Semi-new, netting 1200 calories.

PoisonIvy088

I hate typing on this phone.

deksgrl

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

Thanks for the sticky reminder. I did read them all.
However, you should also consider this: MFP set my goal to 1370 when I stated I wanted to lose 1 pound a week. I am eating 1200 about, which is only 170 calories less than that goal, and losing, as MFP predicted, 1 pound a week. So I don't think my logging is too bad.

Which means it is calculating that you need 1870 for maintenance NOT including any exercise. MFP is not a TDEE calculator. Your TDEE would be higher.

Actually MFP calculated my TDEE as 1670. Because I am sedentary. I walk less than 5000 steps a day if I don't exercise.

I also eat back my exercise calories. I only walk for cardio an hour each day, and do weights 3 times a week for an 45min (not counting rest). So my burns are about 140-200 (margin of error included) according to MFP.

So it looks something like this : 1200-200 = 1000 200 = 1200. So technically I eat 1400 calories of food I would still end up at 1200.

No, MFP does not calculate TDEE. It calculates NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

Then it deducts a set amount of calories from that depending on how many pounds you say you want to lose per week.

So, if it is telling you to eat 1370 then your NEAT is 1370 + 500 = 1870. This number does not include purposeful exercise.

If your exercise typically burns 200 calories then your TDEE would be 1870+ 200. So, about 2,000 calories.

Following this method, then to lose 1 pound a week, you would eat about 1500 calories. So it's in the same ballpark, allowing for fluctuations in exercise burn if by MFP method you are eating 1400-ish.

deksgrl

Also, I just noticed that you only have 12 pounds to lose according to your ticker, you might be better off shooting for half a pound a week loss. However with a deficit of only 250 calories, you have to be very accurate with logging.

PoisonIvy088

deksgrl wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

Thanks for the sticky reminder. I did read them all.
However, you should also consider this: MFP set my goal to 1370 when I stated I wanted to lose 1 pound a week. I am eating 1200 about, which is only 170 calories less than that goal, and losing, as MFP predicted, 1 pound a week. So I don't think my logging is too bad.

Which means it is calculating that you need 1870 for maintenance NOT including any exercise. MFP is not a TDEE calculator. Your TDEE would be higher.

Actually MFP calculated my TDEE as 1670. Because I am sedentary. I walk less than 5000 steps a day if I don't exercise.

I also eat back my exercise calories. I only walk for cardio an hour each day, and do weights 3 times a week for an 45min (not counting rest). So my burns are about 140-200 (margin of error included) according to MFP.

So it looks something like this : 1200-200 = 1000 200 = 1200. So technically I eat 1400 calories of food I would still end up at 1200.

No, MFP does not calculate TDEE. It calculates NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

Then it deducts a set amount of calories from that depending on how many pounds you say you want to lose per week.

So, if it is telling you to eat 1370 then your NEAT is 1370 500 = 1870. This number does not include purposeful exercise.

If your exercise typically burns 200 calories then your TDEE would be 1870 200. So, about 2,000 calories.

Following this method, then to lose 1 pound a week, you would eat about 1500 calories. So it's in the same ballpark, allowing for fluctuations in exercise burn if by MFP method you are eating 1400-ish.

Yeah I know MFP calculates NEAT. I meant to type that but couldn't edit with this phone. I use a TDEE method of eating though.

And I still don't think its that high. Its not exactly a pound I lose each week. Slightly less. I just typed a pound so I don't have to try and remember the decimals. Again, if it really was 2000, I think I should lose more than that a week. Because 2000-1200 = 800 x 7 = 5600. Isn't a pound supposed to be 3500?

PoisonIvy088

deksgrl wrote: »

Also, I just noticed that you only have 12 pounds to lose according to your ticker, you might be better off shooting for half a pound a week loss. However with a deficit of only 250 calories, you have to be very accurate with logging.

I am very impatient with it. Not too impatient to do something stupid and eat 800.

Its just because I didn't expect him telling me I need to lose weight. I thought I could just bulk right of the bat.

So, I kind of want to get past it as quickly as I can while still being healthy so I can just get going with my goals already. I know its not how it works and it should be done slowly.

Besides I'm not deprived or anything anyhoo. I get enough protein (100 something grams) and most of my meals are bulked up with lots of veg.

deksgrl

Your body is complex and since you are not that far away from a healthy weight, it is likely not going to drop the weight at a faster rate (unless you go to unhealthy measures). And yes, the calculators are not exact, they are estimates. And, inaccuracies in measuring calorie intake can make it seem like the calculation is incorrect.

You are eating 1400 calories a day with exercise? This would be consistent with a TDEE of about 1900. So, as I said, ballpark, it is about the same.

PoisonIvy088

deksgrl wrote: »

Your body is complex and since you are not that far away from a healthy weight, it is likely not going to drop the weight at a faster rate (unless you go to unhealthy measures). And yes, the calculators are not exact, they are estimates. And, inaccuracies in measuring calorie intake can make it seem like the calculation is incorrect.

You are eating 1400 calories a day with exercise? This would be consistent with a TDEE of about 1900. So, as I said, ballpark, it is about the same.

All this math is making my head hurt...

deksgrl

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

Also, I just noticed that you only have 12 pounds to lose according to your ticker, you might be better off shooting for half a pound a week loss. However with a deficit of only 250 calories, you have to be very accurate with logging.

I am very impatient with it. Not too impatient to do something stupid and eat 800.

Its just because I didn't expect him telling me I need to lose weight. I thought I could just bulk right of the bat.

So, I kind of want to get past it as quickly as I can while still being healthy so I can just get going with my goals already. I know its not how it works and it should be done slowly.

Besides I'm not deprived or anything anyhoo. I get enough protein (100 something grams) and most of my meals are bulked up with lots of veg.

He is wanting to lower your body fat % first. Because when you bulk you will add fat and muscle. Then you will have to do another cut to reduce the fat again. If you don't lower the fat % first, you are probably not going to be happy with your look and you'll want to fire him as your trainer.

PoisonIvy088

deksgrl wrote: »

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

Also, I just noticed that you only have 12 pounds to lose according to your ticker, you might be better off shooting for half a pound a week loss. However with a deficit of only 250 calories, you have to be very accurate with logging.

I am very impatient with it. Not too impatient to do something stupid and eat 800.

Its just because I didn't expect him telling me I need to lose weight. I thought I could just bulk right of the bat.

So, I kind of want to get past it as quickly as I can while still being healthy so I can just get going with my goals already. I know its not how it works and it should be done slowly.

Besides I'm not deprived or anything anyhoo. I get enough protein (100 something grams) and most of my meals are bulked up with lots of veg.

He is wanting to lower your body fat % first. Because when you bulk you will add fat and muscle. Then you will have to do another cut to reduce the fat again. If you don't lower the fat % first, you are probably not going to be happy with your look and you'll want to fire him as your trainer.

He also told me I will start cursing him after the first week, which I have not.

deksgrl

The benefit of a smaller calorie deficit and slower weight loss is that you will preserve as much LBM as possible. No sense reducing LBM when your ultimate goal is to build muscle.

segacs

deksgrl wrote: »

The benefit of a smaller calorie deficit and slower weight loss is that you will preserve as much LBM as possible. No sense reducing LBM when your ultimate goal is to build muscle.

^^ This.

kr1stadee

PoisonIvy088 wrote: »

deksgrl wrote: »

You might find that those few extra calories makes a difference in your training. You don't specify what kind of training you are doing but since you mention "bulking" then I assume heavy lifting is involved. So for that reason I would eat the maximum amount that you can.

I'm not bulking yet though. I suppose this is a small "cut".

1200 calories isn't a small cut.