Myfitnesspal

Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Losing body fat. Curious of what others in this community would do.

Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
I'm curious on what the community would do. If a person needs 1993 calories to maintain. They have been eating 1600 calories already, as they tracked to see what they're eating for few months. By all means they are accurately doing so. To be in a caloric deficit enough to lose body fat MFP suggest being at 1760 calories. The problem and question I have is, would you tell someone to bump up to the healthy 1730 calories since they are already at 1600? OR would it be a good idea to go lower. This person already lifts weight free weights, and does some H.I.T. Remember the question is not if they are tracking right. The question comes with the problem they are already in a caloric deficit by accurately logging and defaultly eating not a lot of food and under the recommendations. Some trainers suggest going to Maintenance then recutting calories slower. Any suggestions ideas or experiences?
«134

Replies

  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    Oh, and the exercise and H.I.T is not counted to the deficit. I should add that.
  • Abbie918Abbie918 Member Posts: 120 Member Member Posts: 120 Member
    Is this person feeling good at 1600 and losing weight? If they're not tired/grouchy/always hungry at 1600, then I'd say to stay there.

    Sorry I can't be more help -- for whatever reason, I'm having a really hard time following this post.
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    I see no reason why 1600 is not a good amount to be eating unless they are not eating back exercise calories to a point.

    I eat 1500 atm...maintain on 2k.

    Summer is coming so my maintenance will go up to about 2400 and I will eat about 2k a day.

    MFP deficit is defined by the weekly weight loss goals and height weight and gender.

    If they are losing a reasonable amount of weight, are not showing signs of hair loss, fatigue, grumps etc leave it alone.
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    edited April 2016
  • jemhhjemhh Member Posts: 14,273 Member Member Posts: 14,273 Member
    How did you come up with 1993 to maintain?

    What kind of weight lifting are you doing? (Program details.)
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    There it is...if a new exercise has just been started then it's probably fluid retention....
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/#result then times 1.2 for activity level 1982 here. But MFP tells me it's the 1993
    edited April 2016
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    There it is...if a new exercise has just been started then it's probably fluid retention....

    Wasn't losing weight before "New" exercise was introduced either, thus why the exercise is introduced as we felt lower calories only hurts fueling and the person is already in the 1600 range.
    edited April 2016
  • LounmounLounmoun Member Posts: 8,428 Member Member Posts: 8,428 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    This person is not very overweight so losing .8 lbs in 3 weeks starting out isn't terrible progress. A calorie goal between 1500 and 1700 should be okay. I'd say stick with what they are doing, be patient and tweak accuracy.
    Is he eating back exercise calories? Maybe he is overestimating calorie burns and should eat less of that to compensate.
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    There it is...if a new exercise has just been started then it's probably fluid retention....

    Wasn't losing weight before "New" exercise was introduced either, thus why the exercise is introduced as we felt lower calories only hurts fueling and the person is already in the 1600 range.

    how long with no loss at all...I mean none...0 zilch nada
  • jemhhjemhh Member Posts: 14,273 Member Member Posts: 14,273 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/#result then times 1.2 for activity level 1982 here. But MFP tells me it's the 1993

    Why would you not use lightly active since the person exercises a few times a week?

    If he hasn't been losing long term, he would need to cut calories to start losing. What makes you say that he is counting calories accurately?
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    This person is not very overweight so losing .8 lbs in 3 weeks starting out isn't terrible progress. A calorie goal between 1500 and 1700 should be okay. I'd say stick with what they are doing, be patient and tweak accuracy.
    Is he eating back exercise calories? Maybe he is overestimating calorie burns and should eat less of that to compensate.

    He doesn't count the calories burned from exercise into the deficit at all, because they are highly inaccurate. No, they are not eating back calories.
    edited April 2016
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    They are feeling ok, no strength loss rep range has increased, but also there is no real weight loss weight keeps fluctuating 159-161. They are not necessarily new to weight- training. and after 3 weeks only lost .8 pounds.

    I can give the actual specs:
    Male.
    34 years of age.
    5'6" shorter side.
    159 pounds now, they were 160-161 3 weeks ago.
    Sedentary lifestyle, the lowest one you can pick.

    They work out 3 times a week with weights have been for a a few years and just started doing H.I.T cardio 10-13 mins a day (burpees) a 3-5 times a week depending on schedule because they have a belly they'd like to lose.



    This person is not very overweight so losing .8 lbs in 3 weeks starting out isn't terrible progress. A calorie goal between 1500 and 1700 should be okay. I'd say stick with what they are doing, be patient and tweak accuracy.
    Is he eating back exercise calories? Maybe he is overestimating calorie burns and should eat less of that to compensate.

    He doesn't count the calories burned from exercise into the deficit at all, because they are highly inaccurate. No, they are not eating back calories.

    how accurate is intake? food scale, logging using USDA figures?
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/#result then times 1.2 for activity level 1982 here. But MFP tells me it's the 1993

    Why would you not use lightly active since the person exercises a few times a week?

    If he hasn't been losing long term, he would need to cut calories to start losing. What makes you say that he is counting calories accurately?

    Because I have the logs and since exercise is not counting toward the deficit it makes it even more accurate.
    edited April 2016
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    The pic posted, does not include exercise into deficit at all.
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    0xpz1uugtldz.jpg

    This is not accurate logging sorry.

    I see 8.2 oz not grams
    I see peanut butter in tbsp not grams.

    8.2 oz of chicken thigh is 232.6 grams of meat USDA has those calories at 381 not 369. Small difference but just pointing out logging is not accurate.

    I suspect eating more than they think...esp measuring peanut butter in tbsp.

    ETA so in any given day this log can be off from anywhere 100-200 calories 700-1400 a week...even with not logging exercise this is not going to work.

    Hence the 0.8lbs lost in 3 weeks not the 3 you probably expected.
    edited April 2016
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    I know people want to believe it's inaccurate logging.lying but I don't believe this to be true as since February this person has been doing this logging. So, other ideas on what people think should be the next solution. This person weighs 160 today. again, even though by now MFP said they would be at 155. Maybe muscle was gained?
  • SezxyStefSezxyStef Member Posts: 15,271 Member Member Posts: 15,271 Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    I know people want to believe it's inaccurate logging.lying but I don't believe this to be true as since February this person has been doing this logging. So, other ideas on what people think should be the next solution. This person weighs 160 today. again, even though by now MFP said they would be at 155. Maybe muscle was gained?

    no it wasn't. If this person really wants to know they will ask the question and open their diary totally.

    It's not a belief of inaccurate logging it's a fact when that one sheet is seen.
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Member Posts: 154 Member Member Posts: 154 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    0xpz1uugtldz.jpg

    This is not accurate logging sorry.

    I see 8.2 oz not grams
    I see peanut butter in tbsp not grams.

    8.2 oz of chicken thigh is 232.6 grams of meat USDA has those calories at 381 not 369. Small difference but just pointing out logging is not accurate.

    I suspect eating more than they think...esp measuring peanut butter in tbsp.

    ETA so in any given day this log can be off from anywhere 100-200 calories 700-1400 a week...even with not logging exercise this is not going to work.

    Hence the 0.8lbs lost in 3 weeks not the 3 you probably expected.

    The scale they use does both grams and ounces, it's the same no matter of conversation, as I tested it myself.

    Then I looked into your diary and see you do the same thing. Northumberland - Cereal Cream 10%, 4 tbsp 60 4 6 1 0 0
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.