Is my calorie goal correct?
Sub4_2018
Posts: 52 Member
Hi All,
I've been following the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program for the past month and am loving it so far. The only problem is it feels like my calories are really low.
Stats:
Female/5'6/133 lbs/sedentary job
I weight lift 5x/week for about 45 minutes - 1 hour and walk 2-3 miles 5x/week
Based on Mike Matthews calculator, my calorie goal is 1370 (stats: female/5'6/133 lbs). This seems awfully low to me. I put my numbers into the scooby calculator which gives me 1700 calories. I know most calculators tend to over-estimate calories burned which is why Mike's calculator is so much lower, but if I can still lose weight with eating more than I'd obviously rather do that. Any thoughts on which one is more accurate?
TIA!
I've been following the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program for the past month and am loving it so far. The only problem is it feels like my calories are really low.
Stats:
Female/5'6/133 lbs/sedentary job
I weight lift 5x/week for about 45 minutes - 1 hour and walk 2-3 miles 5x/week
Based on Mike Matthews calculator, my calorie goal is 1370 (stats: female/5'6/133 lbs). This seems awfully low to me. I put my numbers into the scooby calculator which gives me 1700 calories. I know most calculators tend to over-estimate calories burned which is why Mike's calculator is so much lower, but if I can still lose weight with eating more than I'd obviously rather do that. Any thoughts on which one is more accurate?
TIA!
0
Replies
-
MFP expects you to log your exercise and eat (some of) those calories.
Scoobys already has the exercise calories added.
They should be about the same number in the end.1 -
Age makes a difference too, but you're looking at maybe 300 calories burned 5x a week, so I'd use MFP on sedentary and add 200 calories to that... personally.0
-
The Scooby calculator is a TDEE calculator which includes exercise in your activity level and thus calories to fuel that activity.
MFP is a NEAT calculator that only uses your day to day work, etc in your activity level...you log exercise separately and get additional calories to eat.
You're comparing apples to oranges with the two calculators...two completely different methods of tracking calories.
Done correctly with apples to apples rate of loss targets, the methods are basically six of 1...the difference is where you account for exercise.0 -
I'm 5'7", 140lbs and my TDEE is 1700. To lose a pound a week, I have to eat 1200 net calories.
"Net" is the key here. You need to eat back the calories you earn through intentional exercise.1 -
@quiksylver296 @Francl27 @cwolfman13 I apologize, I should have said in my post that I'm not using the MFP calculator. I'm using the calculator from the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program (https://www.muscleforlife.com/macronutrient-calculator/). That is the one I compared with Scooby and both are TDEE. One is giving me 1370 and the other is giving me 1700.
ETA: I'm 330 -
@quiksylver296 @Francl27 @cwolfman13 I apologize, I should have said in my post that I'm not using the MFP calculator. I'm using the calculator from the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program (https://www.muscleforlife.com/macronutrient-calculator/). That is the one I compared with Scooby and both are TDEE. One is giving me 1370 and the other is giving me 1700.
ETA: I'm 33
Is your targeted deficit the same? What % did you pick? Are you sure you selected the same activity levels? There's no height or age entry on the TLS program.0 -
You need to declare the full assumptions that you're using and deficits that you're setting.
Your TDEE on either calculator is around 2 K
A maximum 20% deficit would have you eating more than 1600, and Scooby's 1700 sounds semi reasonable for a pretty intense cut.
Therefore you're either dialing a different deficit or using another assumption somewhere1 -
@quiksylver296 @Francl27 @cwolfman13 I apologize, I should have said in my post that I'm not using the MFP calculator. I'm using the calculator from the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program (https://www.muscleforlife.com/macronutrient-calculator/). That is the one I compared with Scooby and both are TDEE. One is giving me 1370 and the other is giving me 1700.
ETA: I'm 33
Thinner, Leaner, Stronger asks for body fat percentage and not height or age. What did you enter for the BF%?
Not sure why you don't use MFP method and dial in your exercise to eat back.3 -
Last but not least there is zero benefit in doing something that is not sustainable or that has your cutting down on your activity and training effort because you're under eating1
-
@cwolfman13 @PAV8888 - Thanks for the reply. Yes, both are set to a 20% deficit and I picked the same activity level (one is 4-6 hours exercise the other is 3-5 but both are the "moderate" selection). The only difference is Scooby asks for height and age and the the other one doesn't.
ETA: The Thinner, Leaner, Stronger calculator uses a smaller activity multiplier since he says exercise calories are generally over estimated. That's the only reason I can see why that number is coming out lower, but 350ish calories seems like a big difference.
0 -
@cwolfman13 @PAV8888 - Thanks for the reply. Yes, both are set to a 20% deficit and I picked the same activity level (one is 4-6 hours exercise the other is 3-5 but both are the "moderate" selection). The only difference is Scooby asks for height and age and the the other one doesn't.
Which I find odd because they're both important pieces to the puzzle.
Personally, Scooby is pretty accurate for me...if not a bit under.2 -
@quiksylver296 @Francl27 @cwolfman13 I apologize, I should have said in my post that I'm not using the MFP calculator. I'm using the calculator from the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program (https://www.muscleforlife.com/macronutrient-calculator/). That is the one I compared with Scooby and both are TDEE. One is giving me 1370 and the other is giving me 1700.
ETA: I'm 33
Thinner, Leaner, Stronger asks for body fat percentage and not height or age. What did you enter for the BF%?
Not sure why you don't use MFP method and dial in your exercise to eat back.
The problem with that and that unless you paid for a dexa scan, you have no idea what your body fat percentage would be... and it's just really odd that it doesn't ask for height and age! Either way, I played with it a bit, and it was about 150 calories under my TDEE.
OP, you can safely eat 1500-1600 calories with your stats, and adjust from there, IMO.
Scooby always overestimated activity for me - there is really no option for 6 hours of light/moderate exercise, it always goes straight for strenuous exercise for some reason - so with your activity I'd go somewhere between lightly and moderately active.0 -
Scooby has worked well for me too.
You can change the predictive model used on scooby and even see the multipliers he uses at the bottom of the web page.
Ànd it doesn't matter.0 -
You know why it doesn't matter?
Because you've already said that the Mike dude underestimates activity on purpose and the calories look too few already.
You have two kids. (apparently not that she knows about
)
You're not sedentary.
Cutting calories to the level that they affect your activities or make you hangry just so that you get to see quick results is counterproductive.
Get a trending weight app, arm yourself with patience and go to town.
0 -
The problem with that and that unless you paid for a dexa scan, you have no idea what your body fat percentage would be... and it's just really odd that it doesn't ask for height and age! Either way, I played with it a bit, and it was about 150 calories under my TDEE.
OP, you can safely eat 1500-1600 calories with your stats, and adjust from there, IMO.
Scooby always overestimated activity for me - there is really no option for 6 hours of light/moderate exercise, it always goes straight for strenuous exercise for some reason - so with your activity I'd go somewhere between lightly and moderately active.
Thanks so much for the feedback. I actually had a DEXA scan back in January and my BF% was 33.6 at the time. I've been lifting since then, though, and my weight as of this morning was 132.6 so I have no idea what my current BF% is. I was thinking 1500 seemed like a happy medium, too.0 -
@RoxieDawn - Thanks for the reply. I entered 31% (it was 33.6% according to a DEXA scan back in January, but I've lost 8-ish pounds since then so I guestimated). I chose to use the T, L, S calculator since I'm using his program.0
-
@RoxieDawn - Thanks for the reply. I entered 31% (it was 33.6% according to a DEXA scan back in January, but I've lost 8-ish pounds since then so I guestimated). I chose to use the T, L, S calculator since I'm using his program.@quiksylver296 @Francl27 @cwolfman13 I apologize, I should have said in my post that I'm not using the MFP calculator. I'm using the calculator from the Thinner, Leaner, Stronger program (https://www.muscleforlife.com/macronutrient-calculator/). That is the one I compared with Scooby and both are TDEE. One is giving me 1370 and the other is giving me 1700.
ETA: I'm 33
Thinner, Leaner, Stronger asks for body fat percentage and not height or age. What did you enter for the BF%?
Not sure why you don't use MFP method and dial in your exercise to eat back.
The problem with that and that unless you paid for a dexa scan, you have no idea what your body fat percentage would be... and it's just really odd that it doesn't ask for height and age! Either way, I played with it a bit, and it was about 150 calories under my TDEE.
OP, you can safely eat 1500-1600 calories with your stats, and adjust from there, IMO.
Scooby always overestimated activity for me - there is really no option for 6 hours of light/moderate exercise, it always goes straight for strenuous exercise for some reason - so with your activity I'd go somewhere between lightly and moderately active.
I agree with the 1500-1600. I might start out 1600 so I can adjust if needed.
These calculators are only good for getting a base number of what you can start out with, your real world results trended over 3-4 weeks will tell you where you are after you pick a starting number.2 -
4 to 6 weeks for pre *not yet* menopausal women...2
-
You know why it doesn't matter? Because you've already said that the Mike dude underestimates activity on purpose and the calories look too few already.
You have two kids.
You're not sedentary.
Cutting calories to the level that they affect your activities or make you hangry just so that you get to see quick results is counterproductive.
Get a trending weight app, arm yourself with patience and go to town.
I'm using Happy Scale right now so I've got that covered. I'm definitely losing on 1350, but am also hungry a lot and have a really hard time fitting in a glass of wine or a beer which I very much miss. I'm patient, would rather lose slower so long as I'm still trending downward. I'll up my calories and see what happens, thanks for the feedback. (not sure where you got the two kids thing? I don't have any, but I definitely wouldn't consider myself sedentary).0 -
Hmmm, terminology issue.
Not yet menopausal was the intended use of pre. In other words include a complete kitten cycle in the time frame. 3-4 weeks doesn't always.1 -
Hmmm, terminology issue.
Not yet menopausal was the intended use of pre. In other words include a complete kitten cycle in the time frame. 3-4 weeks doesn't always.
There ya go. Don't mess with us pre-menopausal women. lol2 -
. (not sure where you got the two kids thing? I don't have any, but I definitely wouldn't consider myself sedentary).
Sigh.
I obviously need more coffee and it is already early afternoon!!!
Conflated with other post where lady has two kids.
Long term adherence is exponentially more important than speed of results.
U may also want to read the first few pages of the re-feeds and diet breaks thread as a strategy to consider
1 -
@PAV8888 Ha, no worries! Thanks again for the feedback. I read on diet breaks and am actually contemplating that next week. It’s been 4 weeks at 1350 and next week is my birthday so thinking of going to maintenance for that week and then going back to a deficit. Might be a little early for a break but I’m ready for it nonetheless (another indication that 1350 is low).1
-
Refeeds is an option too as break implies a longer break and refeeds bring hormones up in shorter time periods. Look for thread started by Nony_mouse re same1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions