Maybe a stupid question

redwingsfan6712

When I set my goals in MFP, it gave me 1200 calories when I told it I wanted to lose 2lbs per week. After all the goals were set, it said I'd only lose 0.9lbs per week. I work out moderately to vigorously (stationary bike and treadmill) for 40-50 mins per day, 6 days per week and I always stay under 1200. Some days I eat back half to 3 quarters of my exercise calories, some days none, some days all - just depends on my hunger. So far, I've lost 12lbs in 2 weeks. Why does MFP say I'll only lose 0.9lbs per week at 1200 calories?

Ready2Rock206

To lose 2 lbs a week you probably need to eat less than 1200 but that is the minimum it will allow. Now you're eating less than 1200, working out on top of that and not eating those back. So 2 things. One you can lose a lot of water weight in the first couple weeks that will account for a lot of that 12 lbs and 2 you're eating less than the 1200 so you'll lose a little more than the .9. Sounds like you've set a very aggressive goal - make sure your getting enough nutrients to properly fuel your body or you'll burn out quickly.

sugom2

That is awesome results. Keep up the good work.

CyberTone

When you use the guided goal setup in MFP, the minimum daily caloric goal for women is 1200 Calories (and for men is 1500 Calories). Even if you choose a two-pound per week weight loss rate (1000 caloric deficit per day), the guided goal will not be any lower, and the estimated weekly rate of weight loss will be adjusted accordingly.
​Please see this article, and search for other helpful articles, on the MFP Help pages...
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/410332-how-does-myfitnesspal-calculate-my-initial-goals-

Often, the rate of weight loss in the first week or two of caloric deficit will be greater than the steady-state rate of loss over time, because of the loss of intracellular water associated with the burning of glycogen stored in your tissue. The rate of loss will most likely decrease following this initial rate of loss.

Lourdesong

Because if your goals +activity but without exercise put you under 1200, MFP will change your deficit goal to whatever it would work out to be at the 1200 calorie cutoff.

.9 lbs a week means MFP is giving you a deficit of around 450 cals a day, before exercise. When you input exercise, MFP will adjust your calories to maintain that 450 calorie deficit. It will not correct itself to the deficit goal you wanted. So no matter how much you exercise, MFP adjusts your calorie goal to maintain a 450 cal deficit, or .9lbs a week.
Your deficit goal you inputed during set up was negated and replaced by MFP because of their 1200 calorie cutoff.

If you regularly exercise, you can pick a higher activity level than you did which, in combination with your deficit goal, would put you above 1200 so that MFP won't negate your deficit goal. Even if a higher activity level puts you just one calorie above 1200 that will prevent your deficit goal from being overridden by MFP. Then whenever you input exercise, MFP will adjust your calorie goal to maintain the deficit you chose.

In short, choose a higher activity setting during setup until you get a calorie goal at least 1 calorie above 1200 so that MFP doesn't override your deficit goal.

snowflake930

The numbers are not exact, as everyone is different.

Also, others are correct, it is mostly likely water weight you have lost, and it will slow down.

Congratulations on being successful! It helps with motivation.

redwingsfan6712

Thanks all. I do realize the initial loss is going to be a big one with water and such and will slow down. I most certainly didn't think I'd keep up a 6lb/wk loss throughout my journey. I'm now unsure that 1200 is the right calorie goal for me...

sfhrking

Ready2Rock206 wrote: »

To lose 2 lbs a week you probably need to eat less than 1200 but that is the minimum it will allow. Now you're eating less than 1200, working out on top of that and not eating those back. So 2 things. One you can lose a lot of water weight in the first couple weeks that will account for a lot of that 12 lbs and 2 you're eating less than the 1200 so you'll lose a little more than the .9. Sounds like you've set a very aggressive goal - make sure your getting enough nutrients to properly fuel your body or you'll burn out quickly.

sfhrking

Good Answer...

redwingsfan6712

I want to lose 50-60lbs by next July

Lourdesong

redwingsfan6712 wrote: »

Thanks all. I do realize the initial loss is going to be a big one with water and such and will slow down. I most certainly didn't think I'd keep up a 6lb/wk loss throughout my journey. I'm now unsure that 1200 is the right calorie goal for me...

Yes, it will slow down. But regardless, 1200 and below is way too low for most everyone. If you want MFP's goals/predictions and your results to be squared up then track your losses over the next month or so as your results stabilize past the initial big drops, and then compare your results to MFP's goals and adjust accordingly.

Few individuals are sedentary, and that activity setting glitches up many people's goals anyway, so I'd start there by choosing a higher activity setting. With 60 lbs to lose I strongly doubt you'd maintain your current weight on a measly 1650 net cals a day. But that's what MFP is operating under as if this is so.

redwingsfan6712

I sit basically all day long at work. I do get up and walk around the office every hour, but that's really not much. The only good physical activity I get every day is through my workouts after work. I'm going to do as you suggest and see how things pan out over a month or so at 1200 with my workout routines increasing in duration and figure things out from there. It may be that I do need to up my caloric intake!

dubird

One thing you might do is look at other online calorie calculators and see what they say your daily goal should be. Each one has it's own idea of sedentary, but looking at several should give you a better average and idea of where you should be. I have no idea what your stats are, but yeah, MFP has a limit it will not calculate below for health reasons.

Also, are you weighing all your food? This is a biggie, espically when you're starting out. It's super easy to under estimate what you're eating without realizing it, that's why it's best to start by weighing everything.

redwingsfan6712

I'm just under 5', currently 168lbs and want to get down to 120 by July of 2016. I work a M-F desk job and work out moderately to vigorously on the exercise bike or treadmill every evening for at least 40-45 mins. I've been staying at or below the 1200 calories MFP assigned me. I've lost 12lbs since Monday, Sept 7 but I realize a lot of that is water weight. I weigh once per week, Sunday mornings before I eat.

I haven't yet bought a food scale so I've been measuring, but not weighing my food. I track everything on MFP as well. Most of the calorie calculators I've found have set me between 1150-1350, even when I increase the activity level to moderate - so 1200 can't be too far off eh?

MireyGal76

This may help too...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1318741/in-5-weeks-youll-lose-10lbs-why-is-it-not-working/p1

kami3006

redwingsfan6712 wrote: »

I'm just under 5', currently 168lbs and want to get down to 120 by July of 2016. I work a M-F desk job and work out moderately to vigorously on the exercise bike or treadmill every evening for at least 40-45 mins. I've been staying at or below the 1200 calories MFP assigned me. I've lost 12lbs since Monday, Sept 7 but I realize a lot of that is water weight. I weigh once per week, Sunday mornings before I eat.

I haven't yet bought a food scale so I've been measuring, but not weighing my food. I track everything on MFP as well. Most of the calorie calculators I've found have set me between 1150-1350, even when I increase the activity level to moderate - so 1200 can't be too far off eh?

I put your stats into three TDEE calculators, at sedentary activity, and with a 20% reduction of calories for steady weightloss (the max most recommend) and they all gave right at 1400/day. So, that would be the lowest...adding exercise would increase that. I love MFP but my experience is that they are too low on their numbers. I had to up mine to find the right balance when I first started.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/http:/
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html
http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

ETA: you said you're right under 5' so I used 60 inches for height.

redwingsfan6712

Thank you Kami!! Also, everyone here says MFP overestimates calories burned through exercise. I've also been told not to trust the exercise bike/treadmill numbers either. What IS accurate?

kami3006

redwingsfan6712 wrote: »

Thank you Kami!! Also, everyone here says MFP overestimates calories burned through exercise. I've also been told not to trust the exercise bike/treadmill numbers either. What IS accurate?

Frankly, I would eat back half to 75% of what MFP says and go from there. It's really trial and error. A Heart Rate Monitor is great for steady state cardio but there's still a margin of error. And before that, I'd spend my money on a food scale. They make all the difference.

For me MFP matched my HRM within 5 calories but it varies on everyone based on their stats.

redwingsfan6712

Cool beans. Sounds like a plan. Thanks!!!

dubird

redwingsfan6712 wrote: »

Thank you Kami!! Also, everyone here says MFP overestimates calories burned through exercise. I've also been told not to trust the exercise bike/treadmill numbers either. What IS accurate?

Unless the machine you're using has all your stats and is measuring your heart rate, chances are it will be off. The reason is that those calculations are made with a standard baseline of stats, which may or may not be accurate to your body. A 20 minute walk uphill will burn more calories than a 20 minute walk on flat ground, but MFP doesn't make that differentation. Using a HRM will get you the closest, though I don't know that there is any 100% accurate measurement.

If the gym machine you're using has a HRM built into the handles, that'll be more accurate than one without. I still wouldn't eat back 100% of your calories burned, but general recommendation is that if you're letting MFP or a generic machine make the calculations, eat back half. YMMV, so it may take some time adjusting and getting the right balence.

belindalehr

Keep in mind that losing too much per week will increase your chances of gaining it all back once you begin eating a higher calorie diet.