Is this what maintenance looks like?
Options
Replies
-
@AmyC2288 The little box for number of workouts per week has exactly zero effect on how anything here is calculated
Sounds like you're wanting to move to a TDEE calculation vs the NEAT formula MFP is based on. I did exactly the same thing around the middle of last year. I just bumped up my activity level and adjusted accordingly after I had a few solid weeks of data. I liked having a set calorie goal for each day.
I'd leave your loss goal at .5 lb per week.
(Disclaimer - I haven't logged my food in several months, but this method did work for me while I was still logging. I just got lazy
)
THANK YOU! I feel the same about having a set calorie goal each day- I'm okay with a few weeks of gathering data to see how it all plays out- just wanting some validation that this isn't a terrible idea before giving it a go!2 -
I use TDEE because I hate trying to hit a moving target of calories, depending on how much exercise I've done.2
-
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.1 -
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.
I compare trend weight to trend weight. Accounts for any outlier individual weights on a given day.1 -
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.
I compare trend weight to trend weight. Accounts for any outlier individual weights on a given day.
Ahhh! Makes sense!1 -
@pinuplove
@AnnPT77
@zeejane03
@quiksylver296
While I have an abundance of wisdom here... I've been toying with the idea of changing from sedentary + eating back exercise cals to lightly active (maybe even active?) and not eating back exercise cals. I am NOT a math person- so trying to work everything out to see if it makes sense makes my head spin. Conservatively, I log anywhere from 800-1200 intentional calories burned each week and I'm very consistent.
If I were to switch, it asks how many times per week are you planning to exercise. Would I just leave that 0? Also, would I still leave the part that asks "What is your goal" at .5lbs loss per week?
Is this a terrible idea? LOL
It's not a terrible idea. If you do that, I'd suggest you use a TDEE calculator outside of MFP to get a calorie goal, because they're designed for this. Sailrabbit has 3 different formulas available, more if you have an accurate body fat percent number. Then manually set MFP to that calorie goal (i.e., if you know a number you want to use, you can override MFP's calculation. Just make sure it doesn't get overwritten if you make future profile changes.)
If you do that, apply a "sniff test" to see whether it seems likely to be close to you - basically rough-estimate your TDEE based on whatever recent logging data you have (up to 4 weeks, toward the longer side of that is better), using intake and weight loss.
To be more specific about why I suggest using a TDEE calculator:
MFP's profile setting about how many times a week you plan to exercise as no-zip-zero effect on calculating your calorie goal. It affects some motivational messages, and the exercise log pages in some of the MFP environments (web for sure) will show you progress against your weekly exercise target. That's it. It doesn't change your calorie goal.
Also, the TDEE calculators usually use different activity multipliers than MFP does, for similarly-named activity levels, in my understanding. Often, they offer more granular activity levels (a larger number of levels, with smaller differences between each adjacent one).
If you wanted to use MFP to get a goal, you'd somehow guess your exercise activity into the activity setting (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) as you've described; and set your goal at "maintain" (not lose).
ETA: Or, as nutmegoreo suggests, use an activity tracker, if that's accurate for you.2 -
I look for the trend of my trend weight so to speak.
And if you have a regular cyclical event comparing to a month back for insight probably makes sense.1 -
Those data points, graphed with a trend line.
Looks like a download trend to me
3 -
Thank you, Dan! It does indeed look like a downward trend- I'll take it!0
-
@pinuplove
@AnnPT77
@zeejane03
@quiksylver296
While I have an abundance of wisdom here... I've been toying with the idea of changing from sedentary + eating back exercise cals to lightly active (maybe even active?) and not eating back exercise cals. I am NOT a math person- so trying to work everything out to see if it makes sense makes my head spin. Conservatively, I log anywhere from 800-1200 intentional calories burned each week and I'm very consistent.
If I were to switch, it asks how many times per week are you planning to exercise. Would I just leave that 0? Also, would I still leave the part that asks "What is your goal" at .5lbs loss per week?
Is this a terrible idea? LOL
It's not a terrible idea. If you do that, I'd suggest you use a TDEE calculator outside of MFP to get a calorie goal, because they're designed for this. Sailrabbit has 3 different formulas available, more if you have an accurate body fat percent number. Then manually set MFP to that calorie goal (i.e., if you know a number you want to use, you can override MFP's calculation. Just make sure it doesn't get overwritten if you make future profile changes.)
If you do that, apply a "sniff test" to see whether it seems likely to be close to you - basically rough-estimate your TDEE based on whatever recent logging data you have (up to 4 weeks, toward the longer side of that is better), using intake and weight loss.
To be more specific about why I suggest using a TDEE calculator:
MFP's profile setting about how many times a week you plan to exercise as no-zip-zero effect on calculating your calorie goal. It affects some motivational messages, and the exercise log pages in some of the MFP environments (web for sure) will show you progress against your weekly exercise target. That's it. It doesn't change your calorie goal.
Also, the TDEE calculators usually use different activity multipliers than MFP does, for similarly-named activity levels, in my understanding. Often, they offer more granular activity levels (a larger number of levels, with smaller differences between each adjacent one).
If you wanted to use MFP to get a goal, you'd somehow guess your exercise activity into the activity setting (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) as you've described; and set your goal at "maintain" (not lose).
ETA: Or, as nutmegoreo suggests, use an activity tracker, if that's accurate for you.
Thank you so much @AnnPT77 . Lots of good info here...I have been wondering about this for a long time but didn't understand how the logistics of it all would work. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions