accuracy of the weight loss estimate

PAV8888

Hello OP:

You are slightly overweight; not obese. A target of 0.7% of bodyweight per week is probably safer than a higher one in terms of maximizing fat loss. So is staying in a positive nitrogen balance (i.e. in your case probably eating 150g+ of protein a day.) Lifting weights means a program of lifting progressively heavier weights.

Eating ZERO means... eating nothing
NOT-A-THING.
Just water for you.

If you ate ZERO everyday for the next 5 weeks, what do you think your state of health would be at the end of that time period?

So, there are two choices here.

We can assume that your soccer calories were over-stated (which you don't seem to believe), or that they were accurate!

If they were accurate you ate LESS THAN ZERO.
A negative balance.
Less than nothing.

What do you think your state of health will be in five weeks if you miraculously manage to continue to eat at a negative balance for five weeks?

Anyway.

There has always been a disagreement on MFP as to whether exercise calories are over-stated or not.

I happen to believe that exercise calories are SOMETIMES over-stated; but less often than many people think.

On the other hand I also happen to believe that believing that exercise calories are overstated allows people who have other problems with their food and exercise logging to not end up inadvertently over-eating.

(in case you're wondering: yes, you HAVE problems with your logging. if you are not weighing everything and that includes things that are semi-solid or even liquid, and it includes not believing that a package has what a package purports to have, and if you are not hand-picking database entries, then yes, you have problems with your logging. As much as 20%--or more!)

So, the usual prescription is simple:
Eat back 100% of steady state exercise calories;
75% of HIIT or circuit training calories;
50% of weight or strength training calories for a few weeks.

Compare your results to your expected progress and either eat less or more exercise calories to compensate based on your actual results.

You can adjust these numbers as you see fit.

The above advice is suitable for someone having a high burn and a high deficit because they are already ABOUT 1000 Cal below maintenance, so they can afford to be a bit off with their exercise calories.

A sedentary person with a 0.5lb a week goal might prefer to start on a 50%, or even 25% initial exercise calorie eat back. Because any mistake will lead to a stall or weight gain.

The MFP calories and eat back recommendations are just estimates.
The point is that you adjust based on your real life logging and experience.

I strongly suggest you use an application similar to weightgrapher.com or that you track down a trendline spreadsheet like this one from scooby's website: http://d16kc6rd0714uz.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AccurateWeightCharting.xls to record your weight.

Using these tools will help cut through the inevitable non-fat related weight changes that happen because of eating too much salt, depleting your glycogen and replenishing it, exercising in a hot environment, and who the crap knows what else. (the point is: *kitten* happens and it has nothing to do with fat loss. So look at the trend whenever your scale is acting weird).

Last, but not least... why exactly are you bothering with MFP? If you log everything perfectly, you could still be off 5%, 10%, even more depending on the type of food you were logging and nutrient variation.

If you don't even want to weight and record your food accurately, if you don't want to choose the right entries in the database, then you are not eating to a target. You are just eating approximately.

I suppose that might make you more mindful of what you eat; but, don't kid yourself that you are actually eating whatever amount of calories you think you are.

Last; but, not least, your exercise calories and how to cross check them. Your idea to break the soccer game into sprints and jogging is a great one in terms of double checking.

So what you do is you go here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/ and you look up the MET value for the type of soccer you played. And you also look up the MET values for the similar activities you could break your exercise time into.

You then use a MET to Cal calculator such as this one: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm

And you compare the initial soccer value (which for you will indeed be very close to the 1800 Cal you were given) to the sum of the individualized activities. Which if you factor in the time when you just stand in the filed and the time you just walk in the field and the time you jog or sprint, you may find it to be a bit lower.

Because you see the MET values have a problem: they assume you do the activity continuously at a pre-determined (set) intensity level.

Oh: and another problem... you NET calories are not what you see; your NET calories are the MET value -1.

And in fact, if you are NOT setup as sedentary in MFP, your net Cal value would require -1.xx MET because MFP is crediting you with >1MET per minute for being alive and not sedentary.

And as to the 100 degree heat and perceived exertion: sorry: what matters is how much you move. Moving is what burns calories. Not how tired you get, or your perceived exertion level.

Who do you think burned/burns more calories (in total over a pre-set time period): My 280lb self sweating up a hill, heart going at 150BPM, unable to breathe, walking at 2.5 mph, or my 190lb self walking up the same hill at 120BPM talking on his cell phone and walking at 3.5 mph?

Yes, if my 280lb self could achieve what my 190lb self can, he WOULD have been burning more... but he COULDN'T!

So who do you think would be more likely to run more and burn more calories: the guy running to keep warm in 50 degree weather, or the guy sweating bullets and about to faint in 100 degree sunshine?

Long story short. You have no idea what you ate. You burned somewhere between 800 and 1800 calories. 2lbs a week is ambitious and will result in some muscle loss.

Ditch the target dates.

Keep on reading and learning.

And best of luck in reaching your goals.

And on the potential assumption that you may still be growing you may also want to check out sparkteens. Because diet and exercise advice DOES CHANGE based on one's age. What is suitable advice for a 50 year old is not necessarily suitable advice for a either a 17 or a 19 year old.

Just as an example if you can, actually achieve a burn of 1500+ Calories in a few hours and do so sustainably on a daily basis, without risk of injury or overtraining, then restricting calories may be an inappropriate goal for you, and you may be able to achieve your goals via appropriate exercise.

<-- I don't know that the above is true; my 19 year old self was a very long time ago: but it may be worth exploring, because caloric restriction has its own set of dangers. Among them reduced metabolic rate for a very long time, or even for the rest of your life. And rebound weight gain. just saying.

FitOldMomma

chunky_lover123 wrote: »

I weigh 199 pounds and i left my mfp activity level on lightly active. i try to put my excercise lower than i actually did so it doesnt think i lost more calories than i actually did. Also i dont know exactly how much i ate of something i put it that i ate more. After completing the day it said in five weeks id weigh 170 lbs. i weighed 204 last week but i still want to makes sure this could happen. i will do my best to maintain my current calorie intake. I am 6`1 so im not really fat, but it seems like i can lose weight pretty easily. My calorie thing today was 1760 (goal) - 1657 (food)+1943 (excercise) = 2046 (remaining) . i feel like theres too much remaining. Today i did 3 hours of soccer in the 100 degree weather so i think i the excercise part is accurate. i documented everything i ate and it seems accurate but i feel like theres to many calories remaining. Is the calorie thing accurate?

The only way that estimate would be accurate is if every day for the next 5 weeks you had the exact same numbers as you did today.

editorgrrl

chunky_lover123 wrote: »

Do you think itd be possible to lose 14 lbs by august? im trying to gain muscle while losing weight, so im ok with not losing all that weight as long as the weight i gain is muscle. Ive read a lot into recomposition, and i know you need to get more calories to gain muscle, so on the days i weight lift ill eat more protein and food.

A healthy, sustainable loss is .5 lb. per week for every 25 lbs. you're overweight.

Please, read the Sexypants post. So much good "how-to" information: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1

tonycrncich

My "What you'd weigh in 5 weeks" hasn't been accurate for the 16 weeks that I have been obsessively tracking on My Fitness Pal. Pretty depressing. I've gone from 217 to 194 in 16 weeks but the app constantly predicts that I'd be under 180 by now. I've only ever exceeded my calories twice in 4 months and exercise at least 500 calories a day. Most often, I exercise over 1000 calories a day; Always at least 500 under my calorie intake. Something needs to be adjusted in the App backend to be a more honest predictor.

Deviette

tonycrncich wrote: »

My "What you'd weigh in 5 weeks" hasn't been accurate for the 16 weeks that I have been obsessively tracking on My Fitness Pal. Pretty depressing. I've gone from 217 to 194 in 16 weeks but the app constantly predicts that I'd be under 180 by now. I've only ever exceeded my calories twice in 4 months and exercise at least 500 calories a day. Most often, I exercise over 1000 calories a day; Always at least 500 under my calorie intake. Something needs to be adjusted in the App backend to be a more honest predictor.

I know it's super annoying. It's always been that bad at doing the predicting and there's often people posting saying that it's super unmotivating.

If you're finding it annoying/unmotivation, I would suggest not closing your diary at the end of the day. The only thing pressing that button to close your diary actually does is bring up that pop up telling you the predicted loss. It doesn't actually change anything else, so you can totally use MFP without ever pressing that button (heck, I've not "closed" my diary in about 4 years now)

Lietchi

tonycrncich wrote: »

My "What you'd weigh in 5 weeks" hasn't been accurate for the 16 weeks that I have been obsessively tracking on My Fitness Pal. Pretty depressing. I've gone from 217 to 194 in 16 weeks but the app constantly predicts that I'd be under 180 by now. I've only ever exceeded my calories twice in 4 months and exercise at least 500 calories a day. Most often, I exercise over 1000 calories a day; Always at least 500 under my calorie intake. Something needs to be adjusted in the App backend to be a more honest predictor.

There's nothing to be depressed about when you've lost 23lbs in 16 weeks. So perhaps focus on the great progress you've made, instead of some unreliable prediction?

The numbers could be off because of an underestimation of your food intake, an overestimation of your exercise calories and/or because your metabolism isn't statistically average.

I haven't closed my diary in years! Unnecessary and unreliable.