on this thread, too. One of OP's other threads suggests that the runs are actually run/walk, so it'd need to be pro-rated with the walking formula anyway.
I skimmed many comments.
It happens.
It isn't run/walk anymore, by the way.
Adding rhythmic breathing was a game changer.
Also,spite is a HUGE motivation for me (I'm petty. We use the tools we have)
So this was me tonight.
Yes, the route was strange.
I did that on purpose.
Who are you spite-ing?
Whatever general collection of annoyances I have that day.
Aha - that sometimes works for me too!0 -
-
IDeserveBetter wrote: »
I’m really not sure then. My FitBit has been very accurate for me estimating burns. I don’t log any activities though in any apps. I let it auto detect and track, which I personally find more accurate. Also the longer you wear it the more accurate it seems to become. I run a 5k a few times a week at a 9:30-10 pace and typically earn 90-100 cals per mile.
Have you tried setting your activity here to sedentary and just allowing FitBit to auto adjust during the day?
Most people I’ve chatted with who are successfully reaching their goals using MFP and FitBit together are set to sedentary with negative adjustments enabled. Your calories here adjust through out the day depending on that days specific activity.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions