Goal Weight x 12 (Jordan Syatt) and WW Wendie Plan
Options
Replies
-
Column C, header 135, is goal weight of 135 times multiplier in column A.
Lowest day is *11 using the figures you provided in your post further up.
This makes your lowest eating day @ 1485 using GW*11 and 1563 using current 28-day Fitbit average of 2132 and eating 73%
Neither of these match the 1276 and 1679 you mention, so starting with a clean slate and mapping out what you plan to do might be a good idea.
I think you're trying to calorie cycle using your non free food points which seems weird given they only account for a portion of your caloric intake
My suggestion would be to decide on a weekly deficit and to calorie cycle using something reasonable which will probably not result in something much more extreme than what's already in the 135 deficit plan detailed above. It already has a couple of minus 647 days which is quite hefty for your current situation.
My perspective would be closer to mixing - 500 - 250 and 0 days and accepting a slower (-2250) i.e. 30lb a year loss, but I'm quite conservative. And spending a year getting to a goal you're going to have to defend for dozens doesn't seem that far-fetched to me
Matching inconsistent data to weight loss doesn't look like a high value proposal to me, which means that I don't know whether matching Weight Watchers (unknown calories ingested) points to your past weight loss, as you discuss, will offer much insight for you moving forward.
However, if you have enough days that you have logged on MFP, or other calorie counting site, especially if you have more than 4 to 6 weeks that include a complete menstrual cycle, then matching your total intake to your total expenditure as per Fitbit and comparing to weight trend change using trendweight (which you can use by connecting it to your Fitbit account) and using the convention of 3500 cal = 1lb may give you a better idea. Starting and ending scale weight will do if you don't have trend data.
You can also do this by picking an arbitrary starting point and moving forward.
Figures are not immutable which is why I've been urging you to consider tying in to something that can accommodate variability, vs tying in to a static formula.
Last, but not least, you don't HAVE to calorie cycle unless there is a reason
Lots of people Caloric bank or have one or two higher days.
-500*5=2500 and you get two days at maintenance for a refeed or weekend.
2 -
Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)
There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.0 -
lissakristinej wrote: »Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)
There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.
Just log them...3 -
Column C, header 135, is goal weight of 135 times multiplier in column A.
Lowest day is *11 using the figures you provided in your post further up.
This makes your lowest eating day @ 1485 using GW*11 and 1563 using current 28-day Fitbit average of 2132 and eating 73%
Neither of these match the 1276 and 1679 you mention, so starting with a clean slate and mapping out what you plan to do might be a good idea.
I think you're trying to calorie cycle using your non free food points which seems weird given they only account for a portion of your caloric intake
If I was trying to calorie cycle using my non-zero point foods, I would be figuring out about how many calories I get in foods WITH points. That's not what I'm doing at all. I was simply dividing the number of points I get each day on the Wendie Plan and dividing it by the total number of points I get in a week. On a 26 point day, that's 11.3% of my week. Then, I was seeing how many calories I get in an entire week and multiplying that number by the numbers I get from the Wendie Plan math. I was just seeing what it would look like if, like on the Wendie Plan, Sundays and Wendesdays were around 11.3% of my weekly caloric intake and Saturdays were closer to 20%.
However, after looking at the numbers, I realized that I'd rather eat a little less on Saturday (like with the numbers I get when looking at the multipliers) in exchange for eating a bit more on my low days. I'd also get to eat a bit more (roughly 300 calories a week) by using the original multipliers instead of the Wendie Plan-based ones based on my using GWx12x7 to determine my weekly calorie baseline.
I also calculated distributing my calories using the total weekly calories I get with the original GWx? multipliers and my Fitbit TDEE-500. I'm just interested in seeing how the Wendie Plan distribution would affect how my calories are distributed throughout the week. I know that realistically, eating the same calories every day isn't going to work for me, so I need to figure out the best plan to distribute the calories I get during the week and I enjoy how the Wendie Plan allows for a few really low days, a few higher days, and one extra high day. (And my approach has always been to switch things around if needed. If I know I have a dinner out on Thursday, I'll make Thursday my extra high day that week). Simply alternating between, say 1420 calorie days and 1820 calorie days is an option as well, but I really liked the way the Wendie Plan distributes things with Points and I've been interested to see if there was a way to translate that into a calorie goal.
1 -
nanamerriman2020 wrote: »lissakristinej wrote: »Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)
There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.
Just log them...
I do log them, but if I'm going to be measuring and tracking them I might as well switch to a plan that actually has them count for something- especially since seeing that the arugula on my avocado toast is 9 calories or my peach is 37 isn't exactly going to change anything for me if it's still 0 points. I'm aware of how many calories I'm consuming of 0 point produce (maybe 300-400 depending on fruit consumption). Awareness isn't enough for me anymore. I need structure.0 -
@lissakristinej I am glad to see that you're working through your numbers.
You stated that your Fitbit TDEE (28 days) is 2132 i.e. maintenance calories are 14924 (7*2132)
Therefore, a -500, 3500 Cal a week deficit should create an 11,424 Cal week.
My sheet, above, applying your percentages to Fitbit's 2132 TDEE creates a 12,224 Cal week.
Your sheet details a 12,594 Cal week as Fitbit-500.
There is nothing wrong with either as a goal. They're just not Fitbit-500! So do double check that your numbers are engineered to match your hopes and expectations!
You may also want to explore intermediate deficits (such as -300 as opposed to -500). You need a lot of days with more than 500 Cal deficits in order to make up for your higher eating days and it is my belief that this can be pretty hard on people and may set one up for restrict / binge patterns of eating if they're not very careful.
Because a lot of your base calories on WW come from their zero point foods, your percentage allocation of the additional elective points does not extrapolate 1:1 to the totality of calories consumed.
i.e. by applying the elective points change percentage to the larger totality of calories you consume in a day you are creating a larger variance than the one you actually had under WW.
If you ate all your elective calories on one day, 100%, you would still eat some zero point food all the other days.
So, even if you use them as an idea, you can't distribute your total calories using the exact same percentages because when you do so you're not taking into account the unknown zero cal foods you were still consuming
Below I am throwing a couple of "simple" plans at you.
You could play along the lines of the examples and create something similar for yourself that emulates the essence of your Wendie plan.
Eat Deficit Eat Deficit Eat Deficit
2132 1632 500 1685 447 1560 572
2132 1632 500 1525 607 1560 572
2132 1632 500 1650 482 1560 572
2132 1632 500 1525 607 1560 572
2132 1632 500 1425 707 1560 572
2132 1632 500 2250 -118 2125 7
2132 1632 500 1425 707 1560 572
3500 3439 3439
1 -
Math is NOT my strong point. I probably entered a number wrong somewhere down the line (or it could've been an issue with rounding numbers).
The amount of produce (the only 0 point food on the plan I was on) that I ate really didn't vary much on high vs low point days.
I'm definitely going to have to come back to this thread sometime in the future, but I think I may be changing gears slightly. The thing I really liked about WW is the fact that they give you a daily minimum (on the last plan I followed, my minimum was 26 points) as well as an extra bank of weekly points (49 on my plan) to use at your discretion. I liked this approach better than having a single set number each day. I had the freedom to use none of my weekly points, all of them, or any number in between.
Maybe one week I ate 26 points Sunday-Friday and had a 75 point day on Saturday and used up all my weeklies in one shot.
Or another week, I ate 33 points every single day and divided things up equally.
I think my initial plan is to use my weekly calorie goals to basically create the same concept. I'll create a minimum weekly calorie baseline (for this example, let's just say I'm going with GWx10). At a minimum, every day, my goal is to eat 1350 calories (9,450 calories a week).
However, my weekly goal will be, say GWx12.5x7 (I want to make sure this number is a bit higher than what my actual maximum weekly goal is because I know I'm going to want to stay under it since hitting that number exactly is going to be next to impossible). This gives me roughly 11,810 calories a week as my maximum goal.
Which basically means I have around 2,360 calories a week that act in the same way my weeklies did on WW. I'll consider my week to be a success as long as, at the end of the week, my weekly total falls within that 9,450-11,810 calorie range AND I've hit that 1,350 calorie goal each day.
[Note that my lowest calorie day in the past few weeks was over 1,400 and I usually land in the 1,500-1,700 range, so I'm not super concerned about underreating. If I do have a lower calorie day where I'm closer to the 1,300-1,400 range, it's likely to be done somewhat intentionally to allow myself the room to have a treat later in the week].
I'm going to figure out what my exact numbers are going to be for this and just try this method out for a while. Then, I can go back and revisit whether or not I need a bit more structure in how I distribute those "extra" 2,000 or so calories. I think my biggest challenge is that, in order to set up my tracker to do this, my daily goal is going to have to be my weekly goal/7, so ignoring how much under/over I am when it comes to that number is going to be weird, but I think I'll adjust eventually.1 -
What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.
Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.
You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.
One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss
0 -
I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..0
-
What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.
Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.
You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.
One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss
Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.
My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)
The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..
That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.
I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).
1 -
I challenge you to focus on CALORIE control; NOT simple "portion" control. Is an item/meal worth the CALORIES for the benefit you get?
I just had a huge (well outside norms of portion control) salad (with the hard boiled eggs, turkey, and balsamic vinegar being the highest calorie items) for 429 measly calories (out of the 2500+ I am going to spend today)-- you will note that I didn't use any oil, mayo, crackers, croutons, or nuts or what have you, keeping the calories relatively low on purpose since I am planning on getting a $1 vanilla cone later this afternoon, and it will add anywhere from 250 to 350 Cal depending on the 'hands" of the McD person preparing it!
2 -
I challenge you to focus on CALORIE control; NOT simple "portion" control. Is an item/meal worth the CALORIES for the benefit you get?
I just had a huge (well outside norms of portion control) salad (with the hard boiled eggs, turkey, and balsamic vinegar being the highest calorie items) for 429 measly calories (out of the 2500+ I am going to spend today)-- you will note that I didn't use any oil, mayo, crackers, croutons, or nuts or what have you, keeping the calories relatively low on purpose since I am planning on getting a $1 vanilla cone later this afternoon, and it will add anywhere from 250 to 350 Cal depending on the 'hands" of the McD person preparing it!
On the "current" WW plans, it's very easy to overeat certain foods- especially fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins. I can have over 200 calories worth of protein powder for one point (and I get 16, 23, or 30 points a day depending on the plan). I was eating good, healthy foods, but my caloric intake was too high. That's what I mean by needing to focus more on portion control than types of foods. WW has helped me "clean up" my eating significantly by pushing me to eat more whole, unprocessed foods. Now, I need to work on making sure I don't go overboard on portions because the calories for healthy foods still add up.1 -
But don't forget (which I don't think WW teaches this) that NOT EVERY VEGETABLE has the same amount of calories.
For example, corn is a high calorie veg, peas are medium and have more protein than most, carrots are low cal, cabbage is ultra low cal.
Onions are not super low cal... but they have high satiation and filler power (for me). So does garlic. A huge amount of rutabaga (swede) mash can be had, or a smaller amount of mashed potatoes.
If you, for example, mash the potatoes (or plain instant powder) as is (i.e. without butter and cream), but maybe add 0% plain yogurt... you actually end up with a relatively filling relatively tasty mash.
Instead of using huge amounts of relative mild cheese, I now use very small amounts of very sharp / tasty cheese
Just saying that experimenting and varying the portion is definitely a thing!
BUT, I absolutely hear you about no food TRULY being zero calorie in sufficient quantity and that includes "0" Cal spray, mustard, spices, and even powdered sucralose (liquid is actually truly almost 0!)
Ticks me off that I keep running into manufacturer lies (compare french's mustard entries to usda yellow mustard entries)
it is eye opening (that and a scale!)
*BTW: you've nicely confirmed some of my objections to WW in that they (for their own ends) penalize foods they shouldn't and that they sometimes make foods that, at best, are medium bargains appear to be much greater bargains than they are.2 -
But don't forget (which I don't think WW teaches this) that NOT EVERY VEGETABLE has the same amount of calories.
For example, corn is a high calorie veg, peas are medium and have more protein than most, carrots are low cal, cabbage is ultra low cal.
Onions are not super low cal... but they have high satiation and filler power (for me). So does garlic. A huge amount of rutabaga (swede) mash can be had, or a smaller amount of mashed potatoes.
If you, for example, mash the potatoes (or plain instant powder) as is (i.e. without butter and cream), but maybe add 0% plain yogurt... you actually end up with a relatively filling relatively tasty mash.
Instead of using huge amounts of relative mild cheese, I now use very small amounts of very sharp / tasty cheese
Just saying that experimenting and varying the portion is definitely a thing!
BUT, I absolutely hear you about no food TRULY being zero calorie in sufficient quantity and that includes "0" Cal spray, mustard, spices, and even powdered sucralose (liquid is actually truly almost 0!)
Ticks me off that I keep running into manufacturer lies (compare french's mustard entries to usda yellow mustard entries)
it is eye opening (that and a scale!)
*BTW: you've nicely confirmed some of my objections to WW in that they (for their own ends) penalize foods they shouldn't and that they sometimes make foods that, at best, are medium bargains appear to be much greater bargains than they are.
Oh I'm definitely aware that not all vegetables have the same number of calories. I was double tracking WW points and caloreis for a couple of weeks. I even switched WW plans because I realized that my portions for low point proteins were getting out of control. The WW plan I was on will lower the points if something is high in protein; the one I switched to has protein count for the calories it has. It helped, but it just wasn't quite enough. I'm not the kind of person who can keep under control by double tracking. I know that the sugar snap peas I'm eating are 14 calories and the bell pepper strips are 27, but if they're only taking 0 points away from my total, it's not going to help much.
Plus, one of the downsides of the Points system is that it's just easy to learn to manipulate things. I can have 140 grams of cauliflower gnocchi for 3 points, but 163 grams is ALSO 3 points. Since I want to get the full value of my points, it feels like a waste if I don't try to get as close to 163 grams as possible (without going over; 164 grams is 4 points). Now, the difference between 140 and 163 grams of cauliflower gnocchi is only 23 calories, but when I'm adding a couple extra grams of protein powder to my smoothies, looking for the biggest piece of chicken I can get for x points, etc., it adds up. Calories not only eliminates those little things, but it also takes off the pressure of trying to maximize what I get for the serving. Instead of focusing on getting exactly 32 grams of peanut butter because 33 is an extra point and I want to get every points' worth, if my sandwich has 33 grams one day or 31 the next on calories, it doesn't seem to matter as much.
2 -
This is not a program or a diet, it is a lifestyle to a healthier you. Regardless of whether you count WW points or calories, weight loss happens when at a caloric deficit.
You are at a point where you’ve lost 50 pounds! Which is amazing.
So, the body you have today is different from the one you had 50 pounds ago. You need to establish how many calories your body needs, then consume less than that number. The question is how? There are all kinds of calculators out there and they are all based on averages. The only way for you to know about you is with tracking.
- Track what you eat
- Monitor your macros
- Monitor your metrics (weight and measurements)
- Then adjust as needed
- As you lose weight, your body is going to change, not only in appearance, but also in how it reacts to different foods.0 -
lissakristinej wrote: »What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.
Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.
You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.
One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss
Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.
My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)
The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..
That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.
I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).
I totally agree.. That's what I'm doing too.. I've decided to just stick to calorie deficit for the long haul...❣️1 -
DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »lissakristinej wrote: »What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.
Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.
You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.
One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss
Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.
My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)
The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..
That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.
I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).
I totally agree.. That's what I'm doing too.. I've decided to just stick to calorie deficit for the long haul...❣️
I'm giving myself a solid 4 weeks to see how I like tracking calories. I figure, I can always go back to counting points in some capacity if I find that it fits better with my lifestyle. After all, at the end of the day, the best plan is the plan that you stick to.2
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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions