Going crazy on 1300 cals/day

kellyjellybellyjelly

If you're that active then I would definitely eat more calories than you're!

Do you have a fitness tracker or use another tracker to measure your exercise?

You should be looking at this as a marathon & not a 100-yard dash. Sure it's exciting to lose a lot of weight fast, but it's better to lose it a tad slower that way the healthy habits stick.

heybales

lorrpb wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

It's been mentioned - but not why.

MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

Life lesson there:
You do more you eat more.
You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

In a diet a tad less in both cases.

Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't

Sedentary works well for a lot of people, which makes it a good default for those who are seeking advice. I've seen a corollary step count and I think it's about 5000 for sedentary, then add about 2500-5000 for each additional level. If you sync with your activity tracker, it doesn't matter where it's set because everything will get adjusted through syncing.

http://www.fitnessforweightloss.com/rate-your-activity-level-based-on-steps-per-day/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

Nice study reference.

Based on currently available evidence, we propose the following preliminary indices be used to classify pedometer-determined physical activity in healthy adults:
(i). <5000 steps/day may be used as a 'sedentary lifestyle index';
(ii). 5000-7499 steps/day is typical of daily activity excluding sports/exercise and might be considered 'low active';
(iii). 7500-9999 likely includes some volitional activities (and/or elevated occupational activity demands) and might be considered 'somewhat active'; and
(iv). >or=10000 steps/day indicates the point that should be used to classify individuals as 'active'.
Individuals who take >12500 steps/day are likely to be classified as 'highly active'.

But I'd suggest that giving a default suggestion when it's known someone walks more or even if unknown daily activity level is working on myth, just as potentially bad as any of the other myths if no reason is given for the advice or limits as to when it applies.

Christine_72

deannalfisher wrote: »

lorrpb wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

It's been mentioned - but not why.

MFP accounts for NO exercise in that eating goal you initially see. And Sedentary for easily half that select it initially isn't true, they are more active because they have kids or pets or daily household chores they do.

You follow the app you honestly log exercise done and you won't be given 1300.
And with your routine - that should rarely be your daily goal.

Life lesson there:
You do more you eat more.
You do less you eat less (that's the gotcha for most here trying to lose).

In a diet a tad less in both cases.

Besides the fact as mentioned 1 lb weekly may be more reasonable, perhaps 1.5 to start out with.

I wish there were better definitions for sedentary/lightly active (like a corollary step count or something) - if there is on MFP I haven't seen it

I don't get why people always recommend setting activity level to sedentary if you aren't

Sedentary works well for a lot of people, which makes it a good default for those who are seeking advice. I've seen a corollary step count and I think it's about 5000 for sedentary, then add about 2500-5000 for each additional level. If you sync with your activity tracker, it doesn't matter where it's set because everything will get adjusted through syncing.

http://www.fitnessforweightloss.com/rate-your-activity-level-based-on-steps-per-day/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

why does a sedentary recommendation work well is the person isn't sedentary - that is my point! people seem to recommend it, even when someone says that they walk 8-10k a day (I kid you not)

a lot of the people who are claim to be starving, are likely using that which is reducing their calories even more than they need to be which can potentially lead to binging because of hunger...

@deannalfisher I'm more lightly active/active, but have mfp set to sedentary. Any steps i do above 2,000ish is purposeful exercise. I "aim" get a minimum of 13k steps a day, but if friends or family are visiting or i have a social engagement those steps plummet way, way down.

The reasons I'm set at sedentary:

-I have my fitbit synced, so it will adjust my activity level automatically.

-I hate seeing negative adjustments on lazy days.

-Setting my activity level higher puts too much pressure on me to hit that level each and every day. I'm already obsessed with getting my steps in, i don't need more pressure.

-I go to bed early, at sedentary i lose around 60 calories every night. At lightly active that number shot up to around 200. I'd hate to think how far in the negative I'd go if i was set at Active. Losing all of those calories kinda negates upping my activity level in the first place.

-I prelog my day every morning, 9 times out of 10 I'm in the red. It shows me clearly how much exercise i need to do to get back in the green.

-If i do decide to have a sloth day, I can rest at ease eating my sedentary calories and not worry that I'm eating too much. Although negative adjustments handle this, it still bugs me.

AnnPT77

I agree with others suggesting that it may be more sustainable for you to target slower weight loss in your settings, and/or eat back more exercise calories.

In addition, timing and composition of eating may affect satiation and energy level. These things are very individual, so it could take some experimentation to find your best stratergy.

Timing means which meals/snacks are biggest, what time of day you eat them, and how many there are. Some common variations are skipping breakfast vs. eating it, 5-6 daily meals vs. 3 or even 1, snacks or no, etc.

Composition means varying, within a healthy range of each, whether you eat relatively more protein, relatively more fats, lots of high volume/high fiber/low cal foods (like veggies), etc. Different people find different macros more satiating. Some people can't feel full without some carbs (often complex carbs), while others find that eating carbs causes more carb cravings.

If you're not satiated, maybe try a new routine for a couple of days and see if it improves things. If so, keep it. If not, try something else.

It may also help to review your diary to see if you can identify patterns. If you have one of those super-hungry days (or the reverse), was there something different about how you ate that day, or even the previous day? Ditto for exercise or daily life activity? How was your sleep? Was there a different stress level? If you find patterns you can use that knowledge to adjust and improve the situation.

Finally, if you find you're losing faster than expected (after the first couple of weeks, when many of us see a big, misleading water weight blip), don't be afraid to add calories to keep your actual loss rate at a moderate sensible level. MFP's goal estimates are very close for most people, but can be noticeably off for a very few.

Wishing you a positive outcome - good results on the weight loss front, and improved satisfaction/sustainability!