Strict calories deficit: not losing weight!!!!!
Options
Replies
-
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
I think that some people might need to make a clean break from the SAD. This goes counter to what is popular on this site. Many people need a good dose of discipline, routine,structure, and maybe a little self denial. I COMPLETELY AGREE that some people will find this route unsustainable, but there are others it's the change they need. Some folks need to have time for their palate and brain to relearn how food taste. They need to learn that simple can be quite satisfying for some. Until some let go of the emotional attachments they place on certain foods, it might be an up hill battle for them to succeed.dragon_girl26 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
Seconded. I would even go so far as to say that if I tried to eat a boring diet, I'd probably just end up binging on the enjoyable things I attempt to eliminate.
I would think a boring diet would run in the same vein as a fad diet in that it's usually is fine for a short term, but ultimately unsustainable long term for a lot of people. With that in mind, how effective can it truly be overall?
Just because something is not popular here does not make it "bad".Eating a less palatable diet is not a fad. Our ancestors did it for thousands of years. Hell, if we look back in history a few hundred years ago, there was little obesity. Generally the obese were the wealthiest who could afford to eat like a normal person does today. I use normal loosely btw. Oh, was there famine? Bring that up before someone tries to pigeonhole me. Though,there were times of plenty as well. Know what we see? Nor an explosion of waistlines, but kids! Population growth. That seems to be the default for animals when there is an abundance of food. So, we look at the average diet of the "normal" people several hundred years ago. What was it? Plain and simple. Not saying there were not times of gluttony, but far less.
**edit** I'm going to say that our ancestors were more active as well. They had a word for exercise... "life". This group on MFP is an extreme subset of folks. We tend to be more active, but being active does not completely explain why folks didn't blow up during times of plenty.
No, and I'm not saying it's bad, nor am I saying its a fad...I'm merely comparing it to a fad in that for most people, its unsustainable. (Most of the alterative/unpopular-with-the-hivemind strategies presented here on the forums aren't bad, in my opinion, unless they're unhealthy or excessively restrictive.) I don't even disagree that it could be helpful for some folks..just saying that for a lot of people, it won't be the right approach.
From my understanding of our ancestors, though, obesity is certainly not a new age problem. It has always been an issue, even in "the good ol days". It's not a hill I'm willing to die on here, nor do I have hours to go research to dig up anything at the moment, just something I remember reading or hearing a lecture about at one point. It's likely even been discussed in the forums ad nauseum somewhere I'm sure. Someone more knowledgeable than me will probably chime in here, and I hope they do. It's an interesting topic.
Anyway, its a bit of a digression as I'm not sure this sounds like OP's issue. She's 5'7", 156lbs, claims she is eating 1300 -1400 calories GROSS per day, and wondering why she's not losing. She's not talking about binging or eating enjoyable foods excessively. Maybe a simpler diet couldn't hurt, but.. I have to 100% agree, though, that its probably a dead thread since she's not providing more necessary info.2 -
dragon_girl26 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
I think that some people might need to make a clean break from the SAD. This goes counter to what is popular on this site. Many people need a good dose of discipline, routine,structure, and maybe a little self denial. I COMPLETELY AGREE that some people will find this route unsustainable, but there are others it's the change they need. Some folks need to have time for their palate and brain to relearn how food taste. They need to learn that simple can be quite satisfying for some. Until some let go of the emotional attachments they place on certain foods, it might be an up hill battle for them to succeed.dragon_girl26 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
Seconded. I would even go so far as to say that if I tried to eat a boring diet, I'd probably just end up binging on the enjoyable things I attempt to eliminate.
I would think a boring diet would run in the same vein as a fad diet in that it's usually is fine for a short term, but ultimately unsustainable long term for a lot of people. With that in mind, how effective can it truly be overall?
Just because something is not popular here does not make it "bad".Eating a less palatable diet is not a fad. Our ancestors did it for thousands of years. Hell, if we look back in history a few hundred years ago, there was little obesity. Generally the obese were the wealthiest who could afford to eat like a normal person does today. I use normal loosely btw. Oh, was there famine? Bring that up before someone tries to pigeonhole me. Though,there were times of plenty as well. Know what we see? Nor an explosion of waistlines, but kids! Population growth. That seems to be the default for animals when there is an abundance of food. So, we look at the average diet of the "normal" people several hundred years ago. What was it? Plain and simple. Not saying there were not times of gluttony, but far less.
**edit** I'm going to say that our ancestors were more active as well. They had a word for exercise... "life". This group on MFP is an extreme subset of folks. We tend to be more active, but being active does not completely explain why folks didn't blow up during times of plenty.
No, and I'm not saying it's bad, nor am I saying its a fad...I'm merely comparing it to a fad in that for most people, its unsustainable. (Most of the alterative/unpopular-with-the-hivemind strategies presented here on the forums aren't bad, in my opinion, unless they're unhealthy or excessively restrictive.) I don't even disagree that it could be helpful for some folks..just saying that for a lot of people, it won't be the right approach.
From my understanding of our ancestors, though, obesity is certainly not a new age problem. It has always been an issue, even in "the good ol days". It's not a hill I'm willing to die on here, nor do I have hours to go research to dig up anything at the moment, just something I remember reading or hearing a lecture about at one point. It's likely even been discussed in the forums ad nauseum somewhere I'm sure. Someone more knowledgeable than me will probably chime in here, and I hope they do. It's an interesting topic.
Anyway, its a bit of a digression as I'm not sure this sounds like OP's issue. She's 5'7", 156lbs, claims she is eating 1300 -1400 calories GROSS per day, and wondering why she's not losing. She's not talking about binging or eating enjoyable foods excessively. Maybe a simpler diet couldn't hurt, but.. I have to 100% agree, though, that its probably a dead thread since she's not providing more necessary info.
There is no hill to die on ma'am. There is also evidence that for some people, a restrictive diet causes them to break.
On this advice being inapplicable, I will disagree. I suggested back at the beginning of the thread that she was underreporting. My ascertain still remains. Whether its intentional or not does not matter. Hell, I underreport because I refuse to weigh my fruits and veggies. I might have been branching out working with folks in real life. One strategy I use to lessen underreporting is a switch to an lower energy dense, less palatable diet. I had a fal who was 330lbs at 5'5". She had been trying to lose weight for a while. She came to me "desperate". She swore she was weighing and measuring everything and not losing on 1800cals.I told her to let me review her food logs. What did I see. Lots of 100 calorie food packs. Cookies, peanut butter, fatty cuts of meat... ect... so, what I told her to do was, knock those foods out and just stick with lower ed foods for a while. What happened? She lost 10lbs in a month. Her underreporting was unintentional and intentional. She was not always overly accurate with her weights I think. So, by knocking out the higher ed foods, her errors in reporting were less. By knocking out certain foods, that cookie from the breakroom was not forgotten to be logged. That extra taste of peanut butter was not eaten. I'm sure she was still underreporting, but it was far less. 5 grams of apples off... 3 cals....5 grams of peanut butter, 25 cals...5 -
psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes....psychod787 wrote: »There is no hill to die on ma'am. There is also evidence that for some people, a restrictive diet causes them to break.
On this advice being inapplicable, I will disagree. I suggested back at the beginning of the thread that she was underreporting. My ascertain still remains. Whether its intentional or not does not matter. Hell, I underreport because I refuse to weigh my fruits and veggies. I might have been branching out working with folks in real life. One strategy I use to lessen underreporting is a switch to an lower energy dense, less palatable diet. I had a fal who was 330lbs at 5'5". She had been trying to lose weight for a while. She came to me "desperate". She swore she was weighing and measuring everything and not losing on 1800cals.I told her to let me review her food logs. What did I see. Lots of 100 calorie food packs. Cookies, peanut butter, fatty cuts of meat... ect... so, what I told her to do was, knock those foods out and just stick with lower ed foods for a while. What happened? She lost 10lbs in a month. Her underreporting was unintentional and intentional. She was not always overly accurate with her weights I think. So, by knocking out the higher ed foods, her errors in reporting were less. By knocking out certain foods, that cookie from the breakroom was not forgotten to be logged. That extra taste of peanut butter was not eaten. I'm sure she was still underreporting, but it was far less. 5 grams of apples off... 3 cals....5 grams of peanut butter, 25 cals...
Oh, sure, several times in my life I lost weight with very little effort when I had limited access to energy dense, hyper-palatable foods.
I wouldn't call the foods I did have "boring" - I just had little, if any, foods I have a hard time moderating, like ice cream, Oreos, etc.
What's the opposite of energy dense - nutrient dense? That's what was available, and it filled me up.
I also tend to cook more simply and less often when I'm just cooking for myself.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »dragon_girl26 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
I think that some people might need to make a clean break from the SAD. This goes counter to what is popular on this site. Many people need a good dose of discipline, routine,structure, and maybe a little self denial. I COMPLETELY AGREE that some people will find this route unsustainable, but there are others it's the change they need. Some folks need to have time for their palate and brain to relearn how food taste. They need to learn that simple can be quite satisfying for some. Until some let go of the emotional attachments they place on certain foods, it might be an up hill battle for them to succeed.dragon_girl26 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes. For this instance, we are just jerking around here. OP is not willing to give out the info needed to help. I am personally calling this thread dead....
There may be ample research evidence for the effectiveness of eating in a boring or sub-pleasant way for weight management, but to me it sounds like a miserable strategy to undertake, unless truly, truly essential. I suspect I may have non-standard tastes, but IMO there are plenty of very tasty, calorie-appropriate, filling foods in the world, and a variety of delightful ways to prepare them that make eating them an even more positive, enjoyable experience.
"Eat plain boring things" sounds subjectively like the "never eat grain or flour ever again" advice, maybe necessary or the best approach for some with particular appetite-control issues, but not necessarily good first-call universal advice for all (even though I hear and believe what you're saying about research findings).
Personally, I think I might even be inclined to eat *more* of boring food in a desperate search for eating pleasure, vs. enjoying something I can truly savor. That's speculation, though. I'm not going to do the experiment by switching to things I think are plain, repetitive, boring.
Seconded. I would even go so far as to say that if I tried to eat a boring diet, I'd probably just end up binging on the enjoyable things I attempt to eliminate.
I would think a boring diet would run in the same vein as a fad diet in that it's usually is fine for a short term, but ultimately unsustainable long term for a lot of people. With that in mind, how effective can it truly be overall?
Just because something is not popular here does not make it "bad".Eating a less palatable diet is not a fad. Our ancestors did it for thousands of years. Hell, if we look back in history a few hundred years ago, there was little obesity. Generally the obese were the wealthiest who could afford to eat like a normal person does today. I use normal loosely btw. Oh, was there famine? Bring that up before someone tries to pigeonhole me. Though,there were times of plenty as well. Know what we see? Nor an explosion of waistlines, but kids! Population growth. That seems to be the default for animals when there is an abundance of food. So, we look at the average diet of the "normal" people several hundred years ago. What was it? Plain and simple. Not saying there were not times of gluttony, but far less.
**edit** I'm going to say that our ancestors were more active as well. They had a word for exercise... "life". This group on MFP is an extreme subset of folks. We tend to be more active, but being active does not completely explain why folks didn't blow up during times of plenty.
No, and I'm not saying it's bad, nor am I saying its a fad...I'm merely comparing it to a fad in that for most people, its unsustainable. (Most of the alterative/unpopular-with-the-hivemind strategies presented here on the forums aren't bad, in my opinion, unless they're unhealthy or excessively restrictive.) I don't even disagree that it could be helpful for some folks..just saying that for a lot of people, it won't be the right approach.
From my understanding of our ancestors, though, obesity is certainly not a new age problem. It has always been an issue, even in "the good ol days". It's not a hill I'm willing to die on here, nor do I have hours to go research to dig up anything at the moment, just something I remember reading or hearing a lecture about at one point. It's likely even been discussed in the forums ad nauseum somewhere I'm sure. Someone more knowledgeable than me will probably chime in here, and I hope they do. It's an interesting topic.
Anyway, its a bit of a digression as I'm not sure this sounds like OP's issue. She's 5'7", 156lbs, claims she is eating 1300 -1400 calories GROSS per day, and wondering why she's not losing. She's not talking about binging or eating enjoyable foods excessively. Maybe a simpler diet couldn't hurt, but.. I have to 100% agree, though, that its probably a dead thread since she's not providing more necessary info.
There is no hill to die on ma'am. There is also evidence that for some people, a restrictive diet causes them to break.
On this advice being inapplicable, I will disagree. I suggested back at the beginning of the thread that she was underreporting. My ascertain still remains. Whether its intentional or not does not matter. Hell, I underreport because I refuse to weigh my fruits and veggies. I might have been branching out working with folks in real life. One strategy I use to lessen underreporting is a switch to an lower energy dense, less palatable diet. I had a fal who was 330lbs at 5'5". She had been trying to lose weight for a while. She came to me "desperate". She swore she was weighing and measuring everything and not losing on 1800cals.I told her to let me review her food logs. What did I see. Lots of 100 calorie food packs. Cookies, peanut butter, fatty cuts of meat... ect... so, what I told her to do was, knock those foods out and just stick with lower ed foods for a while. What happened? She lost 10lbs in a month. Her underreporting was unintentional and intentional. She was not always overly accurate with her weights I think. So, by knocking out the higher ed foods, her errors in reporting were less. By knocking out certain foods, that cookie from the breakroom was not forgotten to be logged. That extra taste of peanut butter was not eaten. I'm sure she was still underreporting, but it was far less. 5 grams of apples off... 3 cals....5 grams of peanut butter, 25 cals...
That's a fair point..I suspect she is underreporting as well, unless there is something going on medically. Your strategy from that angle makes good sense to me.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »ChristopherLimoges wrote: »I would suggest your meals be as plain as possible before anything else.
Complex carbs, plain.
Protein, plain and lean(but beware of even chicken breasts, consistently), suspended broiled/baked.
Fats, are more difficult, hence methods of cooking prior to this macro. Try to use low amounts and reduce saturated and trans fats?
Sound advice imho. I can post a crap ton of research that supports this advice. Reduction of food variety has shown to decrease intake in ad librium studies. There is a great amount of evidence that restricting a macronutrient effects intakes....psychod787 wrote: »There is no hill to die on ma'am. There is also evidence that for some people, a restrictive diet causes them to break.
On this advice being inapplicable, I will disagree. I suggested back at the beginning of the thread that she was underreporting. My ascertain still remains. Whether its intentional or not does not matter. Hell, I underreport because I refuse to weigh my fruits and veggies. I might have been branching out working with folks in real life. One strategy I use to lessen underreporting is a switch to an lower energy dense, less palatable diet. I had a fal who was 330lbs at 5'5". She had been trying to lose weight for a while. She came to me "desperate". She swore she was weighing and measuring everything and not losing on 1800cals.I told her to let me review her food logs. What did I see. Lots of 100 calorie food packs. Cookies, peanut butter, fatty cuts of meat... ect... so, what I told her to do was, knock those foods out and just stick with lower ed foods for a while. What happened? She lost 10lbs in a month. Her underreporting was unintentional and intentional. She was not always overly accurate with her weights I think. So, by knocking out the higher ed foods, her errors in reporting were less. By knocking out certain foods, that cookie from the breakroom was not forgotten to be logged. That extra taste of peanut butter was not eaten. I'm sure she was still underreporting, but it was far less. 5 grams of apples off... 3 cals....5 grams of peanut butter, 25 cals...
Oh, sure, several times in my life I lost weight with very little effort when I had limited access to energy dense, hyper-palatable foods.
I wouldn't call the foods I did have "boring" - I just had little, if any, foods I have a hard time moderating, like ice cream, Oreos, etc.
What's the opposite of energy dense - nutrient dense? That's what was available, and it filled me up.
I also tend to cook more simply and less often when I'm just cooking for myself.
That's part of my thought, too: The opposite of "calorie dense" is not "plain" or "boring" or "unvaried" IMO.
But, as I said in my PP, part of this may be that the foods I actually like best are NOT fast food, the things people often call "carbs" (that aren't necessarily carbs alone), and that sort of thing. I do find what people call the SAD truly sad: Not tasty, IMO, though maybe it pushes evolutionary buttons that get a postive jolt from sugar, salt, fats. "Hyperpalatable" foods mostly aren't, to me. (I can't remotely imagine living largely on 100-calorie packs of manufactured foods.) So, this whole line of thought may just be me being weird.
I would observe that some of the studies I've read about people eating less when consuming less processed foods were not free living, and were time-limited, so I think there are some challenges in bringing those strategies into regular life. I'm not saying it can't be done, not saying no one should do it.
I am saying there's a world of less energy-dense, more nutrient-dense food that IMO still tastes good.3 -
As a pure aside, it's unfair but tempting to suspect, in a post that has five exclamation points in the title, and leads with "I'm getting so stressed now", that cortisol-related water weight is at least some part of the picture.3
-
I'm sorry to hear that you are feeling frustrated and it's great that you are making the effort to log everything. Sometimes the calorie values that have been added in mpf aren't accurate though so I double check these on another site sometimes in case I underestimate my calories0
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
- 389 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
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions