Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Help needed trying to figure out my maintenance calories.

sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
I've got all my data for the last 14 weeks and I think I've calculated it correctly but would someone be kind enough to double check it for me please?

1st May - 6th August / 14 weeks / 98 days

1st May - 117lbs
6th August - 100.6lbs
Total lost = 16.4lbs

16.4lbs ÷ 98 days = 0.167lbs loss per day
0.167lbs ÷ 3500 calories = 584.5 calories

Total NET calories consumed = 99869
Daily NET calories consumed = 1019

1019 + 584.5 = 1603.5 NET calories to maintain.


Is this correct?
edited August 7

Replies

  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    Thank you, I'm trying to get my head around maintenance first before I can progress to gaining.
    My calculated maintenance calories are a lot more than MFP gave me so I just want to check that my calculations are correct.
  • sijomialsijomial Posts: 15,038Member Member Posts: 15,038Member Member
    sefajane1 wrote: »
    Thank you, I'm trying to get my head around maintenance first before I can progress to gaining.
    My calculated maintenance calories are a lot more than MFP gave me so I just want to check that my calculations are correct.

    MyFitnessPal only estimates your daily calorie goal minus exercise - your numbers include exercise so don't compare apples to oranges.
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    sefajane1 wrote: »
    Thank you, I'm trying to get my head around maintenance first before I can progress to gaining.
    My calculated maintenance calories are a lot more than MFP gave me so I just want to check that my calculations are correct.

    MyFitnessPal only estimates your daily calorie goal minus exercise - your numbers include exercise so don't compare apples to oranges.

    Thank you. My calculations are based on NET calories, is this wrong? Should I recalculate using my GROSS intake?
    edited August 7
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    @sijomial, now that you've mentioned that I'm confused. I've realised that I stopped logging and eating back exercise calories just over a month ago. Do I need to recalculate using all GROSS calories, all NET calories or a mix of the two for the exercise logging and non logging times?

    I thought it was right to use NET calorie history? 🤔
    edited August 7
  • glovepuppetglovepuppet Posts: 1,701Member Member Posts: 1,701Member Member
    As you're underweight, and really can't afford to lose, just go with whatever number is higher. The numbers are never going to be 100% accurate, because everyone is different. Be brave, push yourself a little extra to get to the slightly higher goal, and good luck <3
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    As you're underweight, and really can't afford to lose, just go with whatever number is higher. The numbers are never going to be 100% accurate, because everyone is different. Be brave, push yourself a little extra to get to the slightly higher goal, and good luck <3

    Thank you 😊
    Do you know if I should have used GROSS or NET intake in my calculation?
  • sijomialsijomial Posts: 15,038Member Member Posts: 15,038Member Member
    sefajane1 wrote: »
    @sijomial, now that you've mentioned that I'm confused. I've realised that I stopped logging and eating back exercise calories just over a month ago. Do I need to recalculate using all GROSS calories, all NET calories or a mix of the two for the exercise logging and non logging times?

    I thought it was right to use NET calorie history? 🤔

    The usual way to calculate is from your total calories eaten, an allowance for weight lost and divide by number of days. It excludes the inaccuracy inherent in most people's exercise estimates. It's a TDEE calculation.

    Best to avoid mixing up MFP and TDEE calculations as that just causes confusion.
    I'm very concerned that you appear to have chosen MFP to work out your goal but then stop logging and eating back exercise calories.

    Your sample length is also too long IMHO, the most recent month would give you a better idea of what is happening now.

    But overall I'm concerned you have dieted down to a low weight fairly quickly, your calculations may well not give you an accurate picture at all with most likely a degree of adaptive thermogenisis. That would make your estimate too low, you really need to work on the confidence to eat more than you believe is maintenance.



  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    sefajane1 wrote: »
    @sijomial, now that you've mentioned that I'm confused. I've realised that I stopped logging and eating back exercise calories just over a month ago. Do I need to recalculate using all GROSS calories, all NET calories or a mix of the two for the exercise logging and non logging times?

    I thought it was right to use NET calorie history? 🤔

    Best to avoid mixing up MFP and TDEE calculations as that just causes confusion.
    I'm very concerned that you appear to have chosen MFP to work out your goal but then stop logging and eating back exercise calories.

    Your sample length is also too long IMHO, the most recent month would give you a better idea of what is happening now

    I stopped logging exercise because I stopped exercising. I changed my activity level up from sedentary to lightly active at the same time.

    I chose the 14 weeks for data because I lost a lot of weight in July (9.4lbs) but in May I had a long holiday and ate a lot of extra calories so I figured that May-August, it would all average out?

    I'll recalculate using GROSS calories then, thanks 👍
  • Ketch_22Ketch_22 Posts: 930Member Member Posts: 930Member Member
    Hard to resolve your cal problem when you have only supplied "net calories consumed". I use TDEE. nothing is exact but according to TDEE you would have to be a sedentary female at height of 4'7 over the age of 30 to have a BMR of 1000 cals. Basically its a short female person in a coma.
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    Ketch_22 wrote: »
    Hard to resolve your cal problem when you have only supplied "net calories consumed". I use TDEE. nothing is exact but according to TDEE you would have to be a sedentary female at height of 4'7 over the age of 30 to have a BMR of 1000 cals. Basically its a short female person in a coma.

    MFP has my BMR at 1063, I guess I must be in a coma 😉
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    What PAV said. When I recovered from anorexia I had to throw out my scale. I only loosely logged calories in my head at the start to make sure I got over 2000 but aiming for 2500. Quite soon, intense hunger kicked in as my body realised I was starting to feed it again, and I just listened to that. I have no idea how much I ate--probably over 3000 most days. It was basically the Minnie Maud Recovery. I did no exercise but walking and some light stretching. I surrounded myself with a good support network that helped keep me accountable. And I did a lot of therapy.

    Then I was more or less recovered and had a relapse last year with bulimia. I never got underweight but it has still taken most of a year of therapy with not actively engaging in behaviours often (maybe once a month) and it's only NOW I feel like my brain is finally getting to a healthy place. This time I did weight training since I wasn't underweight and it helped me funnel my anxiety into a healthier outlet.

    We're not going to tell you to eat 1600 calories net. We're going to tell you to eat at least 2000 but ideally 2500 (at minimum).

    Thank you for taking the time to respond, it's good to hear from someone who really understands the struggle (although not good, if you know what I mean?) And, I'm happy to hear that you're in a better mindset now.
    I did read up on the Minnie Maud Recovery when it was suggested before but, at the time, I didn't think that it applied to me. I've bookmarked it today to read later.
  • sefajane1sefajane1 Posts: 296Member Member Posts: 296Member Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Jane, forgive me for just a second because it is almost 4:30 am here and you're just killing me.

    You've been in this rodeo before. You know that you will need to both cut down on exercise and go to well over 2500 Cal to regain.

    As soon as you start eating "maintenance" calories your body is likely to rev up to repair some of the damage it has sustained, and if you don't eat more to counteract you're going to start losing again at what were your "apparent" maintenance calories.

    Your mental need to micromanage your weight when you physical need is rapid regain is a manifestation of the ED that afflicts you. Your body would benefit if you were to not micromanage your weight and if you let it dictate the food it needs.

    You did not go down this rabbit hole willingly, but the process of losing weight, whether healthy or extreme, still managed to trigger your brain chemical levels back into their "safe" little ED rut! There is no blame here; it is frankly amazing that you're fighting so hard.

    But you're not YET winning! As time goes on I keep hearing about accumulating losses; not about happy weight restoration!

    Ditch the calorie counts unless you're using them to ensure a 2,500 Cal minimum. Seriously.

    You don't seem to be willing/able to look into counseling... OK... so you have to do a lot of searching for information yourself! How many references to the Minnie Maud Recovery protocol have you run into? I've seen it mentioned a few times.

    Holidays at the expense of your health leave something to be desired--what you MIGHT do in the future should have no influence on you doing the right thing for you NOW!

    I've pm'ed you a couple of amazon links to access the Homeodynamic Recovery Method e-book <re-branding of MinnieMaud> even from outside the US/Canada/UK.

    Thank you once again @PAV8888, I was inwardly hoping that you'd respond ☺️ It's my bedtime here now and I've got a full day of oncology and endocrine appointments tomorrow so I don't know when I'll be able to reply fully, but I will, as soon as I'm able to.

    I didn't receive any PM's from you but I did look at the Minnie Maud before and have bookmarked it today, thanks for reminding me 👍

    P. S.
    Sorry to be such a pain! 😅
    edited August 7
  • Ketch_22Ketch_22 Posts: 930Member Member Posts: 930Member Member
    sefajane1 wrote: »
    Ketch_22 wrote: »
    Hard to resolve your cal problem when you have only supplied "net calories consumed". I use TDEE. nothing is exact but according to TDEE you would have to be a sedentary female at height of 4'7 over the age of 30 to have a BMR of 1000 cals. Basically its a short female person in a coma.

    MFP has my BMR at 1063, I guess I must be in a coma 😉

    mfp comes up with a calorie intake based on your selections. If you choose to gain weight the calorie count goes up. If you want to actually know what you should be consuming use the TDEE calculator and put in your real data.
Sign In or Register to comment.