Weight loss math help: if BMR is 1700, only eat 1700 cals a day?
WannaBeMorningJogger
Posts: 7 Member
I'm confused.
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
I appreciate your help!
Signed,
Hoping to wear medium-sized clothes in summer
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
I appreciate your help!
Signed,
Hoping to wear medium-sized clothes in summer
1
Replies
-
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »I'm confused.
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
I appreciate your help!
Signed,
Hoping to wear medium-sized clothes in summer
1. BMR is the amount of calories you burn as if you were in a coma. Where did you get the 1700 calorie number as your goal? Was it at MFP?
2. Exercise burns calories. You need to feed yourself to keep exercising. Exercise is good for the body + health, but it brings with it a need to eat more.
3. No meat can be fine, but you still need protein. What's your definition of processed? Would you eat dried beans? Yogurt? What's your fat intake look like? Does oil count as processed for you?
1 -
You have completely overcomplicated this entire process
First to address your first problem your basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories that your body Burns just from being alive and is not to be confused with what you would need beyond that or your total daily energy expenditure given that your BMR is that high and you're only eating 1200 calories I think you're severely under eating and are going to end up binge eating at the end of it because you will not be able to sustain that few little calories
Your second problem about wanting to eat after you workout the point to MyFitnessPal is to workout and use those workout calories as extra food the reason why you're hungry is because you are starving your body and you're doing yourself more harm than good
You have made it a point to severely restrict your diet by eliminating pretty much everything and going to some crazy paleo vegan diet? If this is not your normal eating habits which I'm assuming it isn't because you seem very confused at what you want to eat and you seem to think that sugar is bad which it isn't and a hundred calorie apple isn't a high calorie food
Eat the foods you like nothing that people eat whether it be carbs sugar fruit vegetables meat whatever it doesn't matter just eat what you like within your calorie goal the more you complicate this process the more you set yourself up to fail6 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »I'm confused.
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
No. Where are you getting these numbers?
Your calorie deficit is calculated based on your TDEE (BMR + activity), not BMR (which is useful only to calculate TDEE or NEAT).
MFP starts by giving you a number based on NEAT (BMR + activity other than intentional exercise), and other calculators base it on TDEE (BMR + all activity). Because of MFP's approach, you add in intentional exercise to ultimately get a deficit based on TDEE (that's why you eat back exercise).
So if your BMR is 1700, and you are generally pretty sedentary but for intentional exercise, you apply an activity factor of 1.2 and get a NEAT of 2040. If you then exercise for an average of 300 cal per day (or on a particular day), you have a TDEE of 2340. To lose a lb/week, you apply a deficit of 500 and eat 1840.
Depending on your size and activity level, that might seem about right or not, hard to judge.Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Activity is included in TDEE, and eating based on activity level/exercise is NOT destroying the work. It might help to realize that your maintenance WITHOUT exercise is 2040 (see above) and that you can create a deficit of 500 by cutting calories that much, or by splitting the deficit between working out and cutting calories (say plan to work out 250 cal/day on average and cut cals by 250 and aim to eat 1790).
Going for a deficit of more than 500 might well be okay if you have a lot to lose, of course, but if it is making it harder for you I'd stick with 500.Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
This is kind of worrying and sounds like you are being too restrictive. Why paleo? Why vegan? (Ethical reasons are good ones, but it doesn't sound like that's the issue here.) Why (oh why) paleo plus vegan when paleo cuts out the best vegan sources of protein (legumes and, to a lesser degree, grains).
Lean meats are NOT high cal. Fruit is not actually high cal either.
If you want to improve your diet, great, but I'd start by looking at your current diet, understanding the cals you are eating and where they are coming from, and thinking of easy ways to cut them down. Protein is often very filling, as is fiber (for many), and beyond that people vary.
If you want to read about nutrition, this is a good site: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/5 -
sunfastrose wrote: »
1. BMR is the amount of calories you burn as if you were in a coma. Where did you get the 1700 calorie number as your goal? Was it at MFP?
2. Exercise burns calories. You need to feed yourself to keep exercising. Exercise is good for the body + health, but it brings with it a need to eat more.
3. No meat can be fine, but you still need protein. What's your definition of processed? Would you eat dried beans? Yogurt? What's your fat intake look like? Does oil count as processed for you?
1. The compilation of many sites. Usually it was around 1700 calories for my BMR.
2. So you exercise more, you eat more, then you have to exercise again to burn what you just ate, but you get hungry after... it's never ending...how do you lose weight if exercising makes you eat more?
3. No, I want to eat meat, but I'd have to eat a little less since they hold a lot of calories. My definition of processed is everything that's not from what you get in nature, as much as possible. ex. food doesn't come from boxes or cans in nature..
1 -
1. What is your TDEE (not your BMR)
2. This is why most people eat back half or all their exercise calories while eating at a deficit under their TDEE (shooting for .5-1 lb loss per week)
3. Eat whatever you want, that’s up to you. All you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. All diets boil down to cico.2 -
To reiterate what the others said, you are overcomplicating. MFP will give you a good starting goal, but just remember it is assuming you don't exercise and eat back exercise. (You might want to cut the calories some as some exercises are hard to estimate the calories from, that's all.)3
-
You should really focus on eating more meat if you're worried about hunger. Protein calories I find are the most worth it. I have a hard time "spending" 200 calories on carbs (which is easy to do) but a VERY easy time "spending" 200 calories on protein (which is a *kitten* ton of food). Yumyum.3
-
MFP: I've set my goal to lose 2 pounds a week and it says I have to eat 1200 calories a day!
You've said my BMR is too low of calories to eat... well MFP tells me to eat 1200! That's not a lot 1200 cals a day. I'll be starving!1 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »You should really focus on eating more meat if you're worried about hunger. Protein calories I find are the most worth it. I have a hard time "spending" 200 calories on carbs (which is easy to do) but a VERY easy time "spending" 200 calories on protein (which is a *kitten* ton of food). Yumyum.
I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food0 -
What are your specs - height, weight, goal weight? 2 pounds per week may be too aggressive a goal for you.0
-
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »I'm confused.
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
I appreciate your help!
Signed,
Hoping to wear medium-sized clothes in summer
Problem 1- If your BMR is of 1700, then your body will need ~1700 calories per day to maintain itself if you do nothing (like don't get out of bed - sleeping as if in a coma).
- If then you choose to eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 additional calories a day, you would be at an 500 calorie per day deficit, which would result in an approximated weekly weight loss of 1 pound
Problem 2
The "solution" isn't a simple answer that works for everybody, but eating fewer calories than you actually burn will result in weight loss. If working out causes you to take in an excessive number of calories, then you may want to work out a bit less, so that you can maintain your caloric intake below your caloric expenditure. (Sometimes this can be a discipline thing - eating fewer calories than you burn is a bit new to some people, especially people like me that have a long history of being over-weight over-eaters). For me it helped me to adopt the philosophy that eating manages my weight, and working out manages how my body looks/performs.
Problem 3
Excluding anything from your feeding can be problematic, especially if that exclusion represents a huge change from your normal feeding habits. Sometimes it's best to work slowly toward your targets and plan your way there. Yes, an apple may have 100 calories, but a similarly sized collection of M&M candies may be several times that many calories -- You may be able to find the nutrients and satiety that you're looking for by exploring foods that more closely match your individual needs than by looking at foods that you may not care for at all.
(This link has a good list of proteins ranked by caloric densities -- some of which maybe surprising: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10244142/list-of-foods-with-highest-protein-calorie-percentage )
While what you're asking here is nothing new, it does look like a short list of why you'd rather not do this than a shopping list for planning a new lifestyle. Pick a few small battles, overcome those, then look forward to the next small battle on your way toward your goal.
In my opinion (y'know "Stranger from the Internet"), take a few steps forward, then look back to where you began, see your progress and choose to do more (or less) as it suits your own individual needs (and try not to confuse needs with wants, if they are at all separable for you).2 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »You should really focus on eating more meat if you're worried about hunger. Protein calories I find are the most worth it. I have a hard time "spending" 200 calories on carbs (which is easy to do) but a VERY easy time "spending" 200 calories on protein (which is a *kitten* ton of food). Yumyum.
That's great for you but people are satiated with different foods. I'm a carb eater myself because nothing fills me up as efficiently. Nothing wrong with your way, might work for OP, might not.
OP, you need to experiment with what keeps you satisfied. Also, like others have said, you're greatly and unnecessarily over complicating this. It's going to make it very difficult to stick with over the long run.
Keep working it out, read a lot on here and experiment with what works for you. Keeping an open mind to the way you "should" eat will also be extremely helpful.
Best.1 -
A deficit of 500 calories per day equals one pound per week, not per day. As for staying within your calorie goals, I found that just logging everyday will help you determine which foods are worth the calories. It’s really a personal decision. Some people eat tons of veggies (bulk eating) while some people still eat junk food, just less of it. You will lose weight either way although eating healthier foods will make you healthier overall. I’ve read about and aspire to the goal of 80% healthy foods and 20% whatever makes you happy foods. Last, they say that abs are made in the kitchen and I think you will find that it is often easier to create a deficit by eating less than working out more. Heavy lifting can transform the shape of your body though, and cardio improve your heart. So working out is important but if you find it makes you eat more, look for the right balance that will keep your calories at a deficit.2
-
Can't really generalize about meat OR carbs. 200 cal of boneless, skinless chicken looks way different from 200 cal of 80% ground beef or pulled pork (or even chicken with skin). You can eat a LOT of shrimp (if not fried and breaded, of course) for 200 cal.
But 200 cal of plain potatoes is a LOT in my book too, and obviously 200 cal of many vegetables can be a ton of foods -- I use vegetables (i.e., carbs) to bulk up plates. 200 cal of bread may not seem like so much. 200 cal of legumes isn't huge but is incredibly filling for me.
200 cal of french fries may be easy to eat, but calling that a carb would be wrong as half of (or even more) is fat.
I did find that for me, personally, it was easier to create a deficit when I started with protein (not always meat, but meat was easy) + vegetables and then added in both starchy carbs and fat based on what fit with my remaining calories.
People vary a lot on what they find satisfying and filling, though.4 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »MFP: I've set my goal to lose 2 pounds a week and it says I have to eat 1200 calories a day!
You've said my BMR is too low of calories to eat... well MFP tells me to eat 1200! That's not a lot 1200 cals a day. I'll be starving!
You shouldn't have it set to lose 2/wk unless you are already at a high weight and have a lot to lose. 2lbs/wk is pretty aggressive for a lot of people and that 1200 is based on you burning 1000 cals more than you consume per day. Yes, you are correct that you will likely be starving.
Why don't you start with something less aggressive while you get a feel for everything, like 0.5lb/week or 1/wk. you can always kick it up once you adjust. It may not feel fast but if you aren't losing weight before MFP this will already be a reduction in overall calories for you
2 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »MFP: I've set my goal to lose 2 pounds a week and it says I have to eat 1200 calories a day!
You've said my BMR is too low of calories to eat... well MFP tells me to eat 1200! That's not a lot 1200 cals a day. I'll be starving!
Are you giving it correct information?
What are your stats and where are you getting the BMR number?
Most people are not sedentary -- do you know what your average steps per day are?
More important, MFP's goal is BEFORE exercise, that's why you eat back exercise.
And, are you telling it you want to lose 2 lb per week?0 -
Personally, I find protein to be a lot more satiating - but if I'm looking for 'bang for the buck' in terms of volume, I'd throw in a huge serving of less calorie-dense veggies (which are carbs) such as broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, mixed green salad, etc. But I don't find them very satiating if I don't have some protein along with them, so for me it becomes a "Why not both?" scenario.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food
5 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »MFP: I've set my goal to lose 2 pounds a week and it says I have to eat 1200 calories a day!
You've said my BMR is too low of calories to eat... well MFP tells me to eat 1200! That's not a lot 1200 cals a day. I'll be starving!
You most likely chose a calorie goal that is to aggressive for your stats, particularly if your tde is only 1700.
What is your height, age, current weight and goal weight?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »I'm confused.
Problem 1
If my BMR is of 1700, I eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 calories a day, I'm supposed to lose a pound a day?
No. Where are you getting these numbers?
Your calorie deficit is calculated based on your TDEE (BMR + activity), not BMR (which is useful only to calculate TDEE or NEAT).
MFP starts by giving you a number based on NEAT (BMR + activity other than intentional exercise), and other calculators base it on TDEE (BMR + all activity). Because of MFP's approach, you add in intentional exercise to ultimately get a deficit based on TDEE (that's why you eat back exercise).
So if your BMR is 1700, and you are generally pretty sedentary but for intentional exercise, you apply an activity factor of 1.2 and get a NEAT of 2040. If you then exercise for an average of 300 cal per day (or on a particular day), you have a TDEE of 2340. To lose a lb/week, you apply a deficit of 500 and eat 1840.
Depending on your size and activity level, that might seem about right or not, hard to judge.Problem 2
The more calories I burn through exercise, the more I feel the need to eat, but then I destroy the whole work I've done at the gym working out. Solutions?
Activity is included in TDEE, and eating based on activity level/exercise is NOT destroying the work. It might help to realize that your maintenance WITHOUT exercise is 2040 (see above) and that you can create a deficit of 500 by cutting calories that much, or by splitting the deficit between working out and cutting calories (say plan to work out 250 cal/day on average and cut cals by 250 and aim to eat 1790).
Going for a deficit of more than 500 might well be okay if you have a lot to lose, of course, but if it is making it harder for you I'd stick with 500.Problem 3
I'm looking to adopt a kind of a hunter/gatherer/paleo/no processed foods/kinda vegan diet type. I like meat, but they hold a lot of calories. If I have to eat only 1500 calories a day, how do I go about it without feeling incredibly hungry at the end of my day?? Add more veggies and fruits to my diet? But fruits contain a lot of calories too (an apple=100 calories). I'm trying to limit my sugar as well.
This is kind of worrying and sounds like you are being too restrictive. Why paleo? Why vegan? (Ethical reasons are good ones, but it doesn't sound like that's the issue here.) Why (oh why) paleo plus vegan when paleo cuts out the best vegan sources of protein (legumes and, to a lesser degree, grains).
Lean meats are NOT high cal. Fruit is not actually high cal either.
If you want to improve your diet, great, but I'd start by looking at your current diet, understanding the cals you are eating and where they are coming from, and thinking of easy ways to cut them down. Protein is often very filling, as is fiber (for many), and beyond that people vary.
If you want to read about nutrition, this is a good site: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/
Read this again.
1. Just for today, forget bmr. Trust mfp numbers.
2. Using mfp, add your exercise. It will give you extra calories. Just for today, eat 1/2 those calories. Are you still hungry? You can eat a few
More of those exercise calories without hurting your original goals. (Step 1)
3. Don't make it so hard. Just for today, eat whatever you want within your calorie goal figured in step 1.
Keep reading. Keep learning. Make it as easy for yourself as you can and still make it work.
4 -
standenvernet wrote: »
Problem 1- If your BMR is of 1700, then your body will need ~1700 calories per day to maintain itself if you do nothing (like don't get out of bed - sleeping as if in a coma).
- If then you choose to eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 additional calories a day, you would be at an 500 calorie per day deficit, which would result in an approximated weekly weight loss of 1 pound
Problem 2
The "solution" isn't a simple answer that works for everybody, but eating fewer calories than you actually burn will result in weight loss. If working out causes you to take in an excessive number of calories, then you may want to work out a bit less, so that you can maintain your caloric intake below your caloric expenditure. (Sometimes this can be a discipline thing - eating fewer calories than you burn is a bit new to some people, especially people like me that have a long history of being over-weight over-eaters). For me it helped me to adopt the philosophy that eating manages my weight, and working out manages how my body looks/performs.
Problem 3
Excluding anything from your feeding can be problematic, especially if that exclusion represents a huge change from your normal feeding habits. Sometimes it's best to work slowly toward your targets and plan your way there. Yes, an apple may have 100 calories, but a similarly sized collection of M&M candies may be several times that many calories -- You may be able to find the nutrients and satiety that you're looking for by exploring foods that more closely match your individual needs than by looking at foods that you may not care for at all.
(This link has a good list of proteins ranked by caloric densities -- some of which maybe surprising: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10244142/list-of-foods-with-highest-protein-calorie-percentage )
While what you're asking here is nothing new, it does look like a short list of why you'd rather not do this than a shopping list for planning a new lifestyle. Pick a few small battles, overcome those, then look forward to the next small battle on your way toward your goal.
In my opinion (y'know "Stranger from the Internet"), take a few steps forward, then look back to where you began, see your progress and choose to do more (or less) as it suits your own individual needs (and try not to confuse needs with wants, if they are at all separable for you).
What would you suggest I start with? I'm completely overwhelmed. Should I eat the same amount as my BMR and workout everyday to burn 500 calories?1 -
Oh, wait, I didn't read.
Apples and oranges -- if you want to lose 1 lb a week (the other calculation was based on that, 500 cal deficit), WHY are you telling MFP you want to lose 2 lb per week?
Most women will get 1200 before exercise if you say sedentary and 2 lb/week, as that just means your sedentary maintenance amount is 2200 or less (which it probably is). Under the calculation above, remember, you were getting maintenance without exercise of 2040 -- so to lose 1 lb per week you'd cut 500 calories and eat 1540 OR cut 250 and exercise 250 for the same result and eat 1790.
To lose 2 lb a week you need to get a deficit of 1000.0 -
Personally, I find protein to be a lot more satiating - but if I'm looking for 'bang for the buck' in terms of volume, I'd throw in a huge serving of less calorie-dense veggies (which are carbs) such as broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, mixed green salad, etc. But I don't find them very satiating if I don't have some protein along with them, so for me it becomes a "Why not both?" scenario.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food
Yeah calorie wise but to me 200g of pasta and 200g of chicken are pretty much the same to me I wouldn't look at the chicken and consider it a *kitten* ton of food over the pasta.0 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »standenvernet wrote: »
Problem 1- If your BMR is of 1700, then your body will need ~1700 calories per day to maintain itself if you do nothing (like don't get out of bed - sleeping as if in a coma).
- If then you choose to eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 additional calories a day, you would be at an 500 calorie per day deficit, which would result in an approximated weekly weight loss of 1 pound
Problem 2
The "solution" isn't a simple answer that works for everybody, but eating fewer calories than you actually burn will result in weight loss. If working out causes you to take in an excessive number of calories, then you may want to work out a bit less, so that you can maintain your caloric intake below your caloric expenditure. (Sometimes this can be a discipline thing - eating fewer calories than you burn is a bit new to some people, especially people like me that have a long history of being over-weight over-eaters). For me it helped me to adopt the philosophy that eating manages my weight, and working out manages how my body looks/performs.
Problem 3
Excluding anything from your feeding can be problematic, especially if that exclusion represents a huge change from your normal feeding habits. Sometimes it's best to work slowly toward your targets and plan your way there. Yes, an apple may have 100 calories, but a similarly sized collection of M&M candies may be several times that many calories -- You may be able to find the nutrients and satiety that you're looking for by exploring foods that more closely match your individual needs than by looking at foods that you may not care for at all.
(This link has a good list of proteins ranked by caloric densities -- some of which maybe surprising: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10244142/list-of-foods-with-highest-protein-calorie-percentage )
While what you're asking here is nothing new, it does look like a short list of why you'd rather not do this than a shopping list for planning a new lifestyle. Pick a few small battles, overcome those, then look forward to the next small battle on your way toward your goal.
In my opinion (y'know "Stranger from the Internet"), take a few steps forward, then look back to where you began, see your progress and choose to do more (or less) as it suits your own individual needs (and try not to confuse needs with wants, if they are at all separable for you).
What would you suggest I start with? I'm completely overwhelmed. Should I eat the same amount as my BMR and workout everyday to burn 500 calories?
Honestly, my suggestion would be to start -- changing NOTHING start logging what you eat and how you move (exercise or walking to/from the candy store) -- change nothing for a week or two, only log, then look back after that time and see what you think you can change (move more, eat less, eat differently... ) whatever you feel that you can change, control, and sustain.5 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »standenvernet wrote: »
Problem 1- If your BMR is of 1700, then your body will need ~1700 calories per day to maintain itself if you do nothing (like don't get out of bed - sleeping as if in a coma).
- If then you choose to eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 additional calories a day, you would be at an 500 calorie per day deficit, which would result in an approximated weekly weight loss of 1 pound
Problem 2
The "solution" isn't a simple answer that works for everybody, but eating fewer calories than you actually burn will result in weight loss. If working out causes you to take in an excessive number of calories, then you may want to work out a bit less, so that you can maintain your caloric intake below your caloric expenditure. (Sometimes this can be a discipline thing - eating fewer calories than you burn is a bit new to some people, especially people like me that have a long history of being over-weight over-eaters). For me it helped me to adopt the philosophy that eating manages my weight, and working out manages how my body looks/performs.
Problem 3
Excluding anything from your feeding can be problematic, especially if that exclusion represents a huge change from your normal feeding habits. Sometimes it's best to work slowly toward your targets and plan your way there. Yes, an apple may have 100 calories, but a similarly sized collection of M&M candies may be several times that many calories -- You may be able to find the nutrients and satiety that you're looking for by exploring foods that more closely match your individual needs than by looking at foods that you may not care for at all.
(This link has a good list of proteins ranked by caloric densities -- some of which maybe surprising: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10244142/list-of-foods-with-highest-protein-calorie-percentage )
While what you're asking here is nothing new, it does look like a short list of why you'd rather not do this than a shopping list for planning a new lifestyle. Pick a few small battles, overcome those, then look forward to the next small battle on your way toward your goal.
In my opinion (y'know "Stranger from the Internet"), take a few steps forward, then look back to where you began, see your progress and choose to do more (or less) as it suits your own individual needs (and try not to confuse needs with wants, if they are at all separable for you).
What would you suggest I start with? I'm completely overwhelmed. Should I eat the same amount as my BMR and workout everyday to burn 500 calories?
You said your goal was a deficit of 500 cal -- use MFP and say your goal is 1 lb/week.
When it asks your activity level, think about how active you are before exercise? Do you walk a bunch during the day or have a job where you walk around or run after small kids? If you are really sedentary, choose sedentary, but many, many people are actually lightly active.
Then when you exercise, log it back. If you are doing something hard to calculate you might want to cut the calories some, we can reality check it for you if you want.
That is a good goal.
If you want a goal based on some other method, try a calculator like scooby's workshop, and then you would not eat exercise back, but if your exercise is not yet consistent the MFP approach is easier.1 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »
Personally, I find protein to be a lot more satiating - but if I'm looking for 'bang for the buck' in terms of volume, I'd throw in a huge serving of less calorie-dense veggies (which are carbs) such as broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, mixed green salad, etc. But I don't find them very satiating if I don't have some protein along with them, so for me it becomes a "Why not both?" scenario.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food
Yeah calorie wise but to me 200g of pasta and 200g of chicken are pretty much the same to me I wouldn't look at the chicken and consider it a *kitten* ton of food over the pasta.
I'd not be satisfied with either, on its own, and not see either as particularly more satisfying than the other.
Give me 50 g (uncooked) of pasta and 100 g of chicken and add in some other kinds of carbs (like vegetables) and a little olive oil, and I'm happy and satisfied!2 -
WannaBeMorningJogger wrote: »standenvernet wrote: »
Problem 1- If your BMR is of 1700, then your body will need ~1700 calories per day to maintain itself if you do nothing (like don't get out of bed - sleeping as if in a coma).
- If then you choose to eat 1500 calories a day and burn 300 additional calories a day, you would be at an 500 calorie per day deficit, which would result in an approximated weekly weight loss of 1 pound
Problem 2
The "solution" isn't a simple answer that works for everybody, but eating fewer calories than you actually burn will result in weight loss. If working out causes you to take in an excessive number of calories, then you may want to work out a bit less, so that you can maintain your caloric intake below your caloric expenditure. (Sometimes this can be a discipline thing - eating fewer calories than you burn is a bit new to some people, especially people like me that have a long history of being over-weight over-eaters). For me it helped me to adopt the philosophy that eating manages my weight, and working out manages how my body looks/performs.
Problem 3
Excluding anything from your feeding can be problematic, especially if that exclusion represents a huge change from your normal feeding habits. Sometimes it's best to work slowly toward your targets and plan your way there. Yes, an apple may have 100 calories, but a similarly sized collection of M&M candies may be several times that many calories -- You may be able to find the nutrients and satiety that you're looking for by exploring foods that more closely match your individual needs than by looking at foods that you may not care for at all.
(This link has a good list of proteins ranked by caloric densities -- some of which maybe surprising: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10244142/list-of-foods-with-highest-protein-calorie-percentage )
While what you're asking here is nothing new, it does look like a short list of why you'd rather not do this than a shopping list for planning a new lifestyle. Pick a few small battles, overcome those, then look forward to the next small battle on your way toward your goal.
In my opinion (y'know "Stranger from the Internet"), take a few steps forward, then look back to where you began, see your progress and choose to do more (or less) as it suits your own individual needs (and try not to confuse needs with wants, if they are at all separable for you).
What would you suggest I start with? I'm completely overwhelmed. Should I eat the same amount as my BMR and workout everyday to burn 500 calories?
1700 is not your BMR this is an approx TDEE.
But if you provide your stats we can better determine what goal you need to be at.
Provide your height, age, current weight and goal weight.
eta: MFP is designed for you to eat back your exercise calorie burns. So if by chance you are short, sedentary (for your activity level in MFP) and/or older you may need to eat 1200 but you add on your exercise.
So if you exercise and burn 300 calories you will eat 1500 and be compliant with being in a calorie deficit to lose 1 pound per week.
also don't give up eating protein (i.e. lean meats, chicken, etc..). Protein provide satiety and you should be eating enough protein in your diet to minimize muscle loss as you lose weight. Vegetables and fruits are also good for you as well. There are plenty of things you can do with your meal planning to meet your nutritional needs and still eat meat/proteins, fruits.
0 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »
Personally, I find protein to be a lot more satiating - but if I'm looking for 'bang for the buck' in terms of volume, I'd throw in a huge serving of less calorie-dense veggies (which are carbs) such as broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, mixed green salad, etc. But I don't find them very satiating if I don't have some protein along with them, so for me it becomes a "Why not both?" scenario.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food
Yeah calorie wise but to me 200g of pasta and 200g of chicken are pretty much the same to me I wouldn't look at the chicken and consider it a *kitten* ton of food over the pasta.
Weight wise? Cause technically it's the same amount of food except the chicken is just over 200cals while the pasta (cooked) is just over 300. So I could add like 80 grams worth of chicken.
ETA: Totally estimating of course. I shouldn't have said "you should" lol it's all good I don't expect everyone to feel the same way.0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »
Personally, I find protein to be a lot more satiating - but if I'm looking for 'bang for the buck' in terms of volume, I'd throw in a huge serving of less calorie-dense veggies (which are carbs) such as broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, mixed green salad, etc. But I don't find them very satiating if I don't have some protein along with them, so for me it becomes a "Why not both?" scenario.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I personally don't find there's much difference between the calories in protein and the calories in carbs
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food
Yeah calorie wise but to me 200g of pasta and 200g of chicken are pretty much the same to me I wouldn't look at the chicken and consider it a *kitten* ton of food over the pasta.
Weight wise? Cause technically it's the same amount of food except the chicken is just over 200cals while the pasta (cooked) is just over 300. So I could add like 80 grams worth of chicken.
Ugh sorry my stupid phone keeps changing my things
It should be 200 calories lol each0 -
What are your stats?
I know it seems odd to eat back exercise calories but if you eat 1700 calories then exercise off 500 you'll have a net of 1200 calories to fuel your body's daily function and your daily activity (walking, cleaning, anything you do that is not intentional exercise). 1200 is likely too low for you.
Just put your stats into MFP and trust it. Forget using all the other calculators on the internet for now as they are only confusing you further.
So MFP works like this: I put in my current weight and daily activity (I am a stay at home mom so I put light activity) it gives me 2010 as my NEAT then it subtracts 500 calories to lose a pound a week so I can eat 1510 a day. Now if I go run a mile or go to her gym or whatever and let's say I burn 300 calories it adds it to the 1510. Now I can eat 1810 and still have a 500 calorie deficit (if I was at maintenance it would up my calories to 2310) for the day and if I do this everyday for a week I will lose a pound.1 -
Carbs and protein are both 4 calories per gram. Just sayin'.HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »Carbs are a little bit more calorie-dense but so is meat and I really wouldn't consider 200 calories worth of chicken to be a s*** ton of food [/quote]
@Anvil_Head Oh thank god, I thought my ocd was going to make my head explode.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions