After 3 weeks, I am at my original starting weight?

[Katydid77]

I weighed this morning, and I am back up to 160lbs, which is my original starting weight. (After two weeks I was at 158.5). So I feel like I need to review what I am doing.

Here is what I am doing currently:

*lifting weights 3x a week on Stage 1 of NROL4W
*eat 1600-1700 cals on non workout days and 1800 cals on workout days (according to the book, targeted deficit calories should be 1750 and 1900 respectively)
*work about 40 hours a week as a restaurant server (so active job)
*aim for 2 days of 45+min cardio (sometimes I only do one day)


Notes:

*while I don't have a food scale to weigh my food I am REALLY careful that I don't underestimate my calories. For example on the 6 inch sub from subway, if the calorie chart says 350 calories, I figure 400
*also, a lot of my calories are in liquid form. I drink a lot of milk, protein shakes, etc. So those calories are liquid volume and shouldn't require a food scale (right?)
*I typically figure in 100 "misc" calories at the end of the day, just to sorta compensate for the little extras I might not realize
*Two days last week, I let my calories go way too far down (to about 1100) and I had NO energy. I felt totally depleted.

Questions:

*Should I reduce my calories to 1500 (non workout) and 1700 (workout)?
*Should I reduce my lifting from 3x a week, to 2x a week?
*I can't have built that much muscle in three weeks, could I?
*With my activity level and such, it seems like I should be hovering in a deficit of about 700 calories per day, at least?
*Am I wrong in thinking that within 3 weeks I should see some signs of movement on the scale? I am trying not to set unrealistic expectations, but this is nearly a month now, and I feel like you are going to lose weight with a plan, the weight loss would be even faster to start with?

Other notes:

*My face and neck actually does feel a bit thinner. Not dramatically, but I can tell a difference.
*I am keeping my protein well about 100grams a day (usually around 130ish) and trying to hit the basics like fiber, etc.
*I haven't been keeping carbs to a specific level, so I don't have exact numbers on that, but with focusing on protein (esp milk, etc) my carb intake has went down dramatically.
*I have been drinking water but not in the quantities that I see on here in certain logs. I probably drink about 2-3 bottles a day (higher on workout days cause I drink 2 while at the gym)


Please jump in and help me figure some of this out. If there is information that I am missing, just ask and I'll relate it. I don't expect miracles, but I would like to see SOMETHING.

Any input is appreciated. I am feeling a tad frustrated today

[Lyrica]

Two things stand out-not measuring your food and calories from liquids. I can drink a protein shake and eat a meal-I have to watch as the calories can really add up so I limit protein shakes. These can be be 2 diet breakers and a source of higher calories. I have researched quite a bit and the general concensus is the average woman won't seen any results until about the 8th week of a lifting program. Tom Venuto advises to weigh once a month at the same time during your cycle and the scale is not a good tool to focus on. Have you measured yourself?

[realcdn]

First, how many calories did you eat week 1 (total), week 2 (total), week 3 (total)?

I'm asking because you talk about eating about aiming for 1500, 1700 and also about over-estimating and then say you only ate 1100 a couple of days. I don't really get a feel for where you are on meeting your calorie goals. I admit that I'm never a fan of 'estimated' food counts, although I agree, you don't need to weigh milk and/or protein shakes.

Where are you in your menstrual cycle? I basically wouldn't change anything, freak out, etc. until you've gone through at least one. I sometimes think I'd be better off tracking last day of cycle to next last day of cycle. Some months I gain little to no water weight, other months a much as 2-3 pounds, which flush out afterwards.

Speaking of water weight - has it been hotter in the last week? You mention that you aren't drinking a lot of water (although I do realize that you'll be getting liquids in with milk and protein shakes). If the weather is hot and you're sweating a lot you may be retaining water as well.

[miss_jupiter76]

I'm heading into my 3 rd week I guess and I'm also kinda frustrated so you're not alone there. I'm thinking my bmr is slower or I went to much over my calories for the week. Still have to add things up to find out which one.

I feel your frustration! I wound up with about 950 calories yesterday, burned a couple hundred and got on the scale this morning...still 150. WTF.

[LaraT]

Originally Posted by miss_jupiter76

I'm heading into my 3 rd week I guess and I'm also kinda frustrated so you're not alone there. I'm thinking my bmr is slower or I went to much over my calories for the week. Still have to add things up to find out which one.

I feel your frustration! I wound up with about 950 calories yesterday, burned a couple hundred and got on the scale this morning...still 150. WTF.

why did you only eat 950? Poor planning will really impact your results, no matter what program you are doing.

[miss_jupiter76]

no appetite. i was telling katydid77 b/c she responded on a thread i posted yesterday about the trying to get in the calories. i eat. i like food. planning i'm getting the hang of.

Originally Posted by LaraT

why did you only eat 950? Poor planning will really impact your results, no matter what program you are doing.

[missjane]

Weigh and measure people.......until you do, you don't know your intake for certain. There's a good video about that somewhere. I'm sure someone can find it and link it here.

Weigh and MEASURE. Get a scale and use it for everything. Do that for 2 weeks and then come back and tell us what's what.

[hazeldazel]

yeah, what she said. I went from "cup of this, tablespoon of that" to weighing in ounces and grams, and noticed a BIG difference in what the amounts were. BIG. The nice thing about using a scale - you don't have to wash measuring spoons! Tare the bowl or plate, put the food on, and voila! Also, don't freak out too much, it's only a pound and a half. Could be PMS water, could be it's hot water, could be water from achy muscles, could be you haven't BM'd yet today. Could be the scale's a little off. It's only a pound and a half. Try on some tight clothes and see if they're still tight. That'll make you feel better than any ole number on a scale.

[Snarlla]

Ditto what everyone else said, especially about getting a scale and measuring. Right now you really can't be sure that you aren't eating too much or eating too little. You say that you are overestimating calories to be on the safe side. You could actually be shortchanging yourself on calories and having too much of a deficit, or you might be eating more than you think. There's really no way of knowing for sure without having an accurate way of measuring.

This also stood out to me "*I typically figure in 100 "misc" calories at the end of the day, just to sorta compensate for the little extras I might not realize"

These little extras you might not realize... are they bites and tastes, or is this to make up for any things you might have accidentally underestimated during the day? Little bites here and there can add up as I'm sure you know, but I wasn't sure what you were talking about there.

[AnnetteW]

Also find a good place to track the calories, be it SparkPeople, fitday, or any of the other sites online, most all are free.

I agree with weighing everything. I honestly hope I don't have to do it forever, but I track and weigh as accurately as possible. The more accurate I am for most days, the more I can guestimate on meals out. No way you can even get close on a guess there.

Check out my food log in my signature. I track on Sparkpeople, and I even logged in my 12 g of scallions. Might be silly, but for each item I don't track, the numbers will add up.

[Katydid77]

Originally Posted by Lyrica

Two things stand out-not measuring your food and calories from liquids. I can drink a protein shake and eat a meal-I have to watch as the calories can really add up so I limit protein shakes. These can be be 2 diet breakers and a source of higher calories. I have researched quite a bit and the general concensus is the average woman won't seen any results until about the 8th week of a lifting program. Tom Venuto advises to weigh once a month at the same time during your cycle and the scale is not a good tool to focus on. Have you measured yourself?

I am getting a food scale in, so measuring I will do as soon as possible. As for drinking my meals, that is something I have always done. Drinking (esp milk) always satisfies me. I really don't eat when I drink milk and such, I am using it as a meal replacement. But I do certainly know that can be a problem

Weigh once a month during my cycle . . that sounds like a torture. LOL. But I do understand the concept, getting your body at the same 'time' each time. I am trying to only weigh once a week, so the once a month thing might be something I need to consider.

Originally Posted by realcdn

First, how many calories did you eat week 1 (total), week 2 (total), week 3 (total)?

I'm asking because you talk about eating about aiming for 1500, 1700 and also about over-estimating and then say you only ate 1100 a couple of days. I don't really get a feel for where you are on meeting your calorie goals. I admit that I'm never a fan of 'estimated' food counts, although I agree, you don't need to weigh milk and/or protein shakes.

Where are you in your menstrual cycle? I basically wouldn't change anything, freak out, etc. until you've gone through at least one. I sometimes think I'd be better off tracking last day of cycle to next last day of cycle. Some months I gain little to no water weight, other months a much as 2-3 pounds, which flush out afterwards.

Speaking of water weight - has it been hotter in the last week? You mention that you aren't drinking a lot of water (although I do realize that you'll be getting liquids in with milk and protein shakes). If the weather is hot and you're sweating a lot you may be retaining water as well.

MMM, I don't have weekly totals. I have been taking 'notes' of food throughout the day, but not in a log. Just making sure I don't go over. I know that in three weeks I have hit 1900 once and had one 'cheat meal' that was high in calories and I didn't log (though I only had 900 cals for the rest of the day)

You have a good point though. Starting today I have an assigned 'log' where all my food will be written down and every bite noted for what it is. Even the small stuff. I guess if it's too little to 'log' it should be too little to eat

Last week was my cycle, so that is why I was looking forward to today's weigh in, figured my body would have released some of the water weight (I feel like it did)

I could be retaining water, and I don't think I have been drinking enough for the sweating. It certainly wouldn't hurt to up the amount a bit.

Originally Posted by missjane

Weigh and measure people.......until you do, you don't know your intake for certain. There's a good video about that somewhere. I'm sure someone can find it and link it here.

Weigh and MEASURE. Get a scale and use it for everything. Do that for 2 weeks and then come back and tell us what's what.

I am getting a food scale very soon. I am a bridesmaid in my brother's wedding and my future sis-in-law asked me what I wanted as my bridesmaid gift and I picked out a food scale.

Honestly I would have bought one by now, but I am simply too broke to go out and spend the money on it.

Hopefully I will get it in the next few days.

[Katydid77]

Originally Posted by Snarlla

This also stood out to me "*I typically figure in 100 "misc" calories at the end of the day, just to sorta compensate for the little extras I might not realize"

These little extras you might not realize... are they bites and tastes, or is this to make up for any things you might have accidentally underestimated during the day? Little bites here and there can add up as I'm sure you know, but I wasn't sure what you were talking about there.

Actually it was just in case I was underestimating my food. I have been almost militant about not eating any 'extras', unless they were logged.

I haven't put a bite in my mouth that I didn't figure the calories on. (though when the scale gets here we shall see the accuracy of that)

[miss_jupiter76]

Originally Posted by AnnetteW

Check out my food log in my signature. I track on Sparkpeople, and I even logged in my 12 g of scallions. Might be silly, but for each item I don't track, the numbers will add up.

I tracked my 14 g of onions too! Although since I was using a spoon and converting it probably don't way 14 g but oh well...

[miss_jupiter76]

Originally Posted by Katydid77

Starting today I have an assigned 'log' where all my food will be written down and every bite noted for what it is. Even the small stuff. I guess if it's too little to 'log' it should be too little to eat

Once you start logging on sparkpeople or something it should probably get more accurate but for me in the beginning at least because I have alot food to gog in, its gotten to the point that if I can't figure out the calories in a serving real easy, I don't eat it (unless its a day like yesterday or today where it'd be real hard for a cookie or a piece of bread is going to add on those 500-1000 calories I'm short). And I didn't eat a cookie so no one needs to address that Anyway, once you get on a software, you may also realize its not worth it and then "work for it" by putting it in the computer :p

do you keep a complete list of the "extras" and guestimate each one seperately? .

[PowerManDL]

I could make a funny point about Atwater factors and reporting on calorie labels as related to the general inaccuracy of counting calories, but I'll be nice

Above and beyond the calorie intake, which is potentially contributing, you may just find that you have to toy around with things. Anecdotally, many women seem to respond better to more low-intensity activity vs. heavier strength training when it comes to weight loss.

Also: how do you look vs. three weeks ago, irrespective of weight changes?

[AnnetteW]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

I could make a funny point about Atwater factors and reporting on calorie labels as related to the general inaccuracy of counting calories, but I'll be nice

Above and beyond the calorie intake, which is potentially contributing, you may just find that you have to toy around with things. Anecdotally, many women seem to respond better to more low-intensity activity vs. heavier strength training when it comes to weight loss.

Also: how do you look vs. three weeks ago, irrespective of weight changes?

I need to look up Atwater factors as I don't know what that is, but I do know calorie counting has lots of inaccuracies. I do eat very few foods with labels, and when I do, I try to compare it to other foods, i.e. my sourdough bread from costco, is their calorie count similar to other sourdough breads.

I think it's on Calorieking where they have "averages for all kinds."

For some foods I have had to do comparisons on many different databases. I love trout, but to weigh it raw isn't logical as I cook the whole trout. The numbers where so different, but I finally went with a number that was actually on the higher side than some posted.

Now I do try to stick with foods that are easier to count. I cook up a big batch of 99% lean ground turkey breast, or 97% lean ground beef. I freeze the crumbled pieces and can weigh them out as needed.

When I weigh in grams I'm more likely to take a quantity that I feel I want to eat, as opposed to taking exactly 4 oz.

Until just a week ago I would count my eggs and egg whites just as Sparkpeople had them, but then I decided to double check. Lo and behold my extra large eggs weighed exactly what they said, but egg whites vary. I've weighed out my egg whites a few times now and 4 e.l. egg whites are right around 150 grams.

It might seem nit picky but it works.

It's also important to remember that a woman who is on a 1300-1800 calorie diet has a lot less room to err than a man eating 2500+.

We can't be wrong by 100 calorie, at least not regularly. Staying out of restaurants is a good way to get off track as there is no way to accurately count.

[misstenacity]

Originally Posted by AnnetteW

It's also important to remember that a woman who is on a 1300-1800 calorie diet has a lot less room to err than a man eating 2500+.

Yeah, what she said. There's the man vs. woman thing, but also the lighter vs. heavier thing, even in the same gender.

I had a bout of envy watching Julia Child stuff her face for years in France this weekend, but in reality? She was 6'2" and nearly 180lbs - which means even on a "level" playing field she can eat 50% more than I can just based on body weight alone.

And she *did* have to diet on a few occasions when things had been going overboard for too long, so its not all foie gras and baguettes all the time.

I agree on the scale, and am eager to hear if it matches your own estimations. I'm thinking that for self-prepared food you are spot on, but there is some loophole that's biting you - restaurants, poorly-labeled product, something like that.

[NACHO]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Also: how do you look vs. three weeks ago, irrespective of weight changes?

I was wondering the same thing.

Also, how do you feel?

[Katydid77]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

I could make a funny point about Atwater factors and reporting on calorie labels as related to the general inaccuracy of counting calories, but I'll be nice

Above and beyond the calorie intake, which is potentially contributing, you may just find that you have to toy around with things. Anecdotally, many women seem to respond better to more low-intensity activity vs. heavier strength training when it comes to weight loss.

Also: how do you look vs. three weeks ago, irrespective of weight changes?

Atwater humor would make you an official a fitness/weight loss nerd. Which I have long suspected

Toying with things is very much on the docket for the near future. Hopefully I am getting my scale in soon, and plan on being quite religious with it's use until I get this all figured out.

The low-intensity vs heavier strength training being better is actually what I am fearful of. I much prefer strength training, cardio is so boring I WANT to lift weights! LOL

Anyway, I know that losing weight has to be the priority at this point, because I have to get around 40lbs off. I would like to handle it with simply diet, but if it ultimately takes my sacrificing weights for a while, the that is ultimately what I will have to do.


** What worries me ** Is that since I was anorexic/bulimic I have never lost weight normally again. It seems like I have to starve myself down to nothing before the pounds start coming off. I don't know that there is a connection, or if it's just getting older (I was early 20's then, and I"m early 30's now).

I have also wondered if perhaps my body doesn't burn calories at as high a rate as is 'normal'. Though I have an active job, and do workout, I am not a naturally 'jittery' person, I live in a second story apartment, and my time spent at home is probably more sedate than the average person's. Perhaps 1600 calories is simply too much I know my resting temperature is around 97.8 or so, and I've heard that is an indication of metabolism function.

[scribess]

Okay, since you were anorexic/bulimic, did you ever get your calories up to maintenance level (based off of the Harris Benedict or some other equation, not what you "think" maintenance is)? If so, how long did you stay there?

Head over to Leigh Peele's sites, avidityfitness.net and leighpeele.com and read, read, read. Listen to her podcasts. Buy her Fat Loss Troubleshoot if/when you have the cash so you have the basics all in one place. It is rare for people to have a "broken metabolism." If you never got up to maintenance level calories, then your metabolism likely slowed down, but it's not irreparable. But you would have to eat before you go into fat loss mode.

ETA: If that 97.8 is an oral waking temp, that is definitely within the realm of normal. Mine is often at 97.2 or 97.3 when I first wake up.

[miss_jupiter76]

Originally Posted by Katydid77

The low-intensity vs heavier strength training being better is actually what I am fearful of. I much prefer strength training, cardio is so boring I WANT to lift weights! LOL.

Me too! Unless there's something good on television in which case I'd want to be on the elliptical for the better part of an hour. But strength straining itself does burn calories too...it says somewhere in the book and it just makes sense.

Originally Posted by Katydid77

** What worries me ** Is that since I was anorexic/bulimic I have never lost weight normally again. It seems like I have to starve myself down to nothing before the pounds start coming off. I don't know that there is a connection, or if it's just getting older (I was early 20's then, and I"m early 30's now).

I have also wondered if perhaps my body doesn't burn calories at as high a rate as is 'normal'. Though I have an active job, and do workout, I am not a naturally 'jittery' person, I live in a second story apartment, and my time spent at home is probably more sedate than the average person's. Perhaps 1600 calories is simply too much I know my resting temperature is around 97.8 or so, and I've heard that is an indication of metabolism function.

Someone will probably come along and tell you that Leigh Peele has encouraging news about this, that your metabolism isn't permanently damaged. She covers it in the MRM I think. I don't have the book yet but I really need to get it!

Also, I *am* a normally jittery person, especially as of late. Let me tell you, its not speeding things up over here either! I've been wondering the same thing as well, if my rmr is just lower than the estimated. i have a suspicion that its off about 200-300 calories. Wonder how to get it more accurately checked.

Although I didn't/don't have an ED, for other reasons related stress I stopped eating more than one meal for a few months (this was a few years ago)...after that it was whenever I was hungry which was basically never. I did not lose gobs of weight and that wasn't the intention but I was surprised in retrospect that I didn't lose more especially that I was on stims too, so I think some people may just hit starvation mood *sooner* than others. For me, whether exercise/diet or diet alone, I can't get below 118 since I was like 17...maybe, its just a thought.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by AnnetteW

It's also important to remember that a woman who is on a 1300-1800 calorie diet has a lot less room to err than a man eating 2500+.

We can't be wrong by 100 calorie, at least not regularly. Staying out of restaurants is a good way to get off track as there is no way to accurately count.

The problem with this mindset is that there's no conceivable way for you to actually measure to within 100 kcals, even if you meticulously weigh everything that goes into your mouth.

The margin of error is more like 200-300 kcals. The best you can do by weighing is be consistent across days - which fortunately is enough.

You're never actually going to get an accurate intake value, which is why so many people end up having to use trial and error.

Worrying about 100 kcal, though...yeah, that's in no way practical. There's no conceivable way to measure that outside a calorimeter (and even then there's potential confounds).

[Gen]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Worrying about 100 kcal, though...yeah, that's in no way practical. There's no conceivable way to measure that outside a calorimeter (and even then there's potential confounds).

Yeah, because now you've burned up your food and you can't eat it!

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Katydid77

The low-intensity vs heavier strength training being better is actually what I am fearful of. I much prefer strength training, cardio is so boring I WANT to lift weights! LOL

Oh I'm not suggesting you stop lifting by any stretch.

What you might have to do however is adjust the ratio of weight sessions and cardio sessions depending on how you respond to a calorie deficit and how much of a deficit you end up having to create.

I do think it's a mistake for a lot of people to jump full-bore into a 3-4 day strength workout. You might need as little as two or even one weekly session depending on how much you're eating and how much other activity you're doing.

Like it or not, cardio burns up calories which can be helpful if you can't or don't want to take your dietary calories too low. "Metabolic workouts" try to gloss this up, but they're still calorie-burning workouts.

** What worries me ** Is that since I was anorexic/bulimic I have never lost weight normally again. It seems like I have to starve myself down to nothing before the pounds start coming off. I don't know that there is a connection, or if it's just getting older (I was early 20's then, and I"m early 30's now).

This is perhaps the #1 mistake you can make, judging your body now on how you looked as a teenager or young adult.

People grow well into their 20s. It's just not a realistic mindset to assume you can look like you did at 19.

I have also wondered if perhaps my body doesn't burn calories at as high a rate as is 'normal'. Though I have an active job, and do workout, I am not a naturally 'jittery' person, I live in a second story apartment, and my time spent at home is probably more sedate than the average person's. Perhaps 1600 calories is simply too much I know my resting temperature is around 97.8 or so, and I've heard that is an indication of metabolism function.

Unless you've got a real thyroid pathology, there's no reason that being anorexic previously would affect your rate of weight loss. But that's not something to be e-diagnosed.

[AnnetteW]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

The problem with this mindset is that there's no conceivable way for you to actually measure to within 100 kcals, even if you meticulously weigh everything that goes into your mouth.

The margin of error is more like 200-300 kcals. The best you can do by weighing is be consistent across days - which fortunately is enough.

You're never actually going to get an accurate intake value, which is why so many people end up having to use trial and error.

Worrying about 100 kcal, though...yeah, that's in no way practical. There's no conceivable way to measure that outside a calorimeter (and even then there's potential confounds).

I understand there is error, but if I am weighing as meticulously as possible, and doing my best to use proper databases (yes, I find a lot of discrepancies) why do you think I might still be off by 200-300 calories?

I totally accept the fact that I can't measure if I eat out...I don't even factor that into the above question.

Also, I did look up that Atwater stuff, and it is interesting, but let's say I'm not even going there as I don't feel it's necessary at this time.

My question basically is, where would my tracking be off, or do you just mean tracking numbers would be off because it's just not possible to know the exact numbers in foods?

That I can also accept. I eat 4 oz of trout #1, tomorrow I eat from trout #2, each trout has slightly different amounts of macros.

Is that all you're saying? If that's your point, I can agree and know I can only do my best.

Basically that's all I am trying to do, my best.

But if I'm totally missing something else, I'd love to know.

Thanks.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by AnnetteW

I understand there is error, but if I am weighing as meticulously as possible, and doing my best to use proper databases (yes, I find a lot of discrepancies) why do you think I might still be off by 200-300 calories?

Because the databases themselves are inherently inaccurate. The best one out there is the USDA database, and even that an average of testing they've done over time.

There's no such thing as genuinely accurate calorie measures for a food product. The best guesses will still only put you within 200-300 kcal over the course of the average daily intake.

It's not just a limitation of your measurements, it's a limitation of the assumptions you're calculating with from the outset.

My question basically is, where would my tracking be off, or do you just mean tracking numbers would be off because it's just not possible to know the exact numbers in foods?

That I can also accept. I eat 4 oz of trout #1, tomorrow I eat from trout #2, each trout has slightly different amounts of macros.

Is that all you're saying? If that's your point, I can agree and know I can only do my best.

Basically that's all I am trying to do, my best.

But if I'm totally missing something else, I'd love to know.

Thanks.

Weighing out food to be consistent is not just fine, but a good idea and for all the reasons generally pointed out.

My point is that realistically your estimate is going to vary from the real calorie value by a relatively significant margin, and obsessing over small details is kinda pointless with that in mind.

[Snarlla]

My question basically is, where would my tracking be off, or do you just mean tracking numbers would be off because it's just not possible to know the exact numbers in foods?

I can't speak for Matt, but I'm assuming this is what he meant.

I know that in the lab, as an example, there are limits to how accurately you can measure something (your scale only goes to 4 decimal places, your pipette only measures the the nearest 10th of a ml, etc...). Because of that, there are errors inherent in just how accurate you can be. Add to that, errors inherent in how the chemical manufacturers measured the purity of the reagents you are measuring, and errors introduced by just how consisntantly you (the user) can operate the measuring equipment that you use, etc... All of that stuff, together with other uncontrollable errors will introduce an uncertainty to whatever you are measuring.

So, if you were to do something as exactly the same as you possibly could 10x in a row, the variability in the results would be considered the 'error of the measurement'. That error has a value, which you can find by doing statistical analysis on the results, say 200-300 in Matt's example of calorie measurements. It's not really possible to measure differences less than the error that's inherent in the measurements, if that makes sense. So, in the case above, 100 calories would be smaller than the errors introduced by the measurements. Differences of 100 calories are not really measurable if the error in the measurements is greater than that.

So, I don't think anyone is saying that you CAN'T measure things well. There's just a lot of variables in this whole calorie thing, only one of which is you and the type of scale you are using (IOW- a lot of the variablility is not something you have any control over at all).

[Etana]

I think the percentage of error from scale measurement of 1 ingredient foods and foods with nutritional labels, AS Compared TO, percentage of error from restaurant or cafeteria guestimates is really the issue.

200-300 cal off sounds a lot, and I'll bet that's on a 2000 cal day, not on a 1200 cal day anyway, and then your exercise/activity burn is an estimate and your water retention and muscle gain is an estimate

But tonight at my investment club, someone brought in a Chipotle burrito bol. I had about 1/8 of it along with other snacks (carrots, hummus, crackers with nutritional label).

so I couldn't weigh the 5 baby carrots, and I estimated the hummus and counted the crackers and wrote the nutritional info to enter into fitday. So good room for error.

But I would never have thought the Burrito bowl was 694 cal and 21g fat and 77g carb. I probably would have thought 500, it seemed so healthy, had such a little bit of rice and beans, seemed like 1/2c rice, 1/4 c beans, 1/2 c chicken but probably 1/4 cup chicken. The woman who presented Chipotle as a stock to purchase in the club was raving about how healthy the ingredients are, organically fed cows and chickens, organic beans, cooked not microwaved, etc etc. Yet that burrito bowl had a whopping 1609 mg sodium.

So I think it has to be kept in perspective, nit picking over weighing food.

[Snarlla]

---

I think the percentage of error from scale measurement of 1 ingredient foods and foods with nutritional labels, AS Compared TO, percentage of error from restaurant or cafeteria guestimates is really the issue.

200-300 cal off sounds a lot, and I'll bet that's on a 2000 cal day, not on a 1200 cal day anyway, and then your exercise/activity burn is an estimate and your water retention and muscle gain is an estimate

Hmm, I don't know about that. From here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...cate-blog.html

The FDA allows a 20% margin of error in nutrition facts on food labels, and most of the discrepancies fall into this margin.

And from here http://www.ehow.com/about_5042677_in...-calories.html:

Nutrition labels can be deceiving. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for a 20 percent margin of error when documenting nutritional information on food labels. This can result in inaccurate calorie-counting since food labels are the only resources available to the average person. Scientists use a calorimeter and percentage calculations to determine caloric value, but even this has been shown to produce a similar margin of error.

[PowerManDL]

20% error on 1200 kcal = +/- 240 kcal

Which is almost in the middle of the range I gave