Can you kindly look at my food diary for logging errors?

Lietchi wrote: »

You don't seem to be weighing your foods on cheat days? Just a blanket 4000 calorie day I saw? Could be very wrong?

On regular days:
- are you weighing your foods?
- creating Recipes/meals? I see a "Auju Chicken, 1 serving" for example, is that something you bought premade or made yourself?

AnnPT77 wrote: »

JustaNoob wrote: »

StaciInGa wrote: »

If you're losing at 2 pounds a week, but expect to be losing at 2.5: I would say there is nothing wrong with your methods for now. The actual is close enough to the expected that the difference can be chalked up to human inefficiency. I don't mean anything negative about that - but all the TDEE and calorie burned calculators are estimates for some average person, and any one person's true results can be a little above or below.

If keeping to 1200 daily calories 6 days, and one bigger day weekly works for you: no issues as long as your bigger day is not blowing your deficit out. If you're eating 3000-4000 on those days, with your stats, it works. If you're eating 18,000 and calling it 4,000, it does not! You may find in time that you need to make changes, and that is ok also. If you pick up your daily activity, for example, you may find that sticking to 1200 six days a week is a bit of a challenge. In that scenario you may want to bump up to 1500 x 6 and cut back to 2500 on the 7th day.

Thanks and you're right-- I may be looking at the numbers a little too much. I have a whole spreadsheet with my calories burned and intake and what I should weigh vs. what I weigh now.


And my goal is actually to do something more of a 1500 x 6 and 2500 on the cheat day-- I just wanted to track my trends for a few months with something that I knew for sure was a calorie deficit. In the past, I did 1800 with inaccurate logging and felt super discouraged at not losing anything.

I'm repeating someone else above, but:

Let go of "should be losing . . . based on calculator and fitness tracker".

Either of those just gives you an estimate for people who are similar to you on the few characteristics (data points) they know about. Humans vary. Even being fidgety vs. not fidgety has been estimated by researchers to be in the low hundreds of calories in otherwise similar people. (I'm not telling you to fidget! I'm saying small differences between people add up to meaningful differences in calorie burn.)

The fitness tracker is also a statistical estimate, but a more nuanced, detailed one. It can still be wrong. I've been logging for almost 8 years now, loss then 7 years of maintenance. My good brand/model tracker - one that estimates others here within reason, by their reports - is literally hundreds of calories off for me, compared to my logging experience and weight results. (Its estimate is similar to MFP's by the way, 25-30% off in all day calories.) I can predict my weight changes from my food/exercise log data quite accurately now . . . but I ignore the tracker and MFP for that purpose. Most people aren't that non-average, but it's possible.

You have a spreadsheet. Log as accurately as you can without obsessing, including the cheat day. Use your own data to predict your actual calorie needs, in context of your logging practices. Even doing that now, with some approximation in there, is likely to be a better guide than some calculator/tracker. Tighten up the logging, and it'll get even more useful.

It's like a fun science fair experiment for grown-ups, with potential for a huge payoff. You can do it!

P.S. If I were you, I'd avoid losing more than 2 pounds a week for now, even if you can manage it. Sustainability is important - sticking with it long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight, then ideally use habits you've learned to keep it off forever. It's even fine to lose slower than 2 pounds weekly, if that means losing steadily and reliably. Sometimes a slow loss we can stick with consistently gets us to calorie goal in less calendar time than an aggressive goal that triggers the need for cheats, causes breaks in effort, or maybe even makes us give up altogether for long time periods.

cmriverside wrote: »

JustaNoob wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

What tom said is what you need to listen to.

2900 is simply too high, and/or your cheat day or daily intake is more than your estimation. Probably both.

I never gave up treat foods like cheeseburgers, fries and treats but I logged them as accurately as I could, not just a random number. I tried very hard to make that the one meal I ate that day.

Your Apple watch and ANY ONLINE CALCULATOR is just a guess...and Apple doesn't really play well with Myfitnesspal so you may have a synching or compatibility issue at play here as well.

Since you know your calories, reverse engineer your *actual* calorie needs. Add up your intake and divide it by number of days and your weight change.

3500 calories is generally equal to one pound of weight loss (or gain.) Figure it out from there, using YOUR data - not Apple or online calculators.

So I guess this is where I am really confused because this is what I am trying to do.

I set my calories to 1200 because I knew it had to be a deficit so that I could track my trends over a few months time. Then based on what I actually lose, I'll adjust my intake. I am using Apple calories and tracking the margin of error... but I only have 2 months of information... so it is the only information I have to go on. Apple says 2900, TDEE says 2700-- I thought it would be somewhere around there. But even if it is not and I'm only burning 2000 calories any given day, I want to make sure my logging isn't off.

I posted because I found an error in my logging and thought others who have done this for a while might be able to immediately notice errors in my logging. One thing others have pointed out is trying to log my cheat days more accurately-- which I will try to do going forward.

I don't believe a chicken breast should be 180 calories, honestly, unless you are eating the skin. I log boneless skinless (frozen) chicken breast as 110 calories for 112g (which is four ounces.) That's what the package says, I don't know about fresh chicken. Rotisserie chicken or chicken cooked in the skin is probably closer to 180 calories.

The other thing about your logging is...and this is not what you asked...where are the fruits and vegetables? I went back 10 days and found very few fruits or vegetables other than potatoes or beans. I know we always say, "Calories calories calories!" but my personal experience taught me that I need good nutrition along with correct calorie intake in order for my body to release its fuel (fat.) I personally believe that I hold on to weight when I'm lacking in some nutrients.

I notice that you are tracking potassium, but you don't often get close to that goal. Myfitnesspal doesn't always have the correct data in its food items, but I tracked potassium for a long time and I know that fruits and vegetables are the way to higher potassium. If you're above goal on sodium and low on fruits and vegetables that is going to cause water retention because your electrolytes are out of balance. Calcium is an electrolyte too, and I don't see many foods that have sufficient calcium.

Just something to think about down the line.

MelodyandBarbells wrote: »

JustaNoob wrote: »

StaciInGa wrote: »

If you're losing at 2 pounds a week, but expect to be losing at 2.5: I would say there is nothing wrong with your methods for now. The actual is close enough to the expected that the difference can be chalked up to human inefficiency. I don't mean anything negative about that - but all the TDEE and calorie burned calculators are estimates for some average person, and any one person's true results can be a little above or below.

If keeping to 1200 daily calories 6 days, and one bigger day weekly works for you: no issues as long as your bigger day is not blowing your deficit out. If you're eating 3000-4000 on those days, with your stats, it works. If you're eating 18,000 and calling it 4,000, it does not! You may find in time that you need to make changes, and that is ok also. If you pick up your daily activity, for example, you may find that sticking to 1200 six days a week is a bit of a challenge. In that scenario you may want to bump up to 1500 x 6 and cut back to 2500 on the 7th day.

Thanks and you're right-- I may be looking at the numbers a little too much. I have a whole spreadsheet with my calories burned and intake and what I should weigh vs. what I weigh now.


And my goal is actually to do something more of a 1500 x 6 and 2500 on the cheat day-- I just wanted to track my trends for a few months with something that I knew for sure was a calorie deficit. In the past, I did 1800 with inaccurate logging and felt super discouraged at not losing anything.

I think I much better understand what you’re working on now! Your spreadsheet reminded me of a similar spreadsheet I made eons ago but for debt repayment. I was calling around to understand interest rates, bill dates on which the next interest would be calculated and charged etc and I remember one of the call center ladies saying something to the effect of, “you owe so much money, why does all this matter?” But it does! I was building a process and needed to understand the inputs so I could a) determine if they were a good fit to the process as I designed it, and b) process those inputs correctly.

You’re also doing something that’s often recommended which is to just log what you’re doing for a few weeks, then analyze and make changes. I’m just not sure I’ve ever seen that play out in real life 😁

cmriverside wrote: »

JustaNoob wrote: »

Edit: Just saw your edit! You actually used to be on my friend's list on an old account that I had like 10 years ago here. Congrats on keeping the weight off for this long.

Really? I was on your FL? I've taken most people off mine who stopped logging on and I don't add people any more. "Friends" used to be a lot more fun when they posted friends' forum activity in the feed. Now...meh. I don't even go to the feed.

The weight, yeah. That's a thing I still need to watch. I have a fancy spreadsheet like yours - over 3000 days logged on it with very few blank entries. On my birthday week I just don't log, but that's the only intentional freebie I really take. I gain five pounds usually every winter and lose it in the spring. Jump on the scale. Log food. Do dishes. Such is my very exciting life.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

JustaNoob wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

Sorry, did I read that correctly, you've lost 20lbs since the beginning of January? I don't see the issue then, that's 2.5lbs a week, at the high end even af gaat as recommended weight loss goes.
As has been said, trackers are only estimates, true real life results trump estimates.

I know 20lbs soundss amazing but the first week, I lost 7lbs of christmas water. So... 13lbs in 7 weeks. So 1.86lbs-- which is still great... but my math is all off.

I have happyscale and love it!

It seems like you're still speaking as if MFP, a TDEE calculator, or your tracker are right, and because your actual observations differ, your math must be off.

That's only one of the possibilities. Your math could be wrong (via logging of food or exercise, or maybe even how you've set up the spreadsheet, or any combination of those). The other possibility is that your calorie needs vary from population averages. In that case, your math can be more right (for you as an individual) than the statistics. That is not a zero probability thing.

You imply that you like numbers and calculations, so I'm going to belabor this in a spoiler, which you (or others) may read, skip, argue with if you/they think otherwise, whatever.

Consider:

* Individuals' Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)/Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) can differ. There's presumably a normal distribution, in statistical terms - a bell curve. According to estimates I've seen, this normal distribution has a relatively small standard deviation, i.e., it's a pretty tall, narrow bell curve, i.e., a lot of people are pretty close to the average BMR/RMR. (BMR and RMR are close numbers, pretty much what you'd burn flat in bed in a coma, except RMR allows for a tiny bit of extra stuff like, oh, I dunno, the act of digesting and that sort of thing.) See:

https://examine.com/articles/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

MFP, TDEE calculators, and fitness trackers use research based formulas to estimate your BMR based on the few points they know about you (age, weight, height, basically, though some use body fat percent, and some trackers will accept things like a custom heart rate max that affects exercise estimates but AFAIK doesn't affect BMR/RMR estimate). These BMR/RMR estimates are pretty much population estimates for similar people. (They don't know where you, the individual, are on the bell curve, so they guess you are at the number at the peak of the curve, pretty much.)

* MFP and TDEE calculators add some calories to account for daily life activity like job and home life (MFP) or that plus exercise (TDEE calculators). Those estimates come from multiplying BMR/RMR estimates by an activity multiplier. There are as many different activity multipliers as their are activity level descriptions, i.e., not very many, usually 4-6 or so depending on the calculator. Actual humans exist on a continuum of activity levels, not a few fixed levels, right? Therefore, we will vary from those estimates, too, even if our BMR/RMR estimate was close. (If it wasn't right, the error gets multiplied!)

* Then there's exercise. MFP has you add exercise when you do it, the TDEE calculators average it into activity level, and trackers estimate it from things that aren't actually measurements of calorie burn, but proxies to which they apply research-based statistical formulas to make a calorie estimate. (The trackers are measuring things like heart rate, arm motions, altitude changes, distance covered, etc. They're not measuring calories.)

MFP uses an exercise estimating methodology based on METS (Metabolic Equivalents). Loosely, in an ideal case, some scientists measure the calorie burn of a bunch of people doing an activity, then do some math to derive (loosely!) how many calories per hour per unit bodyweight the average person burns doing that activity. That can be used to estimate how many calories non-studied people might burn doing the same thing, based on their bodyweight and the duration. You can learn all about that here:

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

There's a theoretical flaw, IMU, in how MFP has implemented this in the app, but it tends not to matter very much arithmetically for normal half hour to hour per day kinds of exercise, may matter more for long, non-intense things like long, slow walking. I'm not going to go into details, because even I'm getting tired of typing.

METS are probably a better way of estimating some exercises than others, because not all exercises vary greatly directly with bodyweight, and because some exercises are harder to quantify objectively with respect to intensity.

TDEE calculators are even more approximate, because they typically average in exercise based on general descriptions (X days a week, moderate vs. intense, etc.). Also, many people input exercise they plan to do (good plan) but don't do the exercise (less good follow-through).

The trackers pretty much are just using the arm movements, heart beats, pace, distance, blah blah blah, in conjunction with things like body weight/age/height and some research-based statistics to estimate exercise calories in a somewhat nuanced way (a lot depends on the tracker). Some trackers use METS in some situations. Some trackers ask you to tell them what type of exercise you're doing, others guess. Lots of potential for variability, and the basis is still averages from populations like you, pretty much.

The bottom line is that it's all statistical estimates using averages from research on groups. But you're in individual. You can vary from the population averages, for possibly non-obvious reasons.

Is that for sure? No. Most people are close to average, by definition. A few can be noticeable off, either high or low. A rare few may be surprisingly far off average, maybe for reasons that aren't obvious. (Those are the people out in the narrow ends of the bell curve, where it peters out - far from the average at the peak, loosely speaking. They exist, but they're rare . . . also by definition.

It's kind of surprising, given all of the above (plus that food labels are legally allowed to be off by something like 20%!) . . . but a person can actually use calorie counting methods and come up with very workable estimates. However, it's important to reality-test the starting estimate from calculators, trackers and what-not against our individual reality. Again, the results will be close for a lot of people. If they're further off, it may be possible to adjust by some average percent of error (using one's own experience data to estimate that error factor), or variations on that theme.

/End rant.

I haven't looked at your diary yet, but I will. Having more experienced people look is a reasonable idea, so I don't know why some others are criticizing. Personally, I may not be a big help, because I've eaten in an unusual pattern for decades (vegetarian, large amounts of veg/fruit/dairy) so I don't know much about commoner eating patterns.

I agree that eating lots of fruit/veg is nutritionally helpful, and can be more sating, at least for some people. I'd advice you to ramp up veggies/fruits gradually, and get adequate hydration and fats alongside, because massive fiber increases all at once can cause digestive distress, potentially including constipation. No one wants any of that. Gradual increase lets your body (and your gut microbiome) adapt.

Best wishes!