Calorie Counter

Message Boards Goal: Maintaining Weight
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

TDEE data and questions based on calculations

13»

Replies

  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    Your adjusted goal is probably extra goofy because you may have manually set a goal. Manual input takes precedence.

    I updated the s/h version with slight formatting improvements.

    You would probably find your %'s a bit more smoothed out if you were using weight trend instead of weight. As you have more weeks... the apparent error decreases. This is the part where we say "weight change is not linear".

    Any few days can have wild swings... over a long enough period of time your trend emerges.

    If someone was holding a gun to my head and asking me to give them a value as to how closely you can believe your Garmin's TOTAL CALORIES OUT based on your activities so far... I would say around 5% off.

    If you cut and pasted your columns make sure that the cells up top are referencing the correct values.

    If they are, I note that the information says your Garmin TDEE is an UNDERESTIMATE.

    I.e. when you see Garmin telling you that at the end of the day you burned 2718 Calories, the "corrected" estimate based on your food logging, Garmin logging, types of activities, and weight changes so far, is that you would need to eat approximately 2850 Calories to maintain your weight.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 136 Member Member Posts: 136 Member
    @PAV8888 thanks again, really interesting and informative data. As you'll see from my screen shot above, I did slightly mess up the calories in and had to re-enter all that yesterday, however, the different is minimal.

    I have manually set a goal of 2500 on MFP, which I think needs to increase, or do I set the goal based on maintenance and let it go through MFP? I think the goal is a bit arbitrary anyway, as no way my TDEE is 2500 even before the running challenge, but I crept it up from where it was.

    One interesting thing yesterday, before bed my Total Calories was around 3k as I looked before sleep, when I woke up it was 3640, which of course must take into account the time between 9pm and midnight before the next 24hrs? I ate over 3k cals yesterday but I guess if it was correct, that is a over 500 cal deficit, so won't be maintenance. I'll be glad to get through this running challenge so I can settle back into a pattern a bit more.

    Good news, my pull up side challenge was good this morning and so my strength is improving :)
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    Strength has a strength to weight component.

    Set to maintain and let MFP and Garmin sort.

    Set Garmin eating to maintain not to arbitrary target too.

    Not sure if we're on the same page: any data we had as of the last time I looked at what you posted was that if Garmin said you needed 3000 Cal to maintain, you actually needed about 3150 to do so (obligatory disclaimer: based on past performance and data as given, time period is shorter than ideal, future performance not guaranteed based on past data :wink: )

    Your narrative seems to imply you are thinking the opposite.

    I note that my own experience does imply that at some level of extremely caloric exercise needs decrease relative to models (and there is a hunter gatherer tribe study somewhere that sort of points to that). This doesn't mean you can assume with impunity that this is the case without any corroborating evidence--which would be what you would be doing if you consistently fuel with 3150 when the only evidence other than hunger levels (which for quite a few people actually tend to work better than even the most careful logging) points to you needing ~3800!
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 136 Member Member Posts: 136 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Strength has a strength to weight component.

    Set to maintain and let MFP and Garmin sort.

    Set Garmin eating to maintain not to arbitrary target too.

    Not sure if we're on the same page: any data we had as of the last time I looked at what you posted was that if Garmin said you needed 3000 Cal to maintain, you actually needed about 3150 to do so (obligatory disclaimer: based on past performance and data as given, time period is shorter than ideal, future performance not guaranteed based on past data :wink: )

    Your narrative seems to imply you are thinking the opposite.

    I note that my own experience does imply that at some level of extremely caloric exercise needs decrease relative to models (and there is a hunter gatherer tribe study somewhere that sort of points to that). This doesn't mean you can assume with impunity that this is the case without any corroborating evidence--which would be what you would be doing if you consistently fuel with 3150 when the only evidence other than hunger levels (which for quite a few people actually tend to work better than even the most careful logging) points to you needing ~3800!

    I think Garmin takes the eating goal from MFP, I cannot find an eating goal on Garmin but you can set a weight goal. I wonder should I just delete that weight goal or put it at my current weight? I guess if I made gains in muscle, then it might cause confusion with the numbers as I gain muscle, which I'd be happy to do. I'll set MFP to maintain.

    Sorry I'm not thinking the opposite at all, I was before collection of the data as I was getting a lot of high adjustments on MFP but probably for good reason. It's the shift from losing weight, which I needed to 3 to 4 months ago to now wanting to recomp and maybe even build a bit.

    Tomorrow is my usual weigh in day, so I'll have new weekly data to put in the sheet, obviously I don't want to become a bore with this for others but I do appreciate the help 👍
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    set all to maintain? I think people with Garmin have been quite helpful, so maybe they can offer suggestions! A lb or two should not meaningfully change the calories...
  • heybalesheybales Member Posts: 17,583 Member Member Posts: 17,583 Member
    Garmin does take the eating goal from MFP.
    I just changed mine Mon, so either there is an issue, or it doesn't work great, or a delay perhaps - because it finally updated today.
    But with their method of math, which I still don't understand - you can't follow those eating guidelines at all.
    I think they had an initial understanding of what they wanted to request from MFP, but they were wrong.

    Put weight goal where you want it - it's for their Weight tracking section is all, not used in any math.

    Current weight is important, as it determines the RMR calorie burn, and the movement based burn on distance.
    3-5 lbs probably significant enough to matter.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 136 Member Member Posts: 136 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Garmin does take the eating goal from MFP.
    I just changed mine Mon, so either there is an issue, or it doesn't work great, or a delay perhaps - because it finally updated today.
    But with their method of math, which I still don't understand - you can't follow those eating guidelines at all.
    I think they had an initial understanding of what they wanted to request from MFP, but they were wrong.

    Put weight goal where you want it - it's for their Weight tracking section is all, not used in any math.

    Current weight is important, as it determines the RMR calorie burn, and the movement based burn on distance.
    3-5 lbs probably significant enough to matter.

    Cool, the weight on Garmin must be taken from MFP as it is tracking the same, I've just removed the weight goal for now on Garmin.

    I reset MFP to maintenance, as I had it set to 2500 cals manually and it dropped back to 2020 based on my sedentary setting. I've had a very active day so ate 3200+ cals today and I still am not sure it was enough for today. Sleep time now!!
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 136 Member Member Posts: 136 Member
    @PAV8888 here is the data after today's weigh in, I'll now leave it ticking along for a few weeks logging as I go. I updated each formula to reflect the weeks as they are shown up top.

    ci821nffqkjt.png
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    So what was so different last week??? You seem so..... within population averages all the other time! Not that 10% is that much anyway; but it does look aberrant compared to the rest!

    Oh well. You seem to have a handle on things now!!!!!!!
    edited June 18
Sign In or Register to comment.