[UpDownAround]

160.8 this morning and without getting into TMI, after going to the bathroom a little later, that weight probably needs an asterisk next to it. Still staying pretty close to 160 for the last week or so.

[Tucson]

I have not posted yesterday’s menu with calories count. So here it is. I walked four and a half miles for 467 calories burned. I had a good cardio workout. My target was 2557 calories. I ate 2632 calories, so I went over by 75 calories. By the way, my weight is 175 for today. If I am starting to lose weight again, which is when I hit 174, then I will have to make some adjustments.

[UpDownAround]

@Tucson, did you see my post about my crazy exercise numbers yesterday? Not sure what your viewing preferences are set to, but this is a new page on mine (staring with my weigh in).

Got in some serious exercise today that is hard to track - SUP paddling. My watch says 8362, most of which is paddle strokes, not steps. And it was paddling hard on a river, not just tooling around a lake. But I counted it as recreational lake paddling for 90 minutes and 446 calories. It was really more like 2 hours and probably 800 calories or more; maybe. I am not sure sometimes about things that are strenuous and wear you out.

Consumed 2156 calories. Macros came out pretty good. Too much sodium though; the chicken sausages at dinner were tasty but lots of sodium.

EDIT - gave myself credit for the other half hour of paddling and ate a huge carrot and a tangerine. Bumped my consumed total up to 2278, probably the biggest single day since I started losing.

[Cocosurviving]

MFP calories 1,150 total. Apple Watch steps 3,474. Water intake 50.7 oz.

[Tucson]

I am now looking at your post on the crazy numbers. Unless I know specifics like the accuracy of the activity band, personally I go by 105 calories a mile, and about 2100 steps a mile. Let’s figure this out for your case.

Your weigh less than 180, so calories will be less. If one is 160 pounds walking 2.5 to 3.5 mph mph, gives you about 85 calories a mile. I am referencing the following article for this: https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-...-miles-3887154 If your watch is correct with the steps and mileage, your pace comes to 2.3 feet. This is what your activity band is using for stride length. I think this is in the realm of what is possible, but your pace will vary. I think both the mentioned stride and calories should get you in the ballpark. However, I do not know your real stride length. Is there a way of entering this info on your activity monitor as a custom stride length? This is what I did. With my earlier band without GPS, it came pretty close to measured distances. My stride length is a bit over 2.5 feet. If the band has no GPS, stride length becomes critical in order to track distance.

So let’s look at your numbers. 17774 steps with a pace of 2.3 feet, comes to 7.7 miles which is close to 7.84 miles. This basically confirms the stride length that appears to be used by your activity band. At 85 calories a mile, this would make for a total of 666 calories, not 819 calories.

On your MMW walk, I assume the 2.84 miles should be more accurate than your wrist monitor. Also I would NOT assume MMW gets the steps correct. However, taking your above figures of 2.84 miles and using stride length of 2.3 feet, steps would come to 6500 steps, not 7000 Still, this is only an error of less than 10%. A larger stride length than this would reduce the steps taken to actually below 6500 steps. So I think anything greater than 6500 is problematic. Now if we look at the distance of 6 miles, this would come up with 13,773 steps, not 11,000. A longer stride, let’s say 2.9 feet, would give you the 11000 figure you came up with. Perhaps this is the longer stride that you have mentioned? The calories spent for six miles would be 510 calories, not the 791 calories that you referred to in your post.

So which is more correct? Your monitor band or your MMW walk? First, I think you need to set a custom stride length in order for my numbers to be more helpful. I will probably have to recalculate some values mentioned above with this information which may bring values that were found off to be more inline. Second, the steps counted for your MMW walk does not appear to be correct, but you did use that additional service to get the mileage correct. Am I understanding this correctly? Also the calories totalled by your band is incorrect, being much greater than the value should be. No surprise to you. To sum this up, 2300 steps for each mile. 85 calories per mile. Your band is using 2.3 feet per stride. Stride length is key to these numbers being accurate.

I did this in a hurry wanting to go to bed on time. I am really really tired. So
I may have made some errors. This needs feedback.

[UpDownAround]

@Tucson - I found it interesting more than anything else. I am going to try MMW again shortly for a long but slower paced walk. It is convenient that it posts numbers that don't seem way too high over to mfp. I am really not sure we can ever hope to be "yoyo free". It seems like the best you can do is keep a tight window and react quickly to gaining or losing more than a pound or two.

I am really sore this morning; that's why my walk will be low speed. River running took a lot out of me. I went in a lot because I was trying to learn to surf waves. Paddling upstream to get to the surf spot and climbing back on after I fell off surfing were really strenuous activities.

[UpDownAround]

I used MMW again this morning. It says 5.0 miles in 80 minutes, 3.8 mph, 9771 steps for 571 calories. It does track elevation change, which was significant at 212'.

My watch got other activity as well; walking around the house and whatnot, but I am not sure that accounts for the difference. It says 10340 steps, 4.56 miles, 476 calories in 108 minutes.

mfp got the full 571 calories logged from MMW. I wonder if yesterday it adjusted because I had already logged some walking.

I am torn about whether to leave the automatic logging on or not. I could end up adjusting my base lower and then not eating enough when I don't exercise. OTOH, it could be accurate. I thought I was walking slower than 3.8, but I feel sure MMW gets that right. It was hilly, so I guess throwing 20 flights of stairs into the equation (or 10; I think that means 100' down and 100' up since I started and ended at the same place) makes the high number a little more believable.

Another weigh in tomorrow, so I will see if it budges any.

[Tucson]

I did not know about SUP. Interesting. Looks like a good way to burn calories, and it actually can be fun. Certainly energy is expended when you get yourself back on to the thing after falling off. Too bad it does not have a place to sit. This is what I would of liked to see. Still, one of these days I should try it.

I am happy that you found my post of interest. Note that the figure in the eighties for calories burned in a mile is very close to what you used before. So you were not being that conservative when you adjusted your calories burned back then from what your wrist monitor was showing you.

My weight is 176 right now. That one scale which as been off from the other two weighs me at 174. I think I will go with the other two scales which give me the 176 pounds. That one scale differs in the weight it displays depending on how you stand on it anyways. I am going for another two to four mile walk. I need to go earlier this time since temperature is reaching into the nineties here in sunny Tucson.

[UpDownAround]

Looks like we were posting at the same time again; mine ended up above yours.

[Travelinglady]

I can't do a lot of walking because of a bum knee (no ACL left), so I try to cut calories and eat healthier foods. Slow going as far as weight loss, but it's about a pound a week.

[UpDownAround]

Originally Posted by Travelinglady

I can't do a lot of walking because of a bum knee (no ACL left), so I try to cut calories and eat healthier foods. Slow going as far as weight loss, but it's about a pound a week.

A pound a week is good progress! Most of the weight loss happens at the table; exercising is only a small part of it for most people. Having said that, walking as much as I do does help by upping my calorie allowance.

[Tucson]

Here is yesterday’s post of my food diary totals. I did little exersize. I did walk 7,653 steps according to my fitness watch. However, a majority of these steps are meaningless.

Now the stats for today. I have walked 4.5 miles with 475 calories burned. I really had to push myself this time just to keep up a respectable speed of about 3.5 mph. My heart rate averaged 138 to 142, depending on which leg of my walk. My highest heart rate was 157 when I walked as fast as I could for a short period of time, with a speed peaking at about 4.5 mph. So despite my tiredness at the beginnng through to the end, I did have a good cardio workout. This makes for a calorie target for the day of about 2565 calories. I think I will go to Denny’s for their $2 pancake meal.

I tested out the accuracy of the step count separate from my walking exersizes. Most were do nothing steps, like walking around in my small townhouse. Certain types activity, like dish washing, can total up steps even though steps were not actually taken. My step counter seems to be fairly accurate when exersizing, like when walking. So this stop and go stuff, along with motions like washing the dishes, can provide false step counts. Over a period of day, this sometimes can amount to allot of steps. This last day was such a day. I imagine out of 7,653 steps, maybe at the very most 3,000 were actual steps. I did do some errands, and I kept walking around outside to figure out the (in)accuracies of my activity band. What is interesting is there are algorithms in place to handle stop and go activity. I have seen them in action. It works much of the time. So then what else is counting toward these do nothing steps, aside from washing dishes? I do not know yet.

[UpDownAround]

I went fishing, walked a mile doing it and took over an hour and MMW gave me about 220 calories for it even though it said average speed was "not moving". I caught about 10; not sure if I should log all those extra calories from reeling them in. Actually, I use artificial lures, so I am casting and reeling the whole time I am fishing. That's not intense exercise, but it isn't sitting around doing nothing either. I will take one more walk later.

[UpDownAround]

22834 steps, which the watch guesses is 10 miles and burned 1052 calories. The last walk I did, about 4 miles, was not tracked on MMW because I didn't want the additional calories. MMW had already given me 817 and today I ate them. I will probably see a bump up tomorrow morning and freak out, but I want to see where it stands.

2512 calories! That sounds like ridiculously too much. The shrimp amount may be wrong though. I entered it as a pound, but it was a purchased pound of peelers, so there was probably a couple of ounces of shells that I probably shouldn't have counted. I am not super concerned because the more I think about it, the more sure I am that I burned more calories paddling yesterday than I gave myself credit for. Still, the amount of food I ate today could make tomorrow morning's weigh in seem high. If I am over 350 calories today, that would be 1.6 ounces of actual gain and I doubt I am over 350.

[Tucson]

I have consumed 2579 calories which is meeting my target of 2565 calories. Used protein powder not only for the additional calories, but to boost my protein count. I had a hard time eating this many calories. On my exersize days, I need to better plan my menu for the day instead of making it up as I go. My total steps for the day is 11,562. 9,487 steps are due to my walking exersize. The remaining 2,000 calories are do nothing calories. How long has it been with me meeting targets set up by my watch app and MFP? Within a couple days, if I do not see a change in weight, where it does not move out of the range of 74 to 76, then this will be good news. I hope I am not jinxing myself by saying this.

I looked back at my history. I started out dropping to 174 pounds. This is when I decided to hit within 100 calories my target calories. There were a few days I had more than target. I then started to weigh more than this weight at 176 pounds. From the 25th, I have been consistently hitting my target calories. So this has been five days in a row. I still weigh 176. I will go another couple days before I begin to think this has been successful.

[Tucson]

Originally Posted by Travelinglady

I can't do a lot of walking because of a bum knee (no ACL left), so I try to cut calories and eat healthier foods. Slow going as far as weight loss, but it's about a pound a week.

Sounds like you have a plan. One pound a week is a healthy rate of losing weight.

[UpDownAround]

160.4 this morning. The biggest surprise is no surprise. I expected a temporary bump.

@Tucson - interestingly enough, despite all my tinkering and having pretty different counts on different days that had about the same exercise, it has been about a week and a half since I had a weight that wasn't within a pound of 160. Like you, I hope I didn't jinx myself by saying so. I really did expect it higher today. I think some of it is that up to a day lag we were talking about at once point. Over the weekend, my totals were probably about right overall but I am not sure that effort and consumption matched on each day individually.

[Tucson]

My weight is 176. One more day to call this successful. Let’s hope this is true. I tell you, without that watch, I would of been losing weight by not allowing for the exersize. Sure, I could of done this without the watch, but this would of taken longer, particularity if my exersize routine changed. Besides, I also like toys to fuss with. Maybe my apparently constant weight is because I have been exersizing every other day and I need another week to check this out? Now that I have said this about my possible success, watch me be at 180 tomorrow, and worse yet, not able to fit into my new wardrobe. What a terrible thought. I shudder when I think about this.

PS Here has been my weights since I started to meet my targets: Apr 30th 176, 29th 176, 28th 176, 27th 176, 26th 176, 25th 176, 24th 174, 23rd 174, 22nd 174. The last three is when I exceeded my target calories due to falling weight.

[UpDownAround]

@Tucson - I have been extremely conservative about trusting the numbers and slowly accepting more calories into the total and eating more. I am surprised I didn't dip a little further, looking back at my intake from earlier in maintenance compare to what currently seems to be holding steady. It's never an exact science. Sometimes calories are wrong because there are unweighed ballpark items in there, sometimes just matched up to an entry that sounds about right. Exercise can never be more than an educated guess, though with a HRM it can be pretty close. I think there is an element of luck in my recent consistency.

[Cocosurviving]

Went to pdoc today and was weighed. I lost 7lbs. I’m now 242lbs. I’ve lost 21lbs