How many more calories
Options
Replies
-
cherrybomb526 wrote: »I forget about the little activities of summer that don’t seem that significant or strenuous (mowing the lawn, tending the garden) that start up around now and generally prompt some summer weight loss. That might not apply to you in your location, though!
That's actually funny because we just had a two day snow storm this week. I think I heard it broke some 20 year record. 🙂1 -
lalalacroix wrote: »lalalacroix wrote: »So I'm 20 pounds from goal weight. I believe I need to eat more for 2 reasons. The first is that I've started losing weight at a more rapid pace and the second is because I'm closer to goal.
SW 222
CW 176
GW 155
Height 5'7"
I aim for 1,500 calories per day but have averaged 1,600 - 1700 since February. In March I lost 1 lb/week, then April I lost 1.3lbs/week and now in May 1.8 lbs/week. I weight most foods and log everything.
My exercise routine has remained about the same. I've been using the same calorie calculator during this time. I eat all my exercise calories.
I feel at this point that I should be losing at 1 lb/week until I have 10 pounds to go then lose at .5 per week. I think I should probably up my calories to 1,750 and then wait a couple of weeks to reassess. Any comments on how many calories to add?
Honestly I'm pretty perplexed on why I'm losing faster. Calorie input and output (exercise) hasn't changed. Although I do have a lot of energy and stay pretty active and am somewhat more active than a few months ago. I just can't imagine that it's enough to make a difference in this many calories per day.
Anyways, comments and wisdom appreciated. 🙂
The difference between the first two months and May's numbers is about 400 calories a day that you would either be over logging or burning now. If there has been a significant change in your life that you believe has upped your daily activity you should increase your calories if not I wouldn't make any decisions based on May's numbers because that is not enough data. There is no reason you should not up it to 1750 but you could also stay the course for a little longer and make a more accurate adjustment.
I do a fair amount of number crunching on myself each Friday and I have seen some 3 week spans of time that the numbers would make me believe a lot of things that were not true. Since I have tracked for so long though I know how to see those outliers in context.
I really considered this actually and agree that three weeks isn't necessarily enough time to determine a change should be made. But then I thought that because I lost more in April than March and then more in May than April there might be an uptick in activity. Then again I wouldn't think it was 400 calories different. Regardless, I should raise calories due to being closer to goal. So I'm going with 1,800, which is about 150 more per day, for the next month and then I'll reassess.
Sounds like a very reasonable approach to me. It is very wise to be cautious about losing too fast but as long as you don't feel weak there is little harm that can happen in a short amount of time unless you are being reckless.
1 -
Just my 2 cents. I think if you are losing faster/more easily, part of it is because you are more active, apart from intentional exercise. Part of it may also be because your muscle to fat ratio has changed so much. It takes more calories to maintain muscle. Rejoice! Celebrate! And raise your daily calories a little.2
-
lalalacroix wrote: »lalalacroix wrote: »So I'm 20 pounds from goal weight. I believe I need to eat more for 2 reasons. The first is that I've started losing weight at a more rapid pace and the second is because I'm closer to goal.
SW 222
CW 176
GW 155
Height 5'7"
I aim for 1,500 calories per day but have averaged 1,600 - 1700 since February. In March I lost 1 lb/week, then April I lost 1.3lbs/week and now in May 1.8 lbs/week. I weight most foods and log everything.
My exercise routine has remained about the same. I've been using the same calorie calculator during this time. I eat all my exercise calories.
I feel at this point that I should be losing at 1 lb/week until I have 10 pounds to go then lose at .5 per week. I think I should probably up my calories to 1,750 and then wait a couple of weeks to reassess. Any comments on how many calories to add?
Honestly I'm pretty perplexed on why I'm losing faster. Calorie input and output (exercise) hasn't changed. Although I do have a lot of energy and stay pretty active and am somewhat more active than a few months ago. I just can't imagine that it's enough to make a difference in this many calories per day.
Anyways, comments and wisdom appreciated. 🙂
The difference between the first two months and May's numbers is about 400 calories a day that you would either be over logging or burning now. If there has been a significant change in your life that you believe has upped your daily activity you should increase your calories if not I wouldn't make any decisions based on May's numbers because that is not enough data. There is no reason you should not up it to 1750 but you could also stay the course for a little longer and make a more accurate adjustment.
I do a fair amount of number crunching on myself each Friday and I have seen some 3 week spans of time that the numbers would make me believe a lot of things that were not true. Since I have tracked for so long though I know how to see those outliers in context.
I really considered this actually and agree that three weeks isn't necessarily enough time to determine a change should be made. But then I thought that because I lost more in April than March and then more in May than April there might be an uptick in activity. Then again I wouldn't think it was 400 calories different. Regardless, I should raise calories due to being closer to goal. So I'm going with 1,800, which is about 150 more per day, for the next month and then I'll reassess.
Sounds like a very reasonable approach to me. It is very wise to be cautious about losing too fast but as long as you don't feel weak there is little harm that can happen in a short amount of time unless you are being reckless.
At this point in my 5 year MFP journey (yeah I know some of you hate this word), it is much more important to me to fuel my activity than it is to lose weight quickly. I'd much rather eat as much as possible and be energized.4 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »Just my 2 cents. I think if you are losing faster/more easily, part of it is because you are more active, apart from intentional exercise. Part of it may also be because your muscle to fat ratio has changed so much. It takes more calories to maintain muscle. Rejoice! Celebrate! And raise your daily calories a little.
While I hope that I've added a bit of muscle, it probably isn't that much. And without looking it up, I think a pound of muscle burns a few more calories per day than a pound of fat. So the difference isn't much. Maybe one of our wise friends here can give the proper info on how much more muscle burns than fat.2 -
I’m all about raising calories. As a moderately active petite female 5’2 110-115 lbs, I maintain on about 2200-2500 and lose quickly on 2000. I spent years trying to eat 1500-1600 to lose the last couple lbs and would get so frustrated by I ended up binging. Gotta keep that metabolism going.0
-
Ok, when I said athlete, I really should have been more specific.
I was talking about sports stars. Football, hockey, baseball, soccer...not runners and cyclists. That's my bad.
10 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »Seems like you pretty much got it, but wanted to add something only because you mentioned bmi.
BMI is quite possibly the worst thing to go off of. Every single athlete in the world is obese/morbidly obese based on BMI.
Lean body mass vs weight (body fat%) is a far more indicative form of measurement if you want to use one.
If one wanted to criticize BMI for being a poor proxy for body fat percentage, athletes are mathematically the worse argument.
From population survey samples, BMI's tendency is actually to underestimate body fat: the percentage of low body fat, overweight to obese athletes (particularly obese) are a small population, but a fair percentage of people are normal weight with excess body fat.5 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »Ok, when I said athlete, I really should have been more specific.
I was talking about sports stars. Football, hockey, baseball, soccer...not runners and cyclists. That's my bad.
BMI is still the easiest way for people who aren't professional athletes to gauge their progress. It's not like there is an acceptable self-measuring way to find out one's LBM.
Since BMI is still used for physical exams and health insurance purposes, it's close enough. If someone is training with heavy weights every day, and playing pro sports, they have an entire medical team on hand. Are you suggesting we throw out the easiest most accepted method of body mass index?
And I don't think all the pros would fall into the obese category.7 -
People use BMI because it is the easiest way to measure progress and is likely to be completely applicable to them. I get that and will concede that it is true.
However, I do not feel that a system where everyone would agree that an individual is the pinnacle of health is considered overweight/obese is a system that carries much WEIGHT. That is clearly a flawed system to the point where I'd search out other options.
A system like body fat% is far more indicative of actual health and really isn't hard to figure out. You can buy a $20 scale that'll give you a rough idea. Is body fat % the end all be all of systems? Nope, still some holes in that, but it is better than BMI.6 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »People use BMI because it is the easiest way to measure progress and is likely to be completely applicable to them. I get that and will concede that it is true.
However, I do not feel that a system where everyone would agree that an individual is the pinnacle of health is considered overweight/obese is a system that carries much WEIGHT. That is clearly a flawed system to the point where I'd search out other options.
A system like body fat% is far more indicative of actual health and really isn't hard to figure out. You can buy a $20 scale that'll give you a rough idea. Is body fat % the end all be all of systems? Nope, still some holes in that, but it is better than BMI.
Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.6 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »Well, we live in a world where most people compare themselves to others. Right or wrong, I'd say people can agree that that happens. So why would you use a system that has such an inherent flaw in it? Anyone that is concerned with packing on muscle (sports stars/ IG models/ whatever you compare yourself to), is going to be skewed to a higher BMI. High BMI= bad. So muscle is bad?...No.
Most of us mere mortals really don't have to worry about things like that. But why use a system that has that flaw, when you could just check body fat % as that is something that will pretty much tell you the same thing?
BMI is cheap. Free, even . . . almost free even when you count the time to calc it (my doctor has a little pocket tool for it, takes about 3 seconds).
It's supposed to be a way to assess populations, not people; or a rough screening mechanism for individuals, not a final answer. (In some cases now, such as some health insurance contexts, it is being used inappropriately, it seems.)
Body fat percent methods tend to be either nearly as inaccurate (BIA), relatively expensive on a mass level (DEXA, dunk), or time consuming with skills required for semi-reasonable accuracy (caliper). BMI has a role, and it happens to be a reasonable guide, as a starting point, for the majority of people. It's amazing how many people who decry its inaccuracy . . . well, look like they might be engaging in wishful thinking. (Not everyone, of course).Scottgriesser wrote: »Ok, when I said athlete, I really should have been more specific.
I was talking about sports stars. Football, hockey, baseball, soccer...not runners and cyclists. That's my bad.
ITYMTS you were talking about male sports stars in sports that reward being big/heavy, or at least don't penalize it.
So not basketball, soccer, UFC, tennis . . . . ? (I grant that the infographic is average athletes, not necessarily "stars", but jeez.)
The idea that "BMI is wrong for 'all' athletes so it's a stupid system" really doesn't hold water. It can be wrong for outliers of various types on both ends of the weight spectrum . . . small numbers of them. And some of the athletes you're talking about are just plain fat (baseball, football), not simply muscular (though they are that), which distorts things a bit.
https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
There were more than runners/cyclists among the "normals" in the Olympics list, even for men, BTW.
ETAcknowledge that I'm tangent to the topic of this thread, so I'll drop it. Sorry, OP.7 -
lalalacroix wrote: »
Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.
To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?
People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.
I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.4 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »lalalacroix wrote: »
Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.
To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?
People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.
I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.
The BIS scale is a more rough estimate and more likely to be considerably off as a percentage.
You may want to supplement BMI with waist to height as an easy second data point in terms of increased health risk.
If both BMI and waist to hight say you're obese; but you feel it is all muscle, then I would seek more confirmation from various body fat measurements such as bia, caliper, body pod, dunk, DEXA, MRI in increased order of potential accuracy.
Visual by trained observers probably spans across the last four.6 -
lalalacroix wrote: »corinasue1143 wrote: »Just my 2 cents. I think if you are losing faster/more easily, part of it is because you are more active, apart from intentional exercise. Part of it may also be because your muscle to fat ratio has changed so much. It takes more calories to maintain muscle. Rejoice! Celebrate! And raise your daily calories a little.
While I hope that I've added a bit of muscle, it probably isn't that much. And without looking it up, I think a pound of muscle burns a few more calories per day than a pound of fat. So the difference isn't much. Maybe one of our wise friends here can give the proper info on how much more muscle burns than fat.
It's roughly 2cals for fat and 6cals for muscle per pound per day at rest.
Just trading a few pounds of fat for muscle is insignificant (in calorie terms, not health terms) but I think @corinasue1143 made a good point about the impact of everyday activity and exercise. Certainly my own experience was that as I got lighter and fitter I simply moved more day to day (walked more, cycled more, used public transport and cars less) and my exercise intensity went up and up (c. 25% higher calorie burns for the same duration).
An interesting social observation happened when I worked in an office with truly awful slow and unreliable elevators/lifts a relatively short distance from the main company offices. The lighter and fitter colleagues all simply used the 8 flights of stairs to get to and from our office floor and walked between sites - the heavier and less fit ones stood and waited for the lifts and took the Underground one stop between sites.1 -
Scottgriesser wrote: »lalalacroix wrote: »
Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.
To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?
People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.
I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.
The BIS scale is a more rough estimate and more likely to be considerably off as a percentage.
You may want to supplement BMI with waist to height as an easy second data point in terms of increased health risk.
If both BMI and waist to hight say you're obese; but you feel it is all muscle, then I would seek more confirmation from various body fat measurements such as bia, caliper, body pod, dunk, DEXA, MRI in increased order of potential accuracy.
Visual by trained observers probably spans across the last four.
I haven’t always liked the BMI scale, but still refer to it because it’s an easy scale to refer back to. I do think it’s flawed. But unless you have easy affordable access to a Dexa scanner none of the other methods are perfect either. I’m not an athlete, but I am pretty active. I find all the numbers for all the different weight measurement methods fascinating, because as of right now all three of them put me in different categories.
Right now my BMI is 26. Which puts me just over the line into “overweight,” my body fat % according to the average numbers my scale spits out, which I know are probably not accurate, puts me at around 25% body fat (sometimes it tells me 27%, yesterday it said 21%, but for the last month 25% is the most common reading). If I assume that number is accurate, then I’m right where I should be for my age and height. I’m a 5’7, 35 year old female and my measurements are 34, 29, 42. Which puts me on the higher end of “not overweight” according to that scale.
My personal goals are another 10-15lbs to lose then recomp to get my body fat% down to the low 20’s, as I think I can maintain that.
Despite all these different numbers, I no longer think of myself as “fat” but I also am not where I personally want to be, I’d like that 42, in my measurements to be in the 30’s and I’d like my thighs to jiggle less when I run. So I can ditch the compression leggings.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions