Estimates off can anyone help.

robm1brown

I have lost 4lb a week on average over 4 weeks. But I have gone slightly over my goal each week. My excercise estimates are just that (estimates) but surely that cant account for this difference.

Can anyone check my log and suggest ideas for where i have miscalculated or estimated.

cmriverside

The numbers you are given when you set your Goals here are just a starting point.

I eat fully 600 calories a day MORE than what MFP says I should eat - and I have been doing so for over a year.

Just keep good records and you will soon know how much you truly need to eat. I would say eat a few hundred more per day if you are losing four pounds per week. I mean, I looked a few days of your food diary, but since you are using "Quick Add" calorie estimates, I don't think we can be much help. You want to be at a point where you are losing no more than 1% of your body weight per week.

robm1brown

I have used quick add three or four times ever and they are for miscellaneous takeaways after drinking normally. Even adding all the quick adds together they don't scratch the surface of the vast (apparent) overestimate of calorie count.

GemstoneofHeart

If you just started 4 weeks ago it's most likely water weight. That will taper off and the weight loss will slow down.

Francl27

GemstoneofHeart wrote: »

If you just started 4 weeks ago it's most likely water weight. That will taper off and the weight loss will slow down.

This.

I wouldn't change anything just yet.

robm1brown

Fair enough yes I wasn't sure about how long the water weight bubble would last. For it still to be here now surprises me, but fair enough. It is not like I suddenly dropped a huge amount of weight it has been fairly steady except the first couple of days.

cmriverside

robm1brown wrote: »

I have used quick add three or four times ever and they are for miscellaneous takeaways after drinking normally. Even adding all the quick adds together they don't scratch the surface of the vast (apparent) overestimate of calorie count.

Whatever. So eat more or don't. It's all about long-term tracking. One month is just a scratch, keep trying to log correctly - we aren't going to be able to pinpoint your errors (if any) until you do.

I went back over a week. You use "1 serving" or "1 waffle" or similar language/estimates all the time. You eat a lot of sugary carbs and leave a lot of protein not-eaten. Your exercise estimates of 800 calories - no way for us to know how accurate that is.

Keep Good Records over time. I would suggest using weights of prepared items you use, and to eat more protein.

Keep it going. Well done on your weight loss.

robm1brown

The 'one serving' or 'one waffle' is always directly off the packet which is good enough for me, in that I think it will average out over time not that I think it is perfect every time. If I stop losing I guess I will have to change that (but even then I will probably just eat less rather than weigh every waffle).

Interestingly my chocolate intake has increased hugely since calorie counting, always used to avoid it. I have noticed in several aspects the diet have worsened since using the app. But the overall calories have certainly reduced.

Exercise is a complete finger in the wind. I have no idea.

GemstoneofHeart

robm1brown wrote: »

Fair enough yes I wasn't sure about how long the water weight bubble would last. For it still to be here now surprises me, but fair enough. It is not like I suddenly dropped a huge amount of weight it has been fairly steady except the first couple of days.

I lost 17 or so pounds my first month from the water weight coming off. After that it's been 5-10 pounds a month.

cmriverside

Well, for instance "1 breakfast - 1500" "1 satay chicken" "1 banana."

Yeah, it's not going to stop your weight loss, but it's not accurate either. The meals I eat from a restaurant are few and far between. I rarely eat out. I don't weigh bread either - but you asked.

robm1brown

@cmriverside 1 satay chicken is a carefully weighed and calculated recipe, extremely accurate actually as nearly all my meals have been. Both the banana and breakfast were unweighable however the 1500 taken from a menu, so as accurate as you are going to be in the circumstances. I understand this isn't how you do it but I do strongly think you have misunderstood the nature of advice requested.

@genstone interesting, maybe I'll start putting on weight soon then *gulp*

cmriverside

robm1brown wrote: »

@cmriverside 1 satay chicken is a carefully weighed and calculated recipe, extremely accurate actually as nearly all my meals have been. Both the banana and breakfast were unweighable however the 1500 taken from a menu, so as accurate as you are going to be in the circumstances. I understand this isn't how you do it but I do strongly think you have misunderstood the nature of advice requested.

@genstone interesting, maybe I'll start putting on weight soon then *gulp*

This is in your first post:

Can anyone check my log and suggest ideas for where i have miscalculated or estimated.

That's what I was doing (?)

Good luck.

robm1brown

I think you were looking for micro miscalculations in specific meals or logs which almost certainly exist but were not ever going to add up to explain the error. My misunderstanding was clearly on a grander scale ie accounting for thousands of calories (although clearly according to the other posts it wasn't). Minor alterations to individual entries was not addressing the broader point. Just a misunderstanding I suppose.

kimny72

robm1brown wrote: »

I think you were looking for micro miscalculations in specific meals or logs which almost certainly exist but were not ever going to add up to explain the error. My misunderstanding was clearly on a grander scale ie accounting for thousands of calories (although clearly according to the other posts it wasn't). Minor alterations to individual entries was not addressing the broader point. Just a misunderstanding I suppose.

I think you are underestimating how big a difference estimating can make (see what I did there ) When I went from eating out a lot and just assuming the volume serving size was accurate to using a food scale, I found I was eating 400 cals more than I thought I was. Others with higher cal goals can be off by even more. The point being, if you are estimating your food log there is no way to really know where the discrepancy is.

Having said that, beginners water weight loss could explain most of it.

Are you eating some of your exercise calories back? If not, you should be - the mfp goal is without exercise. (Sorry, I can't see your diary on my phone).

robm1brown

Yeah I eat my exercise calories as best I can although as I say I have no idea how many calories I burn playing tennis or swimming for example. I don't have one of those fancy watches, the ones that go in the pool seem very expensive.

I think my point is that I really don't estimate the calories very much at all. I use the recipe function a lot which shows up as '1 serving of' when all the measuring was done when cooking rather than when eating. I personally don't think taking the calories off the side of a packet is guessing and if anything would cause an underestimate of calories. I have had two or three meals where a takeaway was guessed even if they were all off by 1000 (they weren't small) that wouldn't explain the weight loss in terms of calorific deficit.

The water weight thing makes a lot of sense however.

kimny72

Well, if you keep losing at this pace another week or two, increase your calories. Regardless of where the disconnect is, you don't want to keep losing that fast at your weight.

If you eat breakfast cereal, try weighing out 3/4 of a cup of cereal. The volume serving they list can be as much as double the the grams serving they list, and the grams are the accurate measure for the nutrition info. I've had an English muffin weigh half what it's supposed to! But regardless, just increase your cals a bit until you see the pace your looking for. Ultimately it a all estimates and you just keep adjusting until you find your spot. Good luck k!

timtam163

I was aiming for .5 lbs a week at first but lost 2; I'm 120 lbs and I think I lost something on the order of 7 lbs of water weight, if that helps.

jelleigh

Hey OP. I don't have a lot more to add but I noticed you don't list your stats. It's ok to lose about 1% of your body weight per week. The water weight at the beginning will throw off the number but if you watch it a few more weeks and then do the math to see what you are averaging - it might be that it levels out to an ok % of loss.

AnnPT77

Probably water weight & decline in average digestive system contents. You can give it another couple of weeks, but if you're still losing that fast, I'd strongly advise eating more, until your loss rate is no more than 1% of body weight.

MFP severely underestimated my calorie goal. I lost too fast at first, and corrected as soon as I realized, but still paid for it with some weakness & fatigue that took time to recover from.

It (and other calculators) think my maintenance NEAT is around 1600. It's really over 2000 (and the difference is not down to exercise - I eat that all back; or to daily activity - I'm deeply, truly sedentary outside of the exercise (retired, sedentary hobbies). I'm in year 2 of maintenance, after taking a year to lose 50+ pounds, so I'm very confident that what I'm saying is true.

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

robm1brown

I dont ever use volume measurements always mass. It sounds like water weight. Might start measuring myself for size.

Im 26 years old
6 foot 3
And just under 20 stone

DX2JX2

Keep doing what you're doing for now as long as you feel good. You're losing a little quickly but that's normal early on. Watch your results for another 3-4 weeks and then you'll have an idea where your 'steady state' loss will be. If you need/want to eat more to slow your rate of loss at that point, then so be it.

MFP calorie targets can be a little low. I ate about 10% to 15% more than it recommended for me and still lost at a steady 2 pounds per week. Still, it took some trial and error for me to get there and it was probably 1.5-2 months before I had my numbers really dialed in.

All exercise calories are estimates regardless of the source. The important thing is to recognize that there is a difference between gross and incremental (net) calories burned. Gross calories are the total calories burned during the time you are exercising - this includes calories that you would have burned even if you did nothing. Net calories are the truly incremental calories burned by exercise - calories that would not have been burned had you not exercised. You only want to think about eating back the latter since MFP includes the former in your base target.

If taking your calorie counts from a cardio machine or from an internet database, there is a good chance that those are gross calorie burn numbers - you'll need to make sure that you recognize the difference and log accordingly.

There are plenty of ways to estimate your net calorie burn from exercise but for lack of anything better, you'd probably do pretty well to assume that an hour of steady state, moderate intensity cardio will burn something on order of 650 calories net. An hour of low intensity exercise (for example, walking), will burn about 300 calories per hour net. Start from there and adjust once you have a solid pool of data to work with.

TavistockToad

robm1brown wrote: »

@genstone interesting, maybe I'll start putting on weight soon then *gulp*

what in that post makes you think you will start gaining weight?

robm1brown

DX2JX2 wrote: »

If taking your calorie counts from a cardio machine or from an internet database, there is a good chance that those are gross calorie burn numbers - you'll need to make sure that you recognize the difference and log accordingly.

Yeah I divide any number I see on a cardio machine by two and divide MFP estimates by two and for tennis divide them by 3 (because I know they are miles off). This is a rough attempt to counter what you describe and just general overestimaty nature of exercise burn. I might take your hourly estimates as better guides.