What should I set my calorie goal to?
peachvine29
Posts: 400 Member
Hello! I am 26 years old, and 5'7.5''. My highest weight was 200 lbs. in January 2017, starting weight 190 lbs. in February 2018, and I am currently 143 lbs. I know I am in the healthy weight range technically, but I still have a lot of midsection fat I need to lose.
I have been a bit loosely tracking calories for the past year, with my net calorie goals ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 calories. I lift weights 2-3 times a week and usually eat back my exercise calories. I weighed in at 145 lbs. on Christmas and have been hovering around that weight ever since, so I feel am plateauing.
I would really like to weigh around 135-130 lbs. by summertime.
I work a desk job M-F all day and attend school full time, so I set my activity level to sedentary. I do always get up and walk on my breaks and keep very active around my house cleaning and cooking and such.
My TDEE is 1,700 calories, so if I want to lose a pound a week, I need to eat at around 1,200 calories. The problem is, I usually get so hungry trying to eat at that level and usually end up binging.
I've heard that as you get closer to goal, you should lesser your deficit percentage. Is that true? I am just really wanting to shed the rest of this fat, as quickly but as comfortably as possible, and I'd love to by the warmer months. Any advice?
I have been a bit loosely tracking calories for the past year, with my net calorie goals ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 calories. I lift weights 2-3 times a week and usually eat back my exercise calories. I weighed in at 145 lbs. on Christmas and have been hovering around that weight ever since, so I feel am plateauing.
I would really like to weigh around 135-130 lbs. by summertime.
I work a desk job M-F all day and attend school full time, so I set my activity level to sedentary. I do always get up and walk on my breaks and keep very active around my house cleaning and cooking and such.
My TDEE is 1,700 calories, so if I want to lose a pound a week, I need to eat at around 1,200 calories. The problem is, I usually get so hungry trying to eat at that level and usually end up binging.
I've heard that as you get closer to goal, you should lesser your deficit percentage. Is that true? I am just really wanting to shed the rest of this fat, as quickly but as comfortably as possible, and I'd love to by the warmer months. Any advice?
2
Replies
-
Put your stats into MFP, select sedentary as your activity level, and set your proposed loss to half a pound a week. Theme at back your execise calories as well when you do it.8
-
Unfortunately, trying to lose 10-15 lbs in a couple of months when you are already in the middle of the healthy weight range is probably asking for too much. And in order to accomplish it, yes you would need to eat the bare minimum of calories and be uncomfortable.
Having said that, I doubt anyone on the beach would notice a visual difference between you at 139 and you at 133. And as you noticed, eating too little just leads to binges that negate your calorie deficit anyway.
So set your goal to 0.5lbs per week, and consider tightening up your logging. You don't have much wiggle room and for most of us, it's really easy to estimate wrong enough to eat maintenance level when we think we are eating at a small deficit. Trying to go from the middle of the healthy weight range to closer to the low end does require some discipline and detail work for most of us. Good luck!
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1161603/so-you-want-a-nice-stomach/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p116 -
Unfortunately, trying to lose 10-15 lbs in a couple of months when you are already in the middle of the healthy weight range is probably asking for too much. And in order to accomplish it, yes you would need to eat the bare minimum of calories and be uncomfortable.
Having said that, I doubt anyone on the beach would notice a visual difference between you at 139 and you at 133. And as you noticed, eating too little just leads to binges that negate your calorie deficit anyway.
So set your goal to 0.5lbs per week, and consider tightening up your logging. You don't have much wiggle room and for most of us, it's really easy to estimate wrong enough to eat maintenance level when we think we are eating at a small deficit. Trying to go from the middle of the healthy weight range to closer to the low end does require some discipline and detail work for most of us. Good luck!
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1161603/so-you-want-a-nice-stomach/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
Thank you! Your advice is always wonderful.
5 -
Followimg this0
-
How long have you been in deficit?0
-
-
peachvine29 wrote: »I've been counting calories and aiming for a deficit for one year. I have plenty of maintenance and over-calorie days though, like weekly at least haha.
It's not broadcasted enough that you need to cycle through phases regularly. You should be in no particular phase, other than maintenance, for more than 12 weeks. Reason being adaptation. The human body is incredibly efficient and learns quick! When your body realizes it doesn't have enough calories to meet demands (BMR + activity), it will change its needs. This means your metabolism will slow to meet where you have been telling it to be. This typically happens after about 12-16 weeks. How we combat that is by either going to maintenance to tell the body to chill out, I'm not starving you!! Or, go into a building phase where you go to a caloric surplus and add lean mass in a hypertrophy focus. This will tellyour body there's plenty of food. Your body will almost always adapt to that and increase metabolism, as well as any muscle you build also increasing metabolism because we all know muscle burns calories. Go back and forth every 12 weeks for optimum results.
Does that make sense?26 -
peachvine29 wrote: »You should be in no particular phase, other than maintenance, for more than 12 weeks. Go back and forth every 12 weeks for optimum results.
How do you explain people who maintain healthy weight their entire lives? I know for a fact my friend who has been her high school weight for the last 40 years does not change her exercise regime or eating habits every twelve weeks. She has consistently eaten healthy and done spinning. Nothing else.4 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »peachvine29 wrote: »You should be in no particular phase, other than maintenance, for more than 12 weeks. Go back and forth every 12 weeks for optimum results.
How do you explain people who maintain healthy weight their entire lives? I know for a fact my friend who has been her high school weight for the last 40 years does not change her exercise regime or eating habits every twelve weeks. She has consistently eaten healthy and done spinning. Nothing else.
You described maintenance. I'm talking change, whether up or down.2 -
-
11
-
debrakgoogins wrote: »
You can lose weight consistently being in a deficit- however, I'd argue you'd lose it faster and more efficiently by avoiding adaptation. Same principle applies to muscular growth and strength. If you do the same exercises over and over, it's shown through impericle data that you plateau really hard, and in some cases lose strength/mass. Constant variation and structure is not argued there, why is its importance questioned in diet?
I've been getting a lot of "woos" from people who think they know everything because someone told them or they read it on this forum. I have an education in this area, one I had to seek out information and do my own experiments to derive my opinions.4 -
-
debrakgoogins wrote: »
You can lose weight consistently being in a deficit- however, I'd argue you'd lose it faster and more efficiently by avoiding adaptation. Same principle applies to muscular growth and strength. If you do the same exercises over and over, it's shown through impericle data that you plateau really hard, and in some cases lose strength/mass. Constant variation and structure is not argued there, why is its importance questioned in diet?
I've been getting a lot of "woos" from people who think they know everything because someone told them or they read it on this forum. I have an education in this area, one I had to seek out information and do my own experiments to derive my opinions.
Why is losing weight faster a good thing? I've been finding it much less stressful and much easier to stick with by slowing down.4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »
You can lose weight consistently being in a deficit- however, I'd argue you'd lose it faster and more efficiently by avoiding adaptation. Same principle applies to muscular growth and strength. If you do the same exercises over and over, it's shown through impericle data that you plateau really hard, and in some cases lose strength/mass. Constant variation and structure is not argued there, why is its importance questioned in diet?
I've been getting a lot of "woos" from people who think they know everything because someone told them or they read it on this forum. I have an education in this area, one I had to seek out information and do my own experiments to derive my opinions.
Why is losing weight faster a good thing? I've been finding it much less stressful and much easier to stick with by slowing down.
So, maybe "faster" isn't the right word. How about efficient? A certain body composition is usually the goal, which comes with weight loss and muscle gain. Building more muscle helps with weight loss and efficient fat burning. In order to escape adaptation, I, and many others I've trained/coached, have seen better than average results in cycling between cut and building phases. Personally, in the last year, I've lost a gross of 40lbs, increased muscle mass by almost 12lbs, and increased my strength by almost 200%. I had a "maintenance" phase where I just got burned out on counting calories and being super strict also, so my results could have been better.0 -
You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.
At some point, I predict if you don't change your diet for a period of time, you'll hit a huge plateau. That's your body adapting to what you're telling it is its new normal.5 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.
At some point, I predict if you don't change your diet for a period of time, you'll hit a huge plateau. That's your body adapting to what you're telling it is its new normal.
Right. That's what I'm saying though. I've had one planned weekend break. I'll have a planned week long break in 3.5 weeks. I'm planning another break the first part of July. All deliberately planned, intentional, but still very reasonable breaks.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.
At some point, I predict if you don't change your diet for a period of time, you'll hit a huge plateau. That's your body adapting to what you're telling it is its new normal.
Right. That's what I'm saying though. I've had one planned weekend break. I'll have a planned week long break in 3.5 weeks. I'm planning another break the first part of July. All deliberately planned, intentional, but still very reasonable breaks.
Seem rather short to be considered a break. Mine are 8 weeks long.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.
At some point, I predict if you don't change your diet for a period of time, you'll hit a huge plateau. That's your body adapting to what you're telling it is its new normal.
Right. That's what I'm saying though. I've had one planned weekend break. I'll have a planned week long break in 3.5 weeks. I'm planning another break the first part of July. All deliberately planned, intentional, but still very reasonable breaks.
Seem rather short to be considered a break. Mine are 8 weeks long.
I probably have a LOT more weight to lose than you do.1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You can't really build much muscle in a calorie deficit. And really, the difference is negligible. If I put on 5 pounds of muscle, I'll burn 30 calories more than 5 pounds of fat. I probably burn that much turning over while I sleep.
Exactly why I recommend going to a gain cycle where you focus on lean mass building after 10-12 weeks (or you see a plateau/decrease in loss), which in turn will increase your BMR which will allow you to eat more and feel satiated and perform better in your workouts to burn more cals. In a cut cycle, or deficit as it's called here, you tend to lose muscle as well as fat.
I still have well over 100lbs to lose and am thus on a long cut/deficit cycle. I started 01/09 and am down approximately 25lbs now. I did take a weekend off at the end of March before resuming strict calorie counting 04/01. I'm currently losing 1.5-2lbs/week. I'll be on a break from strict counting the first week of May since I'll be in Disney. I still plan to take it as easy as I can by ordering smaller kids meals and drinking water, but I don't expect to lose much, if any, that week.
At some point, I predict if you don't change your diet for a period of time, you'll hit a huge plateau. That's your body adapting to what you're telling it is its new normal.
Right. That's what I'm saying though. I've had one planned weekend break. I'll have a planned week long break in 3.5 weeks. I'm planning another break the first part of July. All deliberately planned, intentional, but still very reasonable breaks.
Seem rather short to be considered a break. Mine are 8 weeks long.
I probably have a LOT more weight to lose than you do.
IMO, how much weight someone has to lose has no effect on their body's ability to adapt.5 -
Actually, the more you weigh, the faster your metabolism and the easier it is to lose weight. As you shrink, your metabolism slows down. It's not about adaptability per se, but it is about longer time to get results.4
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »Actually, the more you weigh, the faster your metabolism and the easier it is to lose weight. As you shrink, your metabolism slows down. It's not about adaptability per se, but it is about longer time to get results.
So you're suggesting someone who is 350-400 pounds has a higher BMR than someone who is 220 pounds merely based on body weight? You're saying the larger person would require more calories merely based on weight?0 -
Yes exactly (Plugged in my age and height for this at https://www.healthymummy.com/bmr-bmi-explained/calculate-your-bmr/) but used approx 400lbs for the first and 220 for the second:
9 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Actually, the more you weigh, the faster your metabolism and the easier it is to lose weight. As you shrink, your metabolism slows down. It's not about adaptability per se, but it is about longer time to get results.
So you're suggesting someone who is 350-400 pounds has a higher BMR than someone who is 220 pounds merely based on body weight? You're saying the larger person would require more calories merely based on weight?
Yes, because it takes a greater amount of energy to move a larger amount of weight.8 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Yes exactly (Plugged in my age and height for this at https://www.healthymummy.com/bmr-bmi-explained/calculate-your-bmr/) but used approx 400lbs for the first and 220 for the second:nutmegoreo wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Actually, the more you weigh, the faster your metabolism and the easier it is to lose weight. As you shrink, your metabolism slows down. It's not about adaptability per se, but it is about longer time to get results.
So you're suggesting someone who is 350-400 pounds has a higher BMR than someone who is 220 pounds merely based on body weight? You're saying the larger person would require more calories merely based on weight?
Yes, because it takes a greater amount of energy to move a larger amount of weight.
Well, I must be a medical/physical anomaly. When I started my journey at 290lbs and 29% BF, my BMR was 2055kcal measured by InBody Scan, not some chart. Now, at 250lbs and 17% BF my BMR is 2340kcal, again measured by InBody Scan.2 -
It really does sound like it: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/metabolic-damage/
Increased muscle mass can slow the reduction in BMR, but it doesn't appear capable of raising it.1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »It really does sound like it: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/metabolic-damage/
Increased muscle mass can slow the reduction in BMR, but it doesn't appear capable of raising it.
Like I said I must be a medical/physical anomaly..4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions