Protein and weight gain

More info...

Current weight, height

How are you estimating your protein and calorie intake?

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1

7 miles a week is only just over an hour of exercise a week. did you think that would make a big impact in weekly calorie burn?

claireychn074 wrote: »

poodle_whisper wrote: »

7 miles a week is only just over an hour of exercise a week. did you think that would make a big impact in weekly calorie burn?

Well it would for me. I’m a shite runner and I couldn’t do that in one hour. I run like a wounded hippo.

@bercela let’s just break this down a bit. Firstly you say you’ve drastically changed the way you eat. That in itself can have a temporary impact on the scale - but it doesn’t mean it’s fat. For instance if you’ve recently increased protein, it can take a while longer to digest. So that’s food weight (I.e poo) sat in your bowel. It will come out at some point!

You’re running: if that’s new, then your muscles will be screaming and holding water as they repair themselves. That’s not fat - and again it will come out at some point.

I don’t know whether 1600 is right for you, but if that is a significant drop then your system can rebound and hold more water (stress reaction), but again that is not fat.

The entries on MFP aren’t always reliable and there is a chance you’re eating more than you think - it’s happened to pretty much all of us, particularly when we were new to logging.

Can you come back, give us your weight, height etc, and how long you’ve been trying with the changed diet and exercise? We can then offer some productive advice (based purely on what’s worked for each of us in our journeys).

Just because it feels harder to you does not mean you are burning more calories. that's just perceived effort.

People talking about the 7 miles. You pretty much burn the same calories weather you walk, job, run or sprint the miles assuming they are not all at once. You just burn them faster sprinting.

Most likely factors:
1. Water/ Waste that is building up. Once you expelled your weight adjusts down quickly.
2. Scale issue. all condtions match. best is right after sleeping and going to restroom.
3. Mistake in the food log. check your foods if you want to be sure spend a week weighing and making your own food for accuracy.
4. Medical issue. Your thyroid can cause you to gain or lose weight by releasing or not releasing hormones.

if all else fails go to a doctor. The human body knows what it is doing if you create a deficit you will lose weight if your body isn't malfunctioning.

springlering62 wrote: »

poodle_whisper wrote: »

claireychn074 wrote: »

poodle_whisper wrote: »

7 miles a week is only just over an hour of exercise a week. did you think that would make a big impact in weekly calorie burn?

Well it would for me. I’m a shite runner and I couldn’t do that in one hour. I run like a wounded hippo.

@bercela let’s just break this down a bit. Firstly you say you’ve drastically changed the way you eat. That in itself can have a temporary impact on the scale - but it doesn’t mean it’s fat. For instance if you’ve recently increased protein, it can take a while longer to digest. So that’s food weight (I.e poo) sat in your bowel. It will come out at some point!

You’re running: if that’s new, then your muscles will be screaming and holding water as they repair themselves. That’s not fat - and again it will come out at some point.

I don’t know whether 1600 is right for you, but if that is a significant drop then your system can rebound and hold more water (stress reaction), but again that is not fat.

The entries on MFP aren’t always reliable and there is a chance you’re eating more than you think - it’s happened to pretty much all of us, particularly when we were new to logging.

Can you come back, give us your weight, height etc, and how long you’ve been trying with the changed diet and exercise? We can then offer some productive advice (based purely on what’s worked for each of us in our journeys).

Just because it feels harder to you does not mean you are burning more calories. that's just perceived effort.

Politely disagree. When I was much larger, I got far more calorie burn for the same workouts I do now while smaller.

I started swimming laps about ten months ago. As I got better at it and more efficient with my strokes, my calories burn for an hour session dropped 20-25%, even while I maintained the same weight.

YMMV, but I’d venture to say there’s more to it than perceived effort.

If you're using some sort of fitness tracker, all it's doing is measuring your heart rate. The calories-burned are derived from that, but like the poodle said - a lot of exercise tracking is about perception. You aren't actually burning 25% fewer calories at the same rate, your heart rate has simply gone down with your fitness level. It still takes approximately the same effort to move a given body weight through water.

It doesn't account for your fitness or efficiency unless it is also tracking your O2 consumption (which would be in the settings, and would have to be measured in a lab)...so your numbers are not telling the whole story.

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Heart rate is not a good gauge of calorie burn otherwise you could drink a gallon of coffee and sit in a chair and lose weight. While heart rate CAN be helpful to some degree in SS cardio, its oxygen usage that will better determine the rate of calories being burned.

Swimming wise you burn more calories when you suck at swimming. The less efficient you are the more that the body has to compensate by burning more calories to propel you forward. The trade off is a more efficient swimmer can swim farther in the same timeframe.

I was trying to not answer the original response to my comment but I am going to bite!

Basically, this.

I know (because of years of tracking calories and weight gain / loss) what different exercises do for my calorie burn. I am also a qualified martial arts coach, have English gold medals for competing in that sport, and I now compete in weightlifting as an old fart. So I know MY body.

I am an inefficient runner. I hate it, I have poor technique and I get bored. My calorie burn for running 7 miles is a LOT more than my husband (who is heavier but sooo much more efficient). Oh I also trained and did a 10k just to prove to myself that I could. I suck at running and I burn c600 calories an hour doing it because I’m so inefficient. Husband - c25kg heavier than me - only burns about 350-400 an hour (based on tonnes of trial and calorie tracking).

What I’m saying is that MY evidence for MY body is that running 7 miles would burn a decent amount of calories. For the reasons @tomcustombuilder says.

Oh and maybe, just maybe, the first part of my post was an attempt at empathy to help someone who sounded despairing.

claireychn074 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Heart rate is not a good gauge of calorie burn otherwise you could drink a gallon of coffee and sit in a chair and lose weight. While heart rate CAN be helpful to some degree in SS cardio, its oxygen usage that will better determine the rate of calories being burned.

Swimming wise you burn more calories when you suck at swimming. The less efficient you are the more that the body has to compensate by burning more calories to propel you forward. The trade off is a more efficient swimmer can swim farther in the same timeframe.

I was trying to not answer the original response to my comment but I am going to bite!

Basically, this.

I know (because of years of tracking calories and weight gain / loss) what different exercises do for my calorie burn. I am also a qualified martial arts coach, have English gold medals for competing in that sport, and I now compete in weightlifting as an old fart. So I know MY body.

I am an inefficient runner. I hate it, I have poor technique and I get bored. My calorie burn for running 7 miles is a LOT more than my husband (who is heavier but sooo much more efficient). Oh I also trained and did a 10k just to prove to myself that I could. I suck at running and I burn c600 calories an hour doing it because I’m so inefficient. Husband - c25kg heavier than me - only burns about 350-400 an hour (based on tonnes of trial and calorie tracking).

What I’m saying is that MY evidence for MY body is that running 7 miles would burn a decent amount of calories. For the reasons @tomcustombuilder says.

Oh and maybe, just maybe, the first part of my post was an attempt at empathy to help someone who sounded despairing.

Just to be contrary, lol. What do you think about being less efficient increases calorie burn. Could it be that your husbands heart rate raises slower and tops out at a lower rate for the same run?
However, because I dont know much TBH.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326002

OP, @bercela, before I get into tangential wrangling on details, I'd say this:

If we're talking a short time span (less than 4-6 weeks, less than one full menstrual cycle if you have those), and the running is new, then water weight gain (for muscle repair) is a potential explanation, partially or maybe even fully. If you're still in a shorter time span, hang in there, see what happens over a longer time period.

If it's been longer, it's more likely to be something about the calorie counting. That's not a diss: It can be a surprisingly subtle skill. But it can also work, IME. There are other possibilities, but that's a key one. If you were to open up your MFP food diary to other MFP-ers, some of the old hands could take a look and see if anything jumps out. (That's an offer, not a demand.)

I hear your frustration, and I empathize, truly. But you haven't given us much context (age, current weight/height, daily life activity level, how long you've been at this, etc.). It's hard to give you sensible advice - if that's what you want - without more information.

I'd truly like to help, and I think most others here in the Community have that intention, too . . . but there's just not enough information to go on.

.

trixsterjl31 wrote: »

claireychn074 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Heart rate is not a good gauge of calorie burn otherwise you could drink a gallon of coffee and sit in a chair and lose weight. While heart rate CAN be helpful to some degree in SS cardio, its oxygen usage that will better determine the rate of calories being burned.

Swimming wise you burn more calories when you suck at swimming. The less efficient you are the more that the body has to compensate by burning more calories to propel you forward. The trade off is a more efficient swimmer can swim farther in the same timeframe.

I was trying to not answer the original response to my comment but I am going to bite!

Basically, this.

I know (because of years of tracking calories and weight gain / loss) what different exercises do for my calorie burn. I am also a qualified martial arts coach, have English gold medals for competing in that sport, and I now compete in weightlifting as an old fart. So I know MY body.

I am an inefficient runner. I hate it, I have poor technique and I get bored. My calorie burn for running 7 miles is a LOT more than my husband (who is heavier but sooo much more efficient). Oh I also trained and did a 10k just to prove to myself that I could. I suck at running and I burn c600 calories an hour doing it because I’m so inefficient. Husband - c25kg heavier than me - only burns about 350-400 an hour (based on tonnes of trial and calorie tracking).

What I’m saying is that MY evidence for MY body is that running 7 miles would burn a decent amount of calories. For the reasons @tomcustombuilder says.

Oh and maybe, just maybe, the first part of my post was an attempt at empathy to help someone who sounded despairing.

Just to be contrary, lol. What do you think about being less efficient increases calorie burn. Could it be that your husbands heart rate raises slower and tops out at a lower rate for the same run?
However, because I dont know much TBH.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326002

I don't really know why we're quibbling about the 7 miles. I'm in both the "any exercise is better than no exercise" and "we need to account for exercise calories somehow" camps. As long as OP isn't wildly over-estimating the running calories and eating them back, that's unlikely to be a significant factor in the reported problem. (Yes, many people do assume exercise is a more important factor than it tends to be in practice.)

There is something in this "being inefficient burns more calories" idea IMO, but it's pretty situation specific, and I think sometimes oversold.

Some activities have a narrow range of efficiencies when comparing skilled (efficient) people to beginners (inefficient). Others can vary more widely in efficiency based on skill. Some methods of estimating calories handle efficiency variability better than others.

Think about it this way: Let's say we compare person X running 1km with person Y running the exact same distance at the exact same pace. Person X is efficient. Every move they make moves them forward along the course. Person Y is inefficient. They flop their arms around in unhelpful ways, they move their body weight around in planes that don't contribute to forward motion, and that sort of thing. Person Y is likely to burn more calories doing what looks like the same amount of exercise. Lots more calories? Dunno. Hard to say. There have been studies of running efficiency, but it's still complicated.

The problem is that we don't have a way to directly measure calories burned during exercise, outside of a sports lab anyway.

Most of the time, we're estimating calories for running based on something like:

1. Speed, distance and bodyweight; or pace, duration and bodyweight. That misses the efficiency dimension. It just considers the inherent required work, essentially assuming some efficiency factor. (Whether it's assuming full efficiency or average efficiency depends on the research underpinning the estimating method, pretty much.)

2. A fitness tracker that may include heart rate in the calculation (instead of or in addition to the things in #1). Most of the time, people don't know their true HRmax, and the age estimates the trackers use are wrong for a fair percentage of people, possibly meaningfully wrong. If two otherwise identical people (call them A and run that same 1km course, but are exactly the same efficiency at running, but A trains running more (lots more volume/frequency) than B, then A will tend to have a lower heart rate during the run than B has. If a fitness tracker uses heart rate in the calorie estimate, then it will say B burned more calories than A, but they didn't. A's heart just pumped more blood and oxygen per beat than B's, and it's oxygen consumption that correlates better with calorie burn. Heart rate is just a poor proxy, but more easily measured under routine life conditions.

There are various ways to estimate calories for various activities, but pretty much none of them are going to be accurate . . . outside of things they can only do in a sports lab (such as actually measuring oxygen consumption during exercise). Power metering on a bicycle is pretty good IMU, but that's based on there being a pretty narrow range of efficiencies between skilled and unskilled cyclists.

I'm most knowledgeable about rowing. I've watched people at the gym on rowing machines. I'd absolutely guarantee that quite a few of them are burning more calories than the machine's power metering estimates. Rowing has a fairly wide variability in efficiencies between skilled and unskilled people. (Ironically, most of those people set the monitor to show "calories burned" as their main performance metric .) A fitness tracker's estimate would have the same problem as for running: They don't account very well for training effects, or variability of HRmax.)

It's complicated. I'd say very few of us know how many calories we burn during exercise. Fortunately, all we need is a workable estimate, and a practice that adjusts calorie intake based on our own experience.

Personally, I like to compare different methods of estimating the same exercise . . . not just different calculators, but literally different methods (METS vs. heart rate vs. metered power, for example), when possible. Sometimes we can assume (based on research evidence) that a particular method is better for a particular activity (like power meter for cycling). Sometimes there's reason to believe a particular method is sub-par for a particular activity (like heart rate for strength training). Otherwise, our best shot at a reasonable estimate is probably going to work out OK.

It's fun to talk about this stuff, but IMO the best we've got is workable estimates, not "accurate" estimates.

trixsterjl31 wrote: »

People talking about the 7 miles. You pretty much burn the same calories weather you walk, job, run or sprint the miles assuming they are not all at once. You just burn them faster sprinting.

Most likely factors:
1. Water/ Waste that is building up. Once you expelled your weight adjusts down quickly.
2. Scale issue. all condtions match. best is right after sleeping and going to restroom.
3. Mistake in the food log. check your foods if you want to be sure spend a week weighing and making your own food for accuracy.
4. Medical issue. Your thyroid can cause you to gain or lose weight by releasing or not releasing hormones.

if all else fails go to a doctor. The human body knows what it is doing if you create a deficit you will lose weight if your body isn't malfunctioning.

To the bolded, a quibble about an otherwise good post: No, I don't think so. Without getting further into the weeds, one reason walking burns fewer calories over the same distance is that generally one foot is on the ground at all times whereas running routinely has both feet sometimes off the ground at the same time. There's more to it than that, but that's one relevant factor: More defying of gravity, basically.