Confused about Calorie Deficit....Help?

horrorghoul

So I have been on a 1200 calorie diet for a year now and lost 30 pounds but I don't get the whole -500 calorie deficit. Do I burn 500 calories a day and eat my 1200 calories or do I burn 500 calories and eat 700 calories. I know I sound silly but I don't get it.

TavistockToad

horrorghoul wrote: »

So I have been on a 1200 calorie diet for a year now and lost 30 pounds but I don't get the whole -500 calorie deficit. Do I burn 500 calories a day and eat my 1200 calories or do I burn 500 calories and eat 700 calories. I know I sound silly but I don't get it.

1200 includes a deficit. so your maintenance is at least 1700.

so you eat 1200 cals, plus any exercise calories that you burn

tinkerbellang83

cwolfman13

horrorghoul wrote: »

So I have been on a 1200 calorie diet for a year now and lost 30 pounds but I don't get the whole -500 calorie deficit. Do I burn 500 calories a day and eat my 1200 calories or do I burn 500 calories and eat 700 calories. I know I sound silly but I don't get it.

1200 calories is your deficit...1200 calories isn't maintenance. You eat 1200 calories...if you exercise you eat a little more.

You put in that you wanted to lose weight...MFP calculated a calorie target for you based what rate of loss you chose...the calculator did the work...it calculated a weight loss target for you.

cmriverside

From Help at the top of every page comes this: How does MyFitnessPal calculate my initial goals?

crashleyw

I know this is confusing - sometimes I need little reminders too about how it works.
So yesterday - my 'goal' was 1200 - 984 for food +158 for exercise = 374. So technically I could have eaten another 374 calories... and usually I do, it was just an odd day.

Does that make sense?

krael65

crashleyw wrote: »

I know this is confusing - sometimes I need little reminders too about how it works.
So yesterday - my 'goal' was 1200 - 984 for food +158 for exercise = 374. So technically I could have eaten another 374 calories... and usually I do, it was just an odd day.

Does that make sense?

This does not make sense.
If your goal is 1200, and you burn 158 in exercise, you should eat 1358 calories (1200+158) for the day.

Tacklewasher

krael65 wrote: »

crashleyw wrote: »

I know this is confusing - sometimes I need little reminders too about how it works.
So yesterday - my 'goal' was 1200 - 984 for food +158 for exercise = 374. So technically I could have eaten another 374 calories... and usually I do, it was just an odd day.

Does that make sense?

This does not make sense.
If your goal is 1200, and you burn 158 in exercise, you should eat 1358 calories (1200+158) for the day.

2 ways to come to the same number. They ate 984 and had 374 left so they could have eaten (984+374) 1358 in total.

CSARdiver

Not silly at all. This is an abstract concept helping frame an issue in the real world. There is nothing intuitive about this. What is your Basal Metabolic Rate estimate? Not 1200 I'm assuming.

At my height/weight/age my BMR is ~2100 kcals/day. This being the caloric estimation my body needs simply to maintain without factoring activity e.g. laying on the couch all day.

With my activity I burn ~600 kcals/day, making my Total Daily Energy Expenditure 2100 + 600 = 2700.

So eating 2700 kcals/day would maintain wieght.

Creating a deficit would be 2700 - 500 (for ~1lb/week rate of loss) = 2200 kcals.

krael65

Tacklewasher wrote: »

krael65 wrote: »

crashleyw wrote: »

I know this is confusing - sometimes I need little reminders too about how it works.
So yesterday - my 'goal' was 1200 - 984 for food +158 for exercise = 374. So technically I could have eaten another 374 calories... and usually I do, it was just an odd day.

Does that make sense?

This does not make sense.
If your goal is 1200, and you burn 158 in exercise, you should eat 1358 calories (1200+158) for the day.

2 ways to come to the same number. They ate 984 and had 374 left so they could have eaten (984+374) 1358 in total.

OOPS. Sorry. My math brain wasn't working!

MileHigh4Wheeler

Also bear in mind that your body will adjust to whatever you do. So lets say you find the perfect balance of food and exercise and start losing weight, your body will adjust to the new activity level and food intake within a couple of weeks so you have to "keep your body guessing" by increasing your food intake and/or totally changing your exercise routine. I've plateaued many times because I didn't change things up, now each week I alter my calorie intake a bit and every two I totally change my workout (periodization) and it's been successful for me.

Tacklewasher

MileHigh4Wheeler wrote: »

Also bear in mind that your body will adjust to whatever you do. So lets say you find the perfect balance of food and exercise and start losing weight, your body will adjust to the new activity level and food intake within a couple of weeks so you have to "keep your body guessing" by increasing your food intake and/or totally changing your exercise routine. I've plateaued many times because I didn't change things up, now each week I alter my calorie intake a bit and every two I totally change my workout (periodization) and it's been successful for me.

No, no you don't.

There is a benefit to diet breaks (you can search as there is a big thread on it here). But your body will still burn what you burn even if your activities stay the same.

kimny72

MileHigh4Wheeler wrote: »

Also bear in mind that your body will adjust to whatever you do. So lets say you find the perfect balance of food and exercise and start losing weight, your body will adjust to the new activity level and food intake within a couple of weeks so you have to "keep your body guessing" by increasing your food intake and/or totally changing your exercise routine. I've plateaued many times because I didn't change things up, now each week I alter my calorie intake a bit and every two I totally change my workout (periodization) and it's been successful for me.

Adaptive thermogenesis happens over months and years, not a couple of weeks. It's perfectly normal to have a week or two every once and awhile where you don't lose weight - that's not a plateau, just real life, normal weight fluctuations. You most likely would have started losing again anyway, whether you changed things up or not.

OP, as others have said, assuming you set up your account with your goal set to "lose weight", the calorie goal MFP gave you includes your deficit. And 1200 calories is the minimum you should be netting. So you should eat at least 1200, plus at least some of your exercise calories.

Congrats on your success!!!

AnnPT77

MileHigh4Wheeler wrote: »

Also bear in mind that your body will adjust to whatever you do. So lets say you find the perfect balance of food and exercise and start losing weight, your body will adjust to the new activity level and food intake within a couple of weeks so you have to "keep your body guessing" by increasing your food intake and/or totally changing your exercise routine. I've plateaued many times because I didn't change things up, now each week I alter my calorie intake a bit and every two I totally change my workout (periodization) and it's been successful for me.

No. This whole "body confusion"/"switch things up" idea was a brilliant ploy by marketers like Beachbody to keep you spending. The same exercise, done at the same intensity, burns roughly the same number of calories. Your body can't "get used to it" and defy physics.

As you get lighter by losing weight, you burn slightly fewer calories in all ways, including via any exercise where you move your body through space. It's a small change, but enough to make a difference, which is why MFP and fitness trackers use your weight in calculating their exercise estimates.

As you get "better" at an exercise, you may be more efficient via less wasted motion, and theoretically burn fewer calories, but that effect is so small as to be lost in the overall estimation error. It doesn't matter. A 150 pound experienced, fit runner and a same-size newbie runner burn about the same number of calories running the same mile in the same amount of time. The fit runner feels like it's easier, and her heart rate is lower, but neither of those make a significant difference in calorie burn.

And that's not what "periodization" means in fitness plans, at all.

You needn't change up your eating, either, other than recognizing that your body gradually needs fewer calories as you get lighter, so you may need to adjust your goals every 10 pounds or so . . . or not, because as you get close to goal weight, it becomes healthier to lose more slowly. (Though, as others have said, a long-term weight loss project can benefit from diet breaks.)

crashleyw

krael65 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

krael65 wrote: »

crashleyw wrote: »

I know this is confusing - sometimes I need little reminders too about how it works.
So yesterday - my 'goal' was 1200 - 984 for food +158 for exercise = 374. So technically I could have eaten another 374 calories... and usually I do, it was just an odd day.

Does that make sense?

This does not make sense.
If your goal is 1200, and you burn 158 in exercise, you should eat 1358 calories (1200+158) for the day.

2 ways to come to the same number. They ate 984 and had 374 left so they could have eaten (984+374) 1358 in total.

OOPS. Sorry. My math brain wasn't working!

I'm not sure if my original reply worked so I'm posting it again, sorry!

You had me worried that I have been doing this all wrong for a moment! Haha
While I do normally eat those calories back I try to to have a slight deficit there too right now as I'm having some trouble shifting weight but usually only a few calories.