Calories in & Calories Out??

MelissaSchlaikier05

Machka9 wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

I think the lowest recommend number of calories here is 1200. I'm not shell1005, but when MFP dropped me to that amount, I couldn't sustain it, so I upped myself to 1250 cal.

And I lost weight quite quickly and easily.

Upped to 50 more calories is stuff all? Thats like half a banana more? and that helped you sustain your diet better?

Yup ... I was just a little bit hungry on 1200. The extra 50 allowed me just a bit more flexibility.

Plus ... see my edited comment above.

Wow that's interesting thanks for your help : )

erickirb

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Ok thank you but still confused is this photo example is there enough calories out vs the in?

you should be eating about 500 cals less than the calories burned, so If cals out = 2346 you should be eating 1846 to lose 1 lb/week. Than is assuming the 2346 is TDEE, and not 2346 from exercise only.

Besides that with only 7 lbs to lose you should be aiming for 0.5lbs/week which would give you 2096 calories (2346-250), as you need a deficit of 250/day to lose 0.5lbs/week.

editorgrrl

Connect your accounts at http://www.myfitnesspal.com/fitbit

Set your goal to .5 lb. for every 25 lbs. you're overweight: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided

Enable negative calorie adjustments: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings

Ignore your Fitbit calorie goal and follow MFP's, eating back your adjustments.

You can learn more in the Fitbit Users group: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users

gypsyish

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

What about everyone else how many cals a day? : )

Keep in mind as rabbitjb said, it's based on height, weight, age, etc.

I've been eating at 1200 since the end of March. For me (5'2", started around 150 and down to 123, lightly active) it has been sustainable, effective, and I've never felt like I was starving. But it definitely doesn't work for everyone.

MelissaSchlaikier05

erickirb wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Ok thank you but still confused is this photo example is there enough calories out vs the in?

you should be eating about 500 cals less than the calories burned, so If cals out = 2346 you should be eating 1846 to lose 1 lb/week. Than is assuming the 2346 is TDEE, and not 2346 from exercise only.

Besides that with only 7 lbs to lose you should be aiming for 0.5lbs/week which would give you 2096 calories (2346-250), as you need a deficit of 250/day to lose 0.5lbs/week.

Don't they say the lighter you are the more calorie deficit you should be? Cause your smaller weight?

gypsyish

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Don't they say the lighter you are the more calorie deficit you should be? Cause your smaller weight?

The smaller you are, there's often less of a deficit you can have. My TDEE is just about 1600. I don't want to go below 1200 so that leaves me a very small deficit available. I have to count on light activity to get me those extra hundred calories a day to get a pound a week of weight loss.

Bshmerlie

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

erickirb wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Ok thank you but still confused is this photo example is there enough calories out vs the in?

you should be eating about 500 cals less than the calories burned, so If cals out = 2346 you should be eating 1846 to lose 1 lb/week. Than is assuming the 2346 is TDEE, and not 2346 from exercise only.

Besides that with only 7 lbs to lose you should be aiming for 0.5lbs/week which would give you 2096 calories (2346-250), as you need a deficit of 250/day to lose 0.5lbs/week.

Don't they say the lighter you are the more calorie deficit you should be? Cause your smaller weight?

No it should not be a greater deficit. You will be allowed less calories though the smaller you get. Obviously someone who is 100 pounds over weight is going to burn a lot more calories just by moving around than someone who is lighter. A person overweight by 100 pounds could have a maintenance level of 2800 calories as an example. So they could do 1000 calorie deficit and still eat 1800 calories and still lose 2 pounds per week. But as they lose weight their maintenance level would drop to the point they could no longer have a 1000 calorie deficit because that would put them below the 1200 limit for women. So that person would then have to lower their deficit to 500 calories and accept that they are only going to lose one pound per week. As you get closer to your goal weight your deficit will get smaller and you will lose weight more slowly.

LiftAndBalance

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

erickirb wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Ok thank you but still confused is this photo example is there enough calories out vs the in?

you should be eating about 500 cals less than the calories burned, so If cals out = 2346 you should be eating 1846 to lose 1 lb/week. Than is assuming the 2346 is TDEE, and not 2346 from exercise only.

Besides that with only 7 lbs to lose you should be aiming for 0.5lbs/week which would give you 2096 calories (2346-250), as you need a deficit of 250/day to lose 0.5lbs/week.

Don't they say the lighter you are the more calorie deficit you should be? Cause your smaller weight?

No. The lighter you are, the smaller your deficit and therefore slower your weight loss should be. You want to lose fat, not just any weight, but there's only a certain amount of fat your body can burn. If you have less fat, there's less to burn. So if your deficit is too big, your body will turn more to lean body mass for energy and that's not the kind of weight you want to lose. Also, the lighter you are, the lower your calorie burns (both living and exercise) so you can't realistically create as big of a deficit as an obese person.

lemurcat12

I did 1250 when I first started out, but I had a lot to lose, so going for a deficit of 1000 was appropriate, and I also wasn't that active (it was a net 1250, though, so I ate back exercise calories when I started getting them). MFP put me on 1200, but I changed it to 1250, since I didn't like being told I was either over or under no matter what I did so I wanted to have a range to aim for (1200-1250), and as it turned out I consistently lost more than MFP predicted because I was closer to lightly active, even at the beginning, than sedentary.

As I lost I raised my calories and then I switched over to TDEE method (not eating back exercise). I've been practicing maintenance for a while, but the last time I was actively losing (going from 140-125) it was on about 1700-1750, and I was losing about 1 lb/week or close to it.

daniwilford

rabbitjb wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

What about everyone else how many cals a day? : )

That's irrelevant really because it's linked to your height, weight, activity level and exercise programme

I lost most of my weight on around 1800 calories

I maintain on around 2300

This is correct. I am shorted and heavier than rabbitjb, but I only eat 1200 calories on my rest day and less than 1600 the other days.

kshama2001

rabbitjb wrote: »

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

What about everyone else how many cals a day? : )

That's irrelevant really because it's linked to your height, weight, activity level and exercise programme

I lost most of my weight on around 1800 calories

I maintain on around 2300

Yup, I'm losing a pound per week while grossing up to 2500 calories per day.

editorgrrl

MelissaSchlaikier05 wrote: »

Don't they say the lighter you are the more calorie deficit you should be? Cause your smaller weight?

Quite the opposite. The less you have to lose, the more slowly it comes off. That's just the way the human body works.

Set your goal to .5 lb. for every 25 lbs. you're overweight. The smaller deficit will also help you transition to maintenance.