Suprised after using Myfitnesspal
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
More interestingly, how much for a lean 20 year old to become a podgy 50 year old? It's about three crisps a day. Not three bags of crisps - three crisps. Yet clearly you can stay thin your entire life without calorie counting. How?
If that's all he eats, he won't see his 21st.Staying lean all your life without calorie counting? Not too difficult: don't eat like a f
king hippo. Get used to the right size of portions for your food. I'm doing it these days. I do try to eat a little more because I train in something most days.I've tried using it but as I make my food I got fed up trying to work out how many calories were in 1/4 of a carrot, 3 slices of red pepper etc. etc. to calculcate my calories.
What intrigues me is that the app thinks I need about 2,200-2,300 calories a day, my (far too expensive) body fat analysing scales seem to think I need about 3,500!
What has opened my eyes recently to my dietary habits is regular weighings, as in several times a week (see above about the scales...). Plotting it out in Garmin Connect shows I peak on a Monday and lose 3-5 lbs during the week, most of which are back on again by Monday. Guess what I usually do at the weekend? A couple of beers, possibly a takeaway and a snack or two. Weight is still slowly heading down but just goes to show how that little 'treat' at the weekend can really scupper being well behaved in the rest of the week.
What intrigues me is that the app thinks I need about 2,200-2,300 calories a day, my (far too expensive) body fat analysing scales seem to think I need about 3,500!
What has opened my eyes recently to my dietary habits is regular weighings, as in several times a week (see above about the scales...). Plotting it out in Garmin Connect shows I peak on a Monday and lose 3-5 lbs during the week, most of which are back on again by Monday. Guess what I usually do at the weekend? A couple of beers, possibly a takeaway and a snack or two. Weight is still slowly heading down but just goes to show how that little 'treat' at the weekend can really scupper being well behaved in the rest of the week.
WinstonWolf said:
That mirrors my findings, I'm at my lightest on a Friday morning and my heaviest on a Sunday evening.
This lack of common sense does my head in!! 
I know I bang on about it, but the best and only time to weigh yourself, is first thing in the morning, AFTER a pee and a poo, and before consuming any breakfastery produce.
If you weighed yourself on the monday morning as per above I doubt there'd be little change compared with your Friday morning weight!
Digger said:
This lack of common sense does my head in!!
I know I bang on about it, but the best and only time to weigh yourself, is first thing in the morning, AFTER a pee and a poo, and before consuming any breakfastery produce.
If you weighed yourself on the monday morning as per above I doubt there'd be little change compared with your Friday morning weight!
My weigh ins are always in the morning after my morning ablutions and before breakfast so about as comparable as you can get. The results are hardly surprising when you consider that I generally eat more over the course of a weekend. Some of the weight gain may of course be extra material in my gut working its way through I suppose.I know I bang on about it, but the best and only time to weigh yourself, is first thing in the morning, AFTER a pee and a poo, and before consuming any breakfastery produce.
If you weighed yourself on the monday morning as per above I doubt there'd be little change compared with your Friday morning weight!
Digger said:
WinstonWolf said:
That mirrors my findings, I'm at my lightest on a Friday morning and my heaviest on a Sunday evening.
This lack of common sense does my head in!! I know I bang on about it, but the best and only time to weigh yourself, is first thing in the morning, AFTER a pee and a poo, and before consuming any breakfastery produce.
If you weighed yourself on the monday morning as per above I doubt there'd be little change compared with your Friday morning weight!
I still weigh myself at other times to see how much I lose in my sleep or gain on a night out etc but my official weight is Friday post pee and poo.
I was 3lb heavier this Monday morning than I was on Friday.
Didn't want to start a new thread, but have recently started using MFP and it's fun to see what your food is made up of (particularly my breakfast cereal and fruit concotion which seems to come in at 700 calories....)
But I've started logging exercise and it's bumping up my daily allowance. If it was originally calculated at 2000 calories per day, when I've logged a workout it says my allowance is now e.g. 2500 calories for that day, as it's added the calories burned to my food allowance while keeping the original calorie deficit. Surely this is counterproductive?
If I do 280 calories of exercise, and then eat a 280 calorie Mars bar, am I really in the same situation as if I had done neither of those things?
But I've started logging exercise and it's bumping up my daily allowance. If it was originally calculated at 2000 calories per day, when I've logged a workout it says my allowance is now e.g. 2500 calories for that day, as it's added the calories burned to my food allowance while keeping the original calorie deficit. Surely this is counterproductive?
If I do 280 calories of exercise, and then eat a 280 calorie Mars bar, am I really in the same situation as if I had done neither of those things?
Your daily allowance is based on what you put in settings as wanting to lose a week. So yea, if your target is 1500 calories a day to lose weight and then do 500calories exercise it will bump up your food allowance to 2000 calories so as not to deviate from your requested weight loss level.
I personally try to aim for the target calories and don't log exercises, it just ends up being a bonus deficit that way. If I'm really starving it's good to know i have the exercise allowance in reserve without going off target.
I personally try to aim for the target calories and don't log exercises, it just ends up being a bonus deficit that way. If I'm really starving it's good to know i have the exercise allowance in reserve without going off target.
Opara said:
Perhaps you're right, I'll keep a better eye on it.It still suprised me though just how much you can have for 2300 calories, makes you wonder how there are so many overweight people.Is a slow metabolism a myth?
2300 clean cals = hard2300 cals of crap like cakes is easy to do.
Twilkes said:
Didn't want to start a new thread, but have recently started using MFP and it's fun to see what your food is made up of (particularly my breakfast cereal and fruit concotion which seems to come in at 700 calories....)
But I've started logging exercise and it's bumping up my daily allowance. If it was originally calculated at 2000 calories per day, when I've logged a workout it says my allowance is now e.g. 2500 calories for that day, as it's added the calories burned to my food allowance while keeping the original calorie deficit. Surely this is counterproductive?
If I do 280 calories of exercise, and then eat a 280 calorie Mars bar, am I really in the same situation as if I had done neither of those things?
I never eat burned calories, I will sometimes over eat the day before (carb up) if I need to run faster, ie break a personal best or im intending doing something insane like run 25km. It depends if your exercising for weight loss or not.But I've started logging exercise and it's bumping up my daily allowance. If it was originally calculated at 2000 calories per day, when I've logged a workout it says my allowance is now e.g. 2500 calories for that day, as it's added the calories burned to my food allowance while keeping the original calorie deficit. Surely this is counterproductive?
If I do 280 calories of exercise, and then eat a 280 calorie Mars bar, am I really in the same situation as if I had done neither of those things?
You are in the same situation with regards calories yes BUT exercise has other benefit so if your the weight you want to be you could eat the calories.
ETA - Also I think but im not sure that if you exercise (lifting heavy things) then your body will use fat and not a mixture of fat/muscle to fill the deficit, as I say though im not sure.
Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 18th March 09:55
Foliage said:
ETA - Also I think but im not sure that if you exercise (lifting heavy things) then your body will use fat and not a mixture of fat/muscle to fill the deficit, as I say though im not sure.
That has certainly worked for me. Calorie deficit diet and weight training soon shifted the fat, faster than I imagined!Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 18th March 09:55
I think that one of the good things about resistance exercises (lifting weights) and dieting is that even when you're not training, your body is still burning more calories as the muscles repair themselves.
Fort Jefferson said:
Why, are you a hod carrying bricklayer?
This men = 2500 kCal per day is ok if you work for a living. If you sit on your arse in an office all day, it's nonsense.
That was what MYP recommended, but I think you're right.I eat around 2000 a day and tend to stay the same weight, that's with a fairly sedentary lifestyle. This men = 2500 kCal per day is ok if you work for a living. If you sit on your arse in an office all day, it's nonsense.
Terminator X said:
Imho you need to be 1000 cals under your daily allowance to lose weight be that by eating less or exercising more. 300 under won't do it
TX.
That's not very healthy and you will mostly likely end up starving and giving up quick, the best way is to do it slow and also f you are lifting weights and you are at a 1000 cal defecit, then you will not only burn you muscle but ruin your lifting. So 300 cal deficit is a good.TX.
On the subject of not being slimmer, imo with my fitnesspal you have to weigh your food and even condiments as they are full of sugars and empty calories plus you also answered your own question. You go in on a big surplus on the weekends which then has a knock on effect with the deficit you build up during the week.
You should look at the bigger picture and see how much cals you consume over the whole week and maybe consider having just one cheat day every two weeks.
I found it a great tool, pain to keep filling in, but the wife does it too so I can mostly copy her diary since I am lazy...
But its shocking how many calories you could consume just having a bowl of cereals for example, the recomended amount is usually 30g, thats tiny... I'd had twice as much and maybe more for years!
But its shocking how many calories you could consume just having a bowl of cereals for example, the recomended amount is usually 30g, thats tiny... I'd had twice as much and maybe more for years!
DervVW said:
bowl of cereals for example, the recomended amount is usually 30g, thats tiny... I'd had twice as much and maybe more for years!
I'm starting to think it's a marketing scam.For instance, there's a savoury snack you can buy that's 120g. It says something like "ONLY 95 CALORIES per 50g serving".
1) 50g from 120g is a bugger to measure without a scale.
2) You might as well hide the "per 50g serving" as it's always tiny.
Hoofy said:
I'm starting to think it's a marketing scam.
For instance, there's a savoury snack you can buy that's 120g. It says something like "ONLY 95 CALORIES per 50g serving".
1) 50g from 120g is a bugger to measure without a scale.
2) You might as well hide the "per 50g serving" as it's always tiny.
Its not hard to use a scale, im not sure its a marketing scam, food generally isn't sold in the ideal portion sizes.For instance, there's a savoury snack you can buy that's 120g. It says something like "ONLY 95 CALORIES per 50g serving".
1) 50g from 120g is a bugger to measure without a scale.
2) You might as well hide the "per 50g serving" as it's always tiny.
Supermarkets are the devil though and have a lot to answer for with regards to obesity.
Foliage said:
Hoofy said:
I'm starting to think it's a marketing scam.
For instance, there's a savoury snack you can buy that's 120g. It says something like "ONLY 95 CALORIES per 50g serving".
1) 50g from 120g is a bugger to measure without a scale.
2) You might as well hide the "per 50g serving" as it's always tiny.
Its not hard to use a scale, im not sure its a marketing scam, food generally isn't sold in the ideal portion sizes.For instance, there's a savoury snack you can buy that's 120g. It says something like "ONLY 95 CALORIES per 50g serving".
1) 50g from 120g is a bugger to measure without a scale.
2) You might as well hide the "per 50g serving" as it's always tiny.
30g of cereal is pointless, too. I'd rather it were bigger and they let people know how many calories it really has. It's all b
ks, really. They could be a lot more helpful but it would look like they've got lots of calories in their foods (well, they have).These days, I don't give a s
t any more. I eat what I want when I want. I have a vague idea of how much I'm eating. If I end up eating over my TDEE, my muscle mass will increase, if I'm under, I'll lose fat. I just make sure I train regularly.My maintenance calories are 3,200. I use mynetdiary pro.ive been consuming 1500 to 1800 a day for 14 weeks now, on a cut. My body is fighting me all the way. And my theory is I've knackered my metabolism due to the low cals. Started at 96 kg (5 ft 9") and def too heavy. 86 now, abs defined and vascular.
Long term I realise it's not sustainable.
Long term I realise it's not sustainable.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff