biologic

i agree with ATLMel it is better to underestimate the amount of calories you are burning. overestimation will just cause you to lose confidence in your routine (when you don't lose as much weight as MFP is suggesting you'll lose).

i need friends as well. i had a bunch but then i didn't log in for like a year and lost most of them (i think a lot of them quit also). feel free to add me.

good luck. you could try to plan out your meals a week in advance and write down what you will eat when, and then try to stick with it. goals are easier to adhere to when they are written down. it is a psychological thing that exists within humans that they tend to stick better to **** they write down.

i'm also looking for more friends

i consumed the babies of too many of my enemies

well, the first two weeks you were over your calories and last week you were under. give it a few more weeks of being under and see if you lose then.

broken leg sucks. don't do anything on it until it is completely healed. so doing anything on your feet will be either dangerous or impossible. you could try getting a speed bag and setting it up so you are sitting while working on it (it is a type of punching bag). you could try doing pushups and still work your upper…

good luck you could start right now, no reason to put it off until tomorrow.

if the flavored water is just water with flavoring and not some other substance then yes, it is definitely water.

usually it means you aren't recording properly. you may be overestimating the calories you burn from exercise or underestimating the calories you consume in food and drinks, or both.

if you eat 2000 and burn 2500 you definitely lose weight.

turn diary on private

150 lbs lost is very impressive

if you feel like you are doing that just make your diary private

don't french people walk and bike everywhere? i imagine just adopting those french customs will help a lot in weight loss.

one of the best ways to get results is to write down your goals on a piece of paper, sign it, and show everyone you know that you have a contract with yourself to commit to changing bad habits.

i recently read the book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini. In the book there is a chapter about attractiveness. Studies which are cited in the book show that people are negatively biased in general against what they consider unattractive (overweight being one factor, height being another).…

yes, more people need to read this before using "starvation mode" in any of their replies.

i just started coming here like 4 days ago. the reason i brought this up is because "starvation mode" is overused and misunderstood. so i want people to come in here and state what they believe it to be and why (as in, they read scientific journals and can cite the reasons why they believe it, or they just heard it and are…

good luck

get support here but not advice. if you want advice on anything, seek it from medical professionals, certified nutritionists, exercise science graduates, etc.

my point is that people need to stop using "starvation mode" as the response to people who are overweight not losing weight for some small amount of time. it is also absurd to expect overweight people to go into starvation mode faster, given their body's stores of energy, than people who are of ideal weight.

frankly every time someone is using starvation mode as a reason why someone didn't lose any weight for a week it should be addressed. but there are too many threads where this is happening so i thought i would make a thread about it. besides, when people are giving advice on an internet forum what is wrong with asking…

go here and read about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment the point wasn't that people should starve themselves for weightloss. the point is that hardly anyone is in "starvation mode" while dieting. the subjects in the study were ideal weight when the experiment was started, and it took months…

yes, it takes months of severely restricted calories to go into starvation mode unless you are a special case in which it might only take weeks.

i'm sorry, has this been brought up before? because if it has been brought up, there shouldn't be so much misunderstanding as to what are the implications of starvation mode and what causes it as there is in the forums.

i ask because the main study, the minnesota starvation experiment, cut the subjects' calories to near starvation levels for 4 months and found that metabolism slowed some, but not much, in order to try to prevent tissue loss. but metabolism didn't slow that much. instead of losing 3 lbs a week, a subject would instead lose…

and how much can your metabolism slow overall? and how long would it take on average for your metabolism to hit its low?

serious question. i want all the people who are on these forums that throw around the term "starvation mode" to come in here and state what they believe it is and why they believe it.

and what type of decline in metabolic rate can you expect at "starvation mode's" peak? and how long does it take on average to hit this peak?