Realistic calorie goal

Options
2»

Replies

  • Tblackdogs
    Tblackdogs Posts: 324 Member
    Options
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    @walktalkdog, your cals sound fine, and I'm glad to hear you are eating back your exercise cals too.

    What is being referred to is people who either choose to eat under the minimum recommended for adequate nutrition without doctor/RD supervision, or those who aim to lose more than 2 lbs a week when they have under 50lbs to lose.

    No worries for you.

    Cheers, h.
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    I have been given the number 1420 as my daily caloric intake before exercise is added in, set to lose .5 pound per week. I am 60 years old, 5'8", female, with a sedentary activity level and currently weigh 160 pounds. I exercise daily and eat my exercise calories back.

    I have been logging since November 1, and have made good progress and am happy with what I'm doing, and I feel good, and do not feel deprived. I've lost 7 pounds, with a goal of losing 5 more, and then maintaining.

    My problem? Every so often I read a comment on here from someone stating that eating x number of calories is too low, our hair will start falling out, our nails will become brittle, and all sorts of bad things will happen to us. I disagree, but what do I know? The problem with me is that even though this is working for me, I start to think "well, maybe I should be eating more". And that's bad, because I do not need any excuse to eat more!

    Are these just naysayers?

    Most of these are not in response to an older woman who is set to lose 0.5lbs a week and is coming quite close to achieving that.

    Most of these are in response to the same woman trying to lose 2lbs a week, being given a goal of 1200 (cause MFP floor), not eating exercise calories back, thus eating 1200 less leaving a few on the table, so say, eating 1100... and then throwing a few Zumba classes and runs in for an extra exercise of 500 and netting 600 for the day.

    Look familiar? If yes, yes, you should be eating more (and measuring it accurately)

    Thanks! ("older woman" is what I am - still not liking how it sounds - lol!)

    Men should never use the phrase "older woman" unless they're referring to their grandmas!
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,930 Member
    Options
    Tblackdogs wrote: »
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    @walktalkdog, your cals sound fine, and I'm glad to hear you are eating back your exercise cals too.

    What is being referred to is people who either choose to eat under the minimum recommended for adequate nutrition without doctor/RD supervision, or those who aim to lose more than 2 lbs a week when they have under 50lbs to lose.

    No worries for you.

    Cheers, h.
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    I have been given the number 1420 as my daily caloric intake before exercise is added in, set to lose .5 pound per week. I am 60 years old, 5'8", female, with a sedentary activity level and currently weigh 160 pounds. I exercise daily and eat my exercise calories back.

    I have been logging since November 1, and have made good progress and am happy with what I'm doing, and I feel good, and do not feel deprived. I've lost 7 pounds, with a goal of losing 5 more, and then maintaining.

    My problem? Every so often I read a comment on here from someone stating that eating x number of calories is too low, our hair will start falling out, our nails will become brittle, and all sorts of bad things will happen to us. I disagree, but what do I know? The problem with me is that even though this is working for me, I start to think "well, maybe I should be eating more". And that's bad, because I do not need any excuse to eat more!

    Are these just naysayers?

    Most of these are not in response to an older woman who is set to lose 0.5lbs a week and is coming quite close to achieving that.

    Most of these are in response to the same woman trying to lose 2lbs a week, being given a goal of 1200 (cause MFP floor), not eating exercise calories back, thus eating 1200 less leaving a few on the table, so say, eating 1100... and then throwing a few Zumba classes and runs in for an extra exercise of 500 and netting 600 for the day.

    Look familiar? If yes, yes, you should be eating more (and measuring it accurately)

    Thanks! ("older woman" is what I am - still not liking how it sounds - lol!)

    Men should never use the phrase "older woman" unless they're referring to their grandmas!

    Hey, I've been called gramps and old geaser recently and gotten my first (accidental and non merrited) senior discount...so....

    (One should never stop digging, why not! :lol: )
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,847 Member
    Options
    MFP produces accurate estimates for most people, when used as intended (reasonable weight loss rate target for amount intending to lose, logging honestly and accurately, conservatively estimating exercise calories then eating them back, etc.). It uses formulas based on research on large groups of people.

    Given the underlying statistics, MFP will be right on or pretty close for the overwhelming majority of people, somewhat off for a few (plus or minus), and quite far off for a very, very few (1 in 25, say). (This same general pattern applies to other calculators, too, not just MFP - it's in the nature of how the statistics work.)

    That's why you'll often see it advised here to start with the MFP estimate (not other individuals' results!), stick to it for 4-6 weeks (6 is preferable for premenopausal women), then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual personal results. Same advice would apply if you use a TDEE calculator - use the estimate for 4-6 weeks, then adjust.

    More background at the link below, for other statistics geeks:

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

  • walktalkdog
    walktalkdog Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    I still look for my mum when I hear 'older woman' she turns 91 tomorrow.

    I don't feel old, don't act old, and don't even look too old in the mirror without my reading glasses, so I am just ignoring old for another decade or so. :)

    I also lie and reverse the numbers in my head and say I'm a well used 46, hahaha.

    Cheers, h.

    I know - I certainly don't feel old! Don't we all have a set age point in our head that is much younger than our outward appearance dictates?
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    myfitnesspal's calorie goal is quite reasonable. I've used a variety of TDEE calculators and they all yield similar numbers.
  • walktalkdog
    walktalkdog Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    Dlebe161 wrote: »
    Hi following this thread . I am going away February 13 and would like to lose 10 pounds or so. I put my calorie bracket to be 1200, but I have heard in the past to not add ur exercise?

    I have read many posts about this on MFP. I choose to eat my exercise calories back because if I do not I feel starved. Lots of posters have said to experiment a bit and see what works best for you. If you are losing gradually and consistently and feel good, eat at that calorie level. If you feel fine without eating back your exercise calories, then don't.

    Some people caution that exercise calories given on MFP, Fitbit, exercise machines, are exaggerated; and in that case choose to eat back only a portion of those. This is probably very sensible and realistic.

    Good luck!

  • walktalkdog
    walktalkdog Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Tblackdogs wrote: »
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    @walktalkdog, your cals sound fine, and I'm glad to hear you are eating back your exercise cals too.

    What is being referred to is people who either choose to eat under the minimum recommended for adequate nutrition without doctor/RD supervision, or those who aim to lose more than 2 lbs a week when they have under 50lbs to lose.

    No worries for you.

    Cheers, h.
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    I have been given the number 1420 as my daily caloric intake before exercise is added in, set to lose .5 pound per week. I am 60 years old, 5'8", female, with a sedentary activity level and currently weigh 160 pounds. I exercise daily and eat my exercise calories back.

    I have been logging since November 1, and have made good progress and am happy with what I'm doing, and I feel good, and do not feel deprived. I've lost 7 pounds, with a goal of losing 5 more, and then maintaining.

    My problem? Every so often I read a comment on here from someone stating that eating x number of calories is too low, our hair will start falling out, our nails will become brittle, and all sorts of bad things will happen to us. I disagree, but what do I know? The problem with me is that even though this is working for me, I start to think "well, maybe I should be eating more". And that's bad, because I do not need any excuse to eat more!

    Are these just naysayers?

    Most of these are not in response to an older woman who is set to lose 0.5lbs a week and is coming quite close to achieving that.

    Most of these are in response to the same woman trying to lose 2lbs a week, being given a goal of 1200 (cause MFP floor), not eating exercise calories back, thus eating 1200 less leaving a few on the table, so say, eating 1100... and then throwing a few Zumba classes and runs in for an extra exercise of 500 and netting 600 for the day.

    Look familiar? If yes, yes, you should be eating more (and measuring it accurately)

    Thanks! ("older woman" is what I am - still not liking how it sounds - lol!)

    Men should never use the phrase "older woman" unless they're referring to their grandmas!

    Hey, I've been called gramps and old geaser recently and gotten my first (accidental and non merrited) senior discount...so....

    (One should never stop digging, why not! :lol: )

    I think men approach this differently. My husband couldn't wait to turn 60 and take advantage of the senior discounts. I held out as long as I could! The 20 year old clerks and movie ticket takers think anyone over 40 is a geezer. I'm not going to lie; I'm having a hard time with being 60. But that is providing my motivation to exercise hard and eat well.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,847 Member
    Options
    walktalkdog wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    I still look for my mum when I hear 'older woman' she turns 91 tomorrow.

    I don't feel old, don't act old, and don't even look too old in the mirror without my reading glasses, so I am just ignoring old for another decade or so. :)

    I also lie and reverse the numbers in my head and say I'm a well used 46, hahaha.

    Cheers, h.

    I know - I certainly don't feel old! Don't we all have a set age point in our head that is much younger than our outward appearance dictates?

    I don't think I do. I feel my age: 62. Thing is, 62 feels pretty gosh-darned excellent. I may even look older than 62, dunno (so far, I refuse to dye the gray hair, among other rebellions).

    Speaking as an advanced-stage cancer survivor (17+ years now), and a cancer widow besides, every year of age is a gift and a treasure. While I don't have full control, I'm grateful to have large influence over the quality of the years. And I'm consequently working to reclaim "li'l ol' lady" as a positive descriptor. ;)

    What I don't understand is why so many people seem to think aging is a synonym for decrepitude, disability, lack of energy, intellectual decline, and worse. Pfui.

    Back on topic, added on to my earlier post: Calorie requirements for individuals tend toward average (and the average is what MFP and other calculators will give us as a starting estimate). But each of us needs to pay close attention to his/her own actual results.

    I am small-ish (5'5", narrowly built), old-ish (62) and definitely sedentary outside of intentional exercise. MFP, like other calculators, estimates around 1500 net to maintain. But 1200 was way too low when I was losing - I lost too fast, got weak/fatigued, and even at goal weight would lose around a pound a week at 1200 net. (I'm very lucky.) On the other hand, the calculators can estimate too high, too.

    So, pay attention to your results: They can mislead slightly due to inaccurate logging, or NEAT up/down regulation with calorie changes, or water weight shifts. But they don't lie.

Categories