Is it really as simple as CICO?
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
I don't think telling her to use this system as it is designed is particularly overwhelming. Once she put in her stats and got a NEAT goal I didn't understand why the advice would be to not eat back exercise cals. I inferred from her post that she's overwhelmed by all the information available about different ways to lose weight (like cut out all sugar! Must eat clean! Low carb! Low fat! Paleo! Don't eat after 7pm!)
I think just starting with using this tool as it is meant to be used, with a reasonable calorie deficit based on her stats and goals, but eating back a portion of exercise cals, logging everything accurately and being patient, is a good, straightforward starting place for her. After 4-8 weeks OP can reassess.
Good luck OP!
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
Also this^^^
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
that was your advice, we were responding to psulemon saying eat what MFP suggested and not eating back exercise calories.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
I don't think telling her to use this system as it is designed is particularly overwhelming.
It need not be, but in no time you're into "WTF are net calories" and "why is this exercise calorie burn wrong" and so on and so forth.
I tend to assume someone asking for help isn't finding "use the system as designed" working for them, otherwise we could just reply RTFM.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
No, I had asked her what cal goal MFP gave her after entering her stats. She said 1490 with a goal of 1 lb/week. Psulemon said then just eat that no exercise cals and I was wondering why the deviation from the MFP NEAT approach which would have her eating back a portion of her exercise cals, which if she's running several times a week could be substantial...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
No, I had asked her what cal goal MFP gave her after entering her stats. She said 1490 with a goal of 1 lb/week. Psulemon said then just eat that no exercise cals and I was wondering why the deviation from the MFP NEAT approach which would have her eating back a portion of her exercise cals, which if she's running several times a week could be substantial...
OK, so the MFP goal was 1490. That's still adequate nutrition. The 1500 and 1600 were user suggestions here.
Given the OP's BMI she could take advantage of extra calorie burn for extra fat loss. The need for a constant loss rate is unclear to me and it adds some complexity that need not be there.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
I don't think telling her to use this system as it is designed is particularly overwhelming.
It need not be, but in no time you're into "WTF are net calories" and "why is this exercise calorie burn wrong" and so on and so forth.
I tend to assume someone asking for help isn't finding "use the system as designed" working for them, otherwise we could just reply RTFM.
This argument probably isn't particularly helpful to her either, which is why above I linked one of the common threads for guidance.
OP I hope you are feeling less overwhelmed, but if you still have questions please ask.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
that was your advice, we were responding to psulemon saying eat what MFP suggested and not eating back exercise calories.
My recommendation to not wat exercise calories is due to the fact she set her account yo lightly active. After 4 weeks she can determine if she is losing too fast. If at the point, if she is losing too fast, she can change her account to active to add more calories. Essentially, modifying the system to use the tdee method. I tend to move away from the mfp method and tend to keep it simple with eating the same goal daily to eliminate the inaccuracies of exercise calories.. And IMO, the tdee method is a lot less complicated than the NEAT method, albeit both are effective.
And i would agree that 1500 to 1600 is adequate in terms of nutrition, especially if the OP is focusing on whole foods, particularly veggies, fruits, whole grains, unsaturated fats, and dairy.
Once we address the basics, then we can help the op with more advanced methods such as macro adjustments and exercise adjustments.
0 -
TinyTexn59 wrote: »Really good advice Vingogly!
0 -
Well I got whole load information than I was banking on !
However for now I'm sticking with the 1460 cal intake and dependant on the exercise and exertion I may eat back some of those calories.
I appreciate all the time taken to reply. Thanks0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
that was your advice, we were responding to psulemon saying eat what MFP suggested and not eating back exercise calories.
My recommendation to not wat exercise calories is due to the fact she set her account yo lightly active. After 4 weeks she can determine if she is losing too fast. If at the point, if she is losing too fast, she can change her account to active to add more calories. Essentially, modifying the system to use the tdee method. I tend to move away from the mfp method and tend to keep it simple with eating the same goal daily to eliminate the inaccuracies of exercise calories.. And IMO, the tdee method is a lot less complicated than the NEAT method, albeit both are effective.
And i would agree that 1500 to 1600 is adequate in terms of nutrition, especially if the OP is focusing on whole foods, particularly veggies, fruits, whole grains, unsaturated fats, and dairy.
Once we address the basics, then we can help the op with more advanced methods such as macro adjustments and exercise adjustments.
Depending on what you like to eat, more calories (as in exercise cals) may be preferable and more sustainable compared to less0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.
however 1490 calories with working out 5-6x a week with 10k runs will put her under potentially 1200...
The advice was to eat 1500, or 1600. That's adequate nutrition.
that was your advice, we were responding to psulemon saying eat what MFP suggested and not eating back exercise calories.
My recommendation to not wat exercise calories is due to the fact she set her account yo lightly active. After 4 weeks she can determine if she is losing too fast. If at the point, if she is losing too fast, she can change her account to active to add more calories. Essentially, modifying the system to use the tdee method. I tend to move away from the mfp method and tend to keep it simple with eating the same goal daily to eliminate the inaccuracies of exercise calories.. And IMO, the tdee method is a lot less complicated than the NEAT method, albeit both are effective.
And i would agree that 1500 to 1600 is adequate in terms of nutrition, especially if the OP is focusing on whole foods, particularly veggies, fruits, whole grains, unsaturated fats, and dairy.
Once we address the basics, then we can help the op with more advanced methods such as macro adjustments and exercise adjustments.
Depending on what you like to eat, more calories (as in exercise cals) may be preferable and more sustainable compared to less
I recognize that, thence she should adjust based on her results.0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »
When you log your exercise you can manually chg the amount of calories burned so that it adds the number you choose to your available calories. My exercise bike shows about 150 fewer calories burned than MFP shows so I chg it to the lower number, but u can always just figure 1/2 the total that MFP shows and chg it to that:)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions