Gaining weight and eating 1600 calories
Replies
-
Also, if you're using the TDEE method of setting goals, then you should not be also logging or eating back your workout calories. TDEE already accounts for workout calories.
So I should be eating my TDEE? 1846 calories since it calculates exercise?
No, your calorie goal should be your TDEE minus a certain number (ie. 500 calories/day to lose 1 pound/week) or percentage (10-20%). So, for example, my TDEE is around 1970, so my goal would be around 1470 if I were using the TDEE method.
Thank u0 -
Thanks0
-
My food logging is accurate, I log everything even a tablespoon of peanut butter!
I am doing FOCUS T25 workout and my watch tracks calories burned. I know the tracker may not be a 100 % accurate but I use it only to track my workouts and that is it.
If you are using a spoon for peanut butter...even a tablespoon your logging is not accurate.
You need to weigh solids and measure liquids and choose correct entries.
Personally I disagree with this... I have been on MFP off and on for a few years... have ALWAYS used spoon/cup measurements and never have owned a scale. Never had trouble with accurate logging or weight loss. Just another perspective.2 -
Sucks, doesn't it?
The numbers MFP gives you are just numbers. Your body has its own metabolism, and you might have a lower BMR than MFP thinks you do. You might (probably don't) burn as many calories exercising as is estimated. You might be undercounting your calories consumed.
One of the difficulties for women is that our calorie counts tend to be low enough that it doesn't take much error to keep us from losing at all.
Something else that I think happens is that some of us have very efficient adaptative thermogenesis. Our bodies adapt to lower calorie intake by reducing our NEAT and hence our TDEE.
Things to try:
* Weigh your food.
* Mix up your calorie intake with high and low spike days.
* Mix up your workouts.
* Don't eat back your exercise calories.
Good luck and keep on keeping on. You'll get where you want to be if you keep working at it.1 -
Personally I disagree with this... I have been on MFP off and on for a few years... have ALWAYS used spoon/cup measurements and never have owned a scale. Never had trouble with accurate logging or weight loss. Just another perspective.My food logging is accurate, I log everything even a tablespoon of peanut butter!
I am doing FOCUS T25 workout and my watch tracks calories burned. I know the tracker may not be a 100 % accurate but I use it only to track my workouts and that is it.
If you are using a spoon for peanut butter...even a tablespoon your logging is not accurate.
You need to weigh solids and measure liquids and choose correct entries.
There's a YouTube video which shows the difference in weighing and measuring solids. It's pretty eye-opening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGcdyfDM3oQ 2 -
I'd recommend upping your protein higher than 40g per day. Try setting your macros to 45% carbs 25% protein 30% fat. Carbs are not always the bad guy, just like sodium is not always the bad guy. If you're getting enough potassium in your diet, I wouldn't even worry about sodium. Also, if you haven't started, I would start heaving lifting. It's better for your body than aerobics is, if you want to build muscle.0
-
Thank you!I'd recommend upping your protein higher than 40g per day. Try setting your macros to 45% carbs 25% protein 30% fat. Carbs are not always the bad guy, just like sodium is not always the bad guy. If you're getting enough potassium in your diet, I wouldn't even worry about sodium. Also, if you haven't started, I would start heaving lifting. It's better for your body than aerobics is, if you want to build muscle.
Do you means 45 % protein or carbs? since you said to up my protein0 -
I am so frustrated with my lack of weight loss. My eating is good, I workout 7 days a week. Workouts range from running, walking, weight training and HIIT. I am stuck between 220 and 230 and yoyo throughout the week. I am not new to working out or eating in a healthy way. I get so discouraged and frustrated and wonder why I am even trying.2
-
I am so frustrated with my lack of weight loss. My eating is good, I workout 7 days a week. Workouts range from running, walking, weight training and HIIT. I am stuck between 220 and 230 and yoyo throughout the week. I am not new to working out or eating in a healthy way. I get so discouraged and frustrated and wonder why I am even trying.
Perhaps starting your own thread to discuss instead of bring back a 7 year old one from the dead?10 -
I am so frustrated with my lack of weight loss. My eating is good, I workout 7 days a week. Workouts range from running, walking, weight training and HIIT. I am stuck between 220 and 230 and yoyo throughout the week. I am not new to working out or eating in a healthy way. I get so discouraged and frustrated and wonder why I am even trying.
Definitely know that feeling but unfortunately your workouts won't get you there if you're still eating at a calorie surplus. This is an old thread (who cares, by the way?) but check out the pointers above. Accurate logging is really all there is to it.1 -
5 -
lilsolditto wrote: »My food logging is accurate, I log everything even a tablespoon of peanut butter!
I am doing FOCUS T25 workout and my watch tracks calories burned. I know the tracker may not be a 100 % accurate but I use it only to track my workouts and that is it.
The tablespoon part isn’t truly accurate. Use a scale and weigh everything in grams—it is truly eye opening!
And with your height and weight, it’s really unlikely you’re burning that many calories in that timeframe, no matter how intense. Your burn is probably half that.2 -
One question to consider: how do you know that 2 lb is fat? When my deficit is decreased, there’s a tad more food/waste simply in my intestines, etc.0
-
Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.0
-
Your exercise calories seem very inflated. Most people your size will burn about 100-200 calories in 25 minutes.
Yeah, possibly. When I am doing intense HIIT training I can hit 550 in about 55 min. That’s a really tough day. Average is closer to 450. I weigh about the same as OP.
1 -
I am so frustrated with my lack of weight loss. My eating is good, I workout 7 days a week. Workouts range from running, walking, weight training and HIIT. I am stuck between 220 and 230 and yoyo throughout the week. I am not new to working out or eating in a healthy way. I get so discouraged and frustrated and wonder why I am even trying.
Hi Erin!
I agree with the suggestions to start your own thread, otherwise people will be confused.
When you do, change your Diary Sharing settings to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)
I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)
I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.
You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)
I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.
You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.
I think it's more in the spirit of general insight for anyone who might be reading and trying to estimate their calorie burns. The overall point is that if someone is struggling with their weight loss and assuming very high calories burns for exercise, it is probably worth it to try a more conservative method of estimating calories burnt rather than using HRM-based estimates for strength training and "HIIT"-style activities.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)
I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.
You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.
The OP was in 2014 too...so now people are just being chatty in an old thread - in general.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
How are you estimating that calorie burn? Even for extremely fit people, doing 55 minutes of HIIT would be challenging (although it's possible you're talking about the current fad of workouts just being labelled as HIIT).
I wear a heart rate monitor. It’s OrangeTheory so it’s a tread set, rowing, HIIT in the weight room.
Heart rate monitor has a high likelihood of inflating calorie burn for OT type strength-y HIIT. (HRM has a high likelihood of overestimating any kind of strength training, but some of the fitness trackers now appear to use an algorithm that doesn't rely on HR). Depending on fitness level and whether you know your actual HRmax (not just age-estimated) and can set it in your HRM, HRM may or may not give an accurate calorie estimate for machine rowing. (I do a lot of machine rowing . . . mine is close enough for gubmint work for that IMO, compared to the Concept 2 watts-based estimates, but it wouldn't be if I let it use age-estimated HRmax. If I did that, it would overestimate rowing, too.)
I'd suggest comparing the HRM estimate for the strength-HIIT period of your workout to the MFP database estimate for circuit training, and believing the MFP estimate if lower. Ideally, it would be the MFP database estimate minus (your BMR times for that time period times your MFP activity-level multiplier), but that's a lot of math. The MFP machine rowing estimates are not tied to objective effort measures (like watts), so not useful at all IMO. I don't know whether the WaterRowers (which I think is what OT uses?) give you any kind of reasonable calorie estimate themselves.
You know I am not the OP, right? I don’t have any questions or concerns, maintaining happily at 129. My post was related to the POSSIBILITY that the original poster was inflating calories burned if he/she was struggling.
Yes, should've said so. Apologies! Just chatting on the old thread. It's pretty hard for a woman your/my size to burn even 500 calories in an hour, though of course not impossible. OT gives a really good workout, more balanced than many, time efficient, good calorie burn.
HRMs get quite a few people thinking they have a higher burn than may be reality, because it's really most accurate with steady state non-strength-y moderate intensity cardio in someone with close to age-estimated HRmax (or tested). The further from that, the iffier the estimate. May be close, or not, only good guess at that is by comparing with maybe-better methods for the particular exercise.
Maybe surprisingly, METS based estimates, which is what the MFP database uses, can be as good or better than HR for some things, so a good cross-check in those cases.
Still iffy, though. IMU, MFP's implementation is sub-ideal: Gives gross calories, should have subtracted the calories we'd already burn if just watching TV, but double counts those. Not a big deal, for calorie counting use, except for long-duration, low burn activities, because the overcounting is small in the all-day calorie picture. And METs are a poor way to estimate certain activities, too.
The electronic devices are too often seen as accurate for calories, better than any other calorie estimating method, because technology. Sadly, it's a common misimpression. (And sort of a pet peeve for me - apologies for using your post as a launching pad for it.)
The better fitness trackers (i.e. multi-measurement, not just HR) are improving all the time, in part because the algorithms have been enhanced to *not* rely on HR for certain activities, and to individually reality test fitness norms to "learn" an individual user. They're still falling short of fully accurate, and folks don't consider them as a potential source of estimating variance. They should.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions