HOW MUCH CARBS TO LOSE WEIGHT?

psuLemon

N200lz wrote: »

steven c loser wrote: »

No, as a guy do not go for 1400 calories. That's a >1 pound loss per week for someone at a normal weight already. Ridiculously low calories are not a good starting point. And BMI is not totally useless for the vast majority of people.

So the profile function of MFP is wrong?
You cannot make such absolute statements without knowing his complete profile as it was entered into MFP or am I wrong there as well? If MFP says he should be at 1400 calories to meet "HIS" goal, and he decides to do 500 calorie burn of aerobic everyday then it adjusts to 1900 for a daily goal.

If he feels his weight loss is exceeding his needs/goals then add back more.

% of Body fat is a much better measurement than BMI for everyone which is a greater percentage than "vast."
The body fat he is carrying around is not something that needs to be preserved no matter what his weight is. If he feels he is getting too skinny then it's time to hit the gym and work on adding lean body mass.

All of that is a natural progression once someone decides to change their lifestyle and focus more on nutrition. It's a individualized learning process.

What you need to understand is MFP is a dummy system. It will base they inputs off of the user. So if the user has 10 lbs to lose, they can still choose 2 lb per week because it's within "acceptable means". The one caveat is the system will not go below 1200 calories.

Another thing to take into consideration, a large amount of people do not follow the complete concept of MFP and eat back exercise calories. So now you take a projected 2 lb per week loss and increase it based on exercise, which makes it more aggressive.

This is why experience and research (provided by members) can add value. The majority of us know that people really don't want weight loss, they want FAT loss (this precludes those under medical supervision addressing specific medical requirements). So it's quite probable that MFP and the associated OP's inputs will not address is true goal... which seems to be a defined stomach. To get abs, there are a few things one needs: low body fat, good enough genetics, and most importantly, adequate muscle mass. More often than not, do I see people who aggressive cut calories to get to their goal weight. And more often or not, do every single one of those users complain that they do not have a flat/defined stomach and they are already almost underweight. I see this more so with women because the old stigma of low calories + cardio = great! At least with men, they tend to focus on lifting.

DeguelloTex

N200lz wrote: »

% of Body fat is a much better measurement than BMI for everyone which is a greater percentage than "vast."

Accurate body fat percentage: Usually can't be done on a whim. Usually isn't cheap.

BMI: Can be done on a whim. Is free.

No, it's not better for everyone because there are multiple factors in play.

Much like an "ideal" diet that won't be followed isn't better than a "good" one that will, a a body fat measurement that someone doesn't have isn't better than a BMI that someone does have.

auddii

N200lz wrote: »

steven c loser wrote: »

No, as a guy do not go for 1400 calories. That's a >1 pound loss per week for someone at a normal weight already. Ridiculously low calories are not a good starting point. And BMI is not totally useless for the vast majority of people.

So the profile function of MFP is wrong?
You cannot make such absolute statements without knowing his complete profile as it was entered into MFP or am I wrong there as well? If MFP says he should be at 1400 calories to meet "HIS" goal, and he decides to do 500 calorie burn of aerobic everyday then it adjusts to 1900 for a daily goal.

If he feels his weight loss is exceeding his needs/goals then add back more.

% of Body fat is a much better measurement than BMI for everyone which is a greater percentage than "vast."
The body fat he is carrying around is not something that needs to be preserved no matter what his weight is. If he feels he is getting too skinny then it's time to hit the gym and work on adding lean body mass.

All of that is a natural progression once someone decides to change their lifestyle and focus more on nutrition. It's a individualized learning process.

I'm pretty sure MFP has a hard floor for men at 1500 calories (at least it did for years, although I guess they could have changed that recently). In addition, MFP is a pretty basic and "stupid" calculator. It makes no recommendations for what speed of lose is appropriate based on current weight and goals (nor does it tell you if your goal weight is too low). Many people put in that they want to lose 2lbs per week when they are relatively close to goal weight. MFP will spit out the number based on whatever someone enters; it doesn't always mean it is the best method for that person.

OP, one of the issues I found with eating low calorie with a very aggressive deficit is that it was very hard for me to stick with. I would do well during the week, but on the weekend I'd find myself binging. And then I would start this horrible cycle of feeling down about "failing", and then try and stick low (or go very low to compensate), and I'd just kind of spiral and get nowhere. In addition, I'd get tired and rather snippy with people. It just wasn't sustainable for me long term.

I'd suggest putting your stats into MFP again, but only put 1lb per week as a rate of loss and see what you get. And then keep in mind that the number it spits out doesn't include exercise. So, if you're exercising, log the calorie burns and eat about half back (MFP tends to overestimate calorie burns).

N200lz

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Accurate body fat percentage: Usually can't be done on a whim. Usually isn't cheap.

I've been using Fat Track from AccuFitness.com which is very consistent in it's accuracy.
Don't get hung up on the calculated percentage alone but pay attention to the measurement itself as a means of tracking smaller changes in body fat.
It is easily affordable.