People on the margins: A discussion regarding net calories
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.
Margin-ites unite!!!!
Thanks for the edited addition about the Fitbit. I'm thinking of getting one, especially when I get to maintenance. Though I'll likely be stuck entering my data for pool activities.
Maybe a Margin-ite Unite group?
Get the Fitbit now because the longer you wear it, the more accurate it becomes (creepy, right?). Yea, not waterproof, but you can guesstamate the pool stuff.
Honestly I don't think you need the HRM version .. you could save money and get a one or a zip or similar - it still learns to be remarkably accurate
HRM is for steady-state cardio only
Yes, totally agree -- don't count on the HRM for accuracy; it's all just a guesstamate. I also like to track my resting heart rate and sleep (I had sleep problems before I retired; stress). I find both of those to be bang on, but if you don't need those features a One or Zip would work great.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
0 -
I'm a marginite on the other end of the spectrum.
Female 60+ 5'11" tall and started out as Obese. I've had friends comment on my net intake because it sometimes looks like I'm just not eating enough.
Currently, my only safe exercise is walking, so I have a Fitbit and have it synched up to MFP and let it do its thing as far as automatically logging my burns. But I do *a lot* of walking and generally earn around a 1000 extra calories per day. I have MFP set to sedentary, btw.
I usually eat back less than 50% of these bonus calories for several reasons - I'm 60, post-menopausal and have a crappy thyroid (Hashimoto's) so I realize my metabolism ain't the greatest. I also leave 50%+ of my exercise calories on the table to compensate for any logging inaccuracies in my diary, and in case my calories burned through exercise have been over-stated.
Bottom line? I've never gone hungry, I feel terrific, and I've lost between .2 and 2.2 lbs per week, and everything in between. 0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »OP - I see some people that eat back 75% to 100% of their exercise calories and it works for them. The only people that I ask if they eat 100% of exercise calories are people that are stalled, as they are usually eating 100% of exercise calories and not using a food scale, and there in lies their problem.
Perhaps, you should try to eat back 100% of your exercise calories for two weeks and see if you keep losing one pound per week? If it works then you know that you can eat back 100% and still lose weight.
At the end of the day these things really are trial and error. I have been at this for a while now, and I pretty much have my gain level, maintenance level, and cutting level pegged to within 100 calories.
Final thought - have you ever considered switching to TDEE method instead of MFP method? That way, your activity level is already built in and you do not have to worry about exercise calories burned.
I might try TDEE for maintenance. What I'm doing works for now. My thyroid's a bit whacked at the moment though, so I need to wait for that to get sorted (appt set for a few weeks).
The thing that scares me about TDEE is that I had a two month long migraine this past winter (freaked my neuro out too), but I know nothing I do is written in stone.
The bottom line is that what I'm doing works okay for now for me.
I've been around long enough that I'm cool with having sorted through all the information and having arrived at what was pertinent and the right answer though.
The issue I wanted to raise in this thread is that maybe it's not always clear to someone newer, though.
To address your last sentence, I think the only time the don't eat 100% of exercise calories comes up is when people are not losing and are stalled. However, it does seem to be the general "rule of thumb" on here that calorie burned estimates are wrong on the high side, which in my experience is true.
I guess the updated advice would be they are wrong, unless you have double checked them and are sure that the burn is correct, but, then again, I don't know how one can be 100% sure...< that is why I like TDEE method, once you have the number figured our they are what they are, and you do not need to worry about how accurate your burns are, because it does not matter...0 -
I'm a solid "marginite" (5'0", and 52) and I break a LOT of rules. I'll confess a few things here from those margins.
I ignore net calories. I wish there was a quick way to average out the numbers generated by the reports but there isn't so I'll estimate. My BMR/TDEE are 1284/1766. Look at those numbers... (1766-1284x7=3374). The standard "lose at TDEE-500 calories" formula is already below my BMR and is still slightly less than a pound a week - 0.96 lbs to be exact.
Set at 1200 calories, my actual daily gross is ~1175. My net calories circle around 1050 and dip as low as 700 on a fairly regular basis. I do NOT eat back exercise calories. Not doing so is the only way to open up a big enough deficit to achieve a pound a week.
At this point, some of the purists are clutching their pearls in horror. I must be starving and sick! I'm not. I'm bright-eyed, active, doctor-certified and healthy as a very short, middle-aged ox.
Rules are good but they're not the same as Commandments. We know that the BMI formula doesn't work if you're too large, too small, too young, too muscular, etc. Past the margins, standard weight loss formulae don't work either.0 -
The simple solution is to ditch the small deficit and cycle through shorter periods of much larger deficits and possibly longer periods maintenance.
The "50%" advice is because so many people are using inflated numbers (ie, out of the MFP database). If that isn't you, then the 50% doesn't apply to you, and there is no conflict.
PS 160 pounds @ 3 miles -> 312 calories burned. Sounds like you're at least in the right zipcode.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
If you are losing at the expected rate, then there is no reason to cut your burns in half. But not all estimator tools are accurate and they should be adjusted accordingly.0 -
The simple solution is to ditch the small deficit and cycle through shorter periods of much larger deficits and possibly longer periods maintenance.
The "50%" advice is because so many people are using inflated numbers (ie, out of the MFP database). If that isn't you, then the 50% doesn't apply to you, and there is no conflict.
PS 160 pounds @ 3 miles -> 312 calories burned. Sounds like you're at least in the right zipcode.
Interestingly, that's what the Shapesense calculator for water jogging gave me. I never checked to see if they had one.
I'm going to start using theirs, especially since I'm going to be continuing to do this. I LOVE it. I'll be joining a gym with a deep water pool in November to keep at it. I even bought a water proof Mp3 player. It just feels so good on my joints.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
If you are losing at the expected rate, then there is no reason to cut your burns in half. But not all estimator tools are accurate and they should be adjusted accordingly.
Exactly my point - hence my disagreement with the far too frequently given advice given on these forums to halve all exercise estimates.
Reasonable advice if someone has stalled or not getting expected results but it's often also given to people just starting out who may well also have chosen an inappropriately low calorie goal.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
If you are losing at the expected rate, then there is no reason to cut your burns in half. But not all estimator tools are accurate and they should be adjusted accordingly.
Exactly my point - hence my disagreement with the far too frequently given advice given on these forums to halve all exercise estimates.
Reasonable advice if someone has stalled or not getting expected results but it's often also given to people just starting out who may well also have chosen an inappropriately low calorie goal.
I am another person who can eat all of the exercise calories and more and still lose at or above my chosen rate. When I am giving advice, I usually tell people to pick a percentage of their exercise calories to eat (50% or 75%) for 4 weeks and then reevaluate after that. Once in a great while I'll say eat all of them but it depends on how I think the person will react to that advice. If I get the sense that the person is going to freak out about eating more calories, I'll suggest the lower rate. If I get the sense that the person is happy to eat more, I'll suggest higher.0 -
I am in that boat. I try to underestimate my calorie burn and overestimate my calorie intake just a bit to plan for inaccuracies and then stay right on target for my net calories. However, on longer bike ride days where MFP says I burned like 1000 calories, I don't eat all that back, it would be like eating a whole day worth of calories to compensate for a bike ride and I'm not THAT hungry! So I eat only half back. My net intake then falls below 1000 calories and I get this annoying message that I have to watch myself for eating disorders. Hmmm no, I'm just short, already lean and do not lose weight unless I set my calorie goal at 1200.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.
Margin-ites unite!!!!
Thanks for the edited addition about the Fitbit. I'm thinking of getting one, especially when I get to maintenance. Though I'll likely be stuck entering my data for pool activities.
Maybe a Margin-ite Unite group? Get the Fitbit now because the longer you wear it, the more accurate it becomes (creepy, right?). Yea, not waterproof, but you can guesstamate the pool stuff.
I buy tiny little jewelry ziplock baggies and double bag by Fitbit (sans clip, I have a One) then tuck it inside my bathing suit when I am in the pool or ocean/gulf (water, anyway). Never had a problem with it.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »A conversation started due to an issue arising on a friend's feed this morning and I thought I'd bring it to the forums, because I often see two issues arising here that can come into conflict for people on the margins.
Who are people on the margins?
Well, there might be more than those who immediately spring to my mind, but I immediately think of older, shorter women, or shorter women who are already somewhat lean.
What are the conflicting issues?
The recommendations to not eat back too many exercise calories and to not consume too low a figure in net calories.
How do these issues come into conflict?
I'll use myself as an example. I'm 52 years old, 5' 1" tall. I have my goal set to lose 1 pound a week and still have 45 pounds to lose. My base calorie allowance to do this is 1200 calories.
Yesterday, I water jogged for 40 minutes. After as much research as possible into the subject, I determined that MFP's burn agreed with every other source I could find, so I go with what the site records. I logged a burn of 398 calories, but I still don't trust it, who could account for exact intensity, my muscle mass and all the other variables.
I ate 184 of those calories back, almost half which is what people recommend eating back. My gross caloric intake for the day was 1384 calories. A fine intake. And yet, my NET calories were only 986, under 1,000. Too low by most people's reckoning.
Therein lies the conflict for the short people on the margins. We eat 1/3 to 1/2 back and our net calories are low.
My point? Blanket recommendations regarding net caloric intake aren't helpful.
Thoughts?
Don't worry about "net" calories. If you ate 1400 calories, you got 1400 calories worth of nutrition, not 986, so you are not depriving yourself. Recommended calorie levels are not rigid boundaries. If you are comfortable with your routine and seeing results, stay with it. If you stop seeing results, feel excessively tired, then modify. Worry less about everyone's "rules" and focus on being consistent.
0 -
I always understood it as you shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories to ensure you are getting proper nutrition.
I get that if you are consistently netting too low you won't be fueling your body for the exercise that you are doing but when I'm really on track I eat about 1300 calories or so and don't eat my extra 400 that my fitbit gives me. I don't feel tired or have any issues with that. Within that 1300 calories I get all my macros.0 -
"Net calories" is almost unique to MFP.
Have you noticed how the 1200 is badly implemented as an intake floor -
example target calorie intake for desired loss rate = 1000. MFP makes it 1200.
add 250 calories of exercise, intake should be 1250 for desired loss rate. MFP sets it to 1450.
here is a problem at the margin, one that is not hard to fix.
0 -
On the calorie burn front we should consider aerobic fitness. If this is poor, say 30 ml/kg/min, then at 70% of VO2max an 80 kg being would use 70% * 30 * 80 / 1000 * 5 = 8.4 kcal/min of which about 1.2 is BMR so an extra 7.2 kcal/min or 430 kcal per hour is about the limit of what they can "burn" on a sustained basis.0
-
SingRunTing wrote: »This is why I TDEE. There's just no accurate way to calculate workout calories and I was spending too much time debating on exercise calories and how much to eat back. My workouts are fairly consistent, so I picked a TDEE - X% goal from the Scooby calculator and just tried it for a while. I adjusted from there.
This is exactly what I do. It's just easier for me than trying to figure how much I'm actually burning exercising.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
If you are losing at the expected rate, then there is no reason to cut your burns in half. But not all estimator tools are accurate and they should be adjusted accordingly.
Exactly my point - hence my disagreement with the far too frequently given advice given on these forums to halve all exercise estimates.
Reasonable advice if someone has stalled or not getting expected results but it's often also given to people just starting out who may well also have chosen an inappropriately low calorie goal.
You don't fix one problem by creating a second problem. The solution to inappropriately low calorie goals is to increase the calorie goal to a more suitable level, not add another source of error by introducing clearly over-inflated burn numbers.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
I don't cut my burns in half and yet I lost at a sensible (and expected) rate and also now maintain by eating back all my exercise calories. I actually increase my burns over the estimates of some of the tools I use (Garmin, Strava and MFP estimate for strength training being examples) as they underestimate for me - based on experience, results and actually putting some effort into getting accurate numbers for my major exercise activities.
There are some fanciful entries in the exercise database but again because some are a bit dumb doesn't make them all dumb.
Blanket advice really does need qualifying and the important qualifier is to adjust calorie balance based on results.
Too low a net caloric intake (over a prolonged period of time) also needs qualifying with personal context. Too low for who? Which is a good point from your OP.
If you are losing at the expected rate, then there is no reason to cut your burns in half. But not all estimator tools are accurate and they should be adjusted accordingly.
Exactly my point - hence my disagreement with the far too frequently given advice given on these forums to halve all exercise estimates.
Reasonable advice if someone has stalled or not getting expected results but it's often also given to people just starting out who may well also have chosen an inappropriately low calorie goal.
You don't fix one problem by creating a second problem. The solution to inappropriately low calorie goals is to increase the calorie goal to a more suitable level, not add another source of error by introducing clearly over-inflated burn numbers.
Did you not read the part where SJ said it was reasonable advice for those that stalled? He clearly said that for those just started out they may be able to eat 100% of exercise calories...
or are you arguing just to argue?0 -
On the calorie burn front we should consider aerobic fitness. If this is poor, say 30 ml/kg/min, then at 70% of VO2max an 80 kg being would use 70% * 30 * 80 / 1000 * 5 = 8.4 kcal/min of which about 1.2 is BMR so an extra 7.2 kcal/min or 430 kcal per hour is about the limit of what they can "burn" on a sustained basis.
You're my kind of people.
:drinker:
0 -
My two cents (probably one cent but inflation ..) is that you want to support your health - obtain the necessary macro and micro nutrients and not stress your body to the point of harm if you are on a weight loss journey that isn't for a body competition of some sort (where theoretically the time period of insane dieting is limited). So there may be very little nutritional difference for a "margin" person between 1200 net calories and 1100 net calories - unless you are doing the LOL-able Twinkie diet or something.0
-
Great thread OP! Lots of good info here. Personally I like to set it and forget it. For about 3 plus months I am not eating any burned calories back. I find it easier and less of a hassle. Adjusts made as needed. I am not surprised at MFP over estimates on burned calories for exercises. The longer it takes someone using the app to loose weight the longer MFP advertises or collects there monthly fee. "When he picked the side I thought he must be crazy but, judging by their performance this season, there's obviously method in his madness." 0
-
I reckon MFP has a "net" calorie goal to stop people purposely consuming less than 1200 calories all the time. Or at least covering their own bottom. I never look at my net. I consume what I'm meant to be having and leave it at that 0
-
I am in the same boat
I lowered my activity level on MFP even though I average over 10000 steps a day for 30 day average.
I am set to drop 1.5 lbs a week and drop 1.
I think there is a bit of body adjustment that has happened to me. My body has adapted to long term weight loss by running low key. I just don't use the calories the program says
I accept it and reduce intake.
But by the book I wouldn't lose weight.
The food diary is great, I just had to dial it back for me personally.
CICO is a description of how things work. It is not a breakdown of the exact numbers. For me, those calories seem to go a little extra distance! Slow metabolism.
When the zombie apocalypse hits, I will be able to live a little longer on my 3 cans of Spam. So who is gonna laugh then! 0 -
My work around this problem is to follow the TDEE method. I eat enough calories to fuel my body well (1690) and then dont eat back my exercise calories at all. I steadily lose .5-1# a week this way. I found the MFP method of estimating exercise calories and eating them back to be to much guesswork.0
-
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »The simple solution is to ditch the small deficit and cycle through shorter periods of much larger deficits and possibly longer periods maintenance.
The "50%" advice is because so many people are using inflated numbers (ie, out of the MFP database). If that isn't you, then the 50% doesn't apply to you, and there is no conflict.
PS 160 pounds @ 3 miles -> 312 calories burned. Sounds like you're at least in the right zipcode.
Interestingly, that's what the Shapesense calculator for water jogging gave me. I never checked to see if they had one.
I'm going to start using theirs, especially since I'm going to be continuing to do this. I LOVE it. I'll be joining a gym with a deep water pool in November to keep at it. I even bought a water proof Mp3 player. It just feels so good on my joints.
For what it's worth, the calories for running (hour or less) have generally tended to be pretty accurate for me. I've eaten them all much of the time and when I didn't my losses were higher than expected.
Longer runs get messed up due to the amount you'd be burning anyway, I think, and I'm skeptical of longer bike rides for the same reason (plus depends on the bike, the terrain, the weather, etc.). IMO, it's often stuff like weights or classes (and of course the elliptical) that get overstated, because there's so much variability possible (or with weights who knows anyway).
It wouldn't surprise me if your water jogging calories were similarly pretty accurate like I've found running calories to be.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions