Help! Calorie Deficit Calculator??
sydneypink23
Posts: 27 Member
First off, any recs for a good calorie deficit calculator?
I’ve tried calculating it but different websites say different things! I’ve used calculator.me website’s “weight loss calculator”
Currently eat close to 1,900 calories (though sometimes more depending on how many calories I burned from working out that day.. Or sometimes less)
I wanted to add that I’m:
Female
26 y/o
5’5
146 lbs (goal weight is 130)
Exercise: currently finishing week 3 (beginner’s) of SWEAT’s PWR at Home - I also do 2 HIIT workouts a week and 1 LISS. So combined with those and my 3 weight training sessions, I workout 6x a week
How am I doing calorie-wise? Any advice in general?
I’ve tried calculating it but different websites say different things! I’ve used calculator.me website’s “weight loss calculator”
Currently eat close to 1,900 calories (though sometimes more depending on how many calories I burned from working out that day.. Or sometimes less)
I wanted to add that I’m:
Female
26 y/o
5’5
146 lbs (goal weight is 130)
Exercise: currently finishing week 3 (beginner’s) of SWEAT’s PWR at Home - I also do 2 HIIT workouts a week and 1 LISS. So combined with those and my 3 weight training sessions, I workout 6x a week
How am I doing calorie-wise? Any advice in general?
0
Replies
-
Also wanted to add... I stay at home with my son so my daily life isn’t *too* strenuous or high activity-level wise0
-
What does MFP tell you when you enter your stats? With only 16 pounds to lose you should set your goal at .5 per week and eat what MFP tells you to plus some of your purposeful exercise calories5
-
-
Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.7 -
Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
3 -
How accurate is your food log? How often do you use a food scale?2
-
nanastaci2020 wrote: »How accurate is your food log? How often do you use a food scale?
I would say *pretty* accurate! I use a food scale to weigh food basically all the time0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!3 -
Reverse engineer it yourself. Calculators are all in theory. Eat about what you consider maintanance for 2 weeks. Be VERY meticulous. If your energy output stays the same then you can adjust the calories up or down by typically 500 for 1 lb or 1000 for 2 lbs although that's tough for alot of people. Use yourself as the calculator and it will always be accurate. BTW im a Nutrition coach so I've done it a few times
0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!
Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified that - so my calorie goal my has been around 1,900, and some days I eat back most of my exercise calories, some days I don’t really eat much of it back. It just depends! I mentioned the 1,700 because a previous commenter advised using what MFP suggests and that’s what it calculated after I put my info in!
Ps - currently on day 5 of my period - should I try the practice of eating back my exercise calories next menstrual cycle?0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!
Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified that - so my calorie goal my has been around 1,900, and some days I eat back most of my exercise calories, some days I don’t really eat much of it back. It just depends. I guess what I’m asking should I stick with what I currently am doing (goal is 1,900 but that isn’t including exercise calories - I would say on the days I eat back it’s probably around 2,000)? Or try the 1,700 goal not including exercise calories?
Only you can decide what you'd like to do. I'd just encourage you not to try losing faster than 1 pound a week (and slower is fine) with so little left to lose, and to pick an approach and be *very consistent* with it for at least one full menstrual cycle, including a standard arithmetic approach for the exercise calories.
If MFP gave you a goal of 1700, and you picked your activity level setting based on your life *before* exercise as per MFP instructions, MFP intends that you should eat back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories.
This is a side point, but: Some day, you'll reach goal weight. What's your plan for maintaining? In maintenance, you'll need to fuel your exercise somehow, or you'll keep losing weight. Eventually, in long term maintenance, you may go through periods when life logistics limit your exercise for long-ish time periods. In that context, it's helpful to gain an understanding of how exercise affects your calorie needs, especially if you plan to continue calorie counting for a while in maintenance. During loss is, IMO, a good time to figure out how to estimate and fuel exercise, because we have the cushion of an expected deficit to fall back on, in case of errors as we learn.
I look at weight loss, especially in the latter stages, as maintenance practice. Ideally, we arrive at maintenance with a good, tested plan for how we're going to stay at that healthy weight long term. *Not* figuring that out, but instead treating weight loss as a project with an end date, is one of many reasons that many people regain.
Personally, I've lost the 10 pounds over roughly the last 10 months pretty consistently, whether I exercise a lot (for weeks at a time) or very litte (other weeks at a time) because my personal maintenance strategy is continuing calorie counting, and I have a good understanding of my calorie needs with varying exercise levels. I'm in year 4+ of maintenance, in the sense that I've been at a healthy weight that whole time, after about 3 decades of obesity previously. I *don't* think others need to maintain the way I do (continuing calorie counting), but I feel pretty strongly that that "weight loss as maintenance practice" idea was a pretty big factor in changing my weight and life in a sustainable way I can continue easily.
I think I'm out of advice for you, but to underscore what I think is most important: Pick an approach, be consistent, get good consistent calorie data for at least one whole menstrual cycle. Then adjust based on experience. Consider how you want to maintain your weight loss, and start practicing, if you haven't already.
Best wishes!3 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!
Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified that - so my calorie goal my has been around 1,900, and some days I eat back most of my exercise calories, some days I don’t really eat much of it back. It just depends. I guess what I’m asking should I stick with what I currently am doing (goal is 1,900 but that isn’t including exercise calories - I would say on the days I eat back it’s probably around 2,000)? Or try the 1,700 goal not including exercise calories?
Only you can decide what you'd like to do. I'd just encourage you not to try losing faster than 1 pound a week (and slower is fine) with so little left to lose, and to pick an approach and be *very consistent* with it for at least one full menstrual cycle, including a standard arithmetic approach for the exercise calories.
If MFP gave you a goal of 1700, and you picked your activity level setting based on your life *before* exercise as per MFP instructions, MFP intends that you should eat back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories.
This is a side point, but: Some day, you'll reach goal weight. What's your plan for maintaining? In maintenance, you'll need to fuel your exercise somehow, or you'll keep losing weight. Eventually, in long term maintenance, you may go through periods when life logistics limit your exercise for long-ish time periods. In that context, it's helpful to gain an understanding of how exercise affects your calorie needs, especially if you plan to continue calorie counting for a while in maintenance. During loss is, IMO, a good time to figure out how to estimate and fuel exercise, because we have the cushion of an expected deficit to fall back on, in case of errors as we learn.
I look at weight loss, especially in the latter stages, as maintenance practice. Ideally, we arrive at maintenance with a good, tested plan for how we're going to stay at that healthy weight long term. *Not* figuring that out, but instead treating weight loss as a project with an end date, is one of many reasons that many people regain.
Personally, I've lost the 10 pounds over roughly the last 10 months pretty consistently, whether I exercise a lot (for weeks at a time) or very litte (other weeks at a time) because my personal maintenance strategy is continuing calorie counting, and I have a good understanding of my calorie needs with varying exercise levels. I'm in year 4+ of maintenance, in the sense that I've been at a healthy weight that whole time, after about 3 decades of obesity previously. I *don't* think others need to maintain the way I do (continuing calorie counting), but I feel pretty strongly that that "weight loss as maintenance practice" idea was a pretty big factor in changing my weight and life in a sustainable way I can continue easily.
I think I'm out of advice for you, but to underscore what I think is most important: Pick an approach, be consistent, get good consistent calorie data for at least one whole menstrual cycle. Then adjust based on experience. Consider how you want to maintain your weight loss, and start practicing, if you haven't already.
Best wishes!
Thank you so much for the advice! I’m going to try it!1 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!
Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified that - so my calorie goal my has been around 1,900, and some days I eat back most of my exercise calories, some days I don’t really eat much of it back. It just depends. I guess what I’m asking should I stick with what I currently am doing (goal is 1,900 but that isn’t including exercise calories - I would say on the days I eat back it’s probably around 2,000)? Or try the 1,700 goal not including exercise calories?
Only you can decide what you'd like to do. I'd just encourage you not to try losing faster than 1 pound a week (and slower is fine) with so little left to lose, and to pick an approach and be *very consistent* with it for at least one full menstrual cycle, including a standard arithmetic approach for the exercise calories.
If MFP gave you a goal of 1700, and you picked your activity level setting based on your life *before* exercise as per MFP instructions, MFP intends that you should eat back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories.
This is a side point, but: Some day, you'll reach goal weight. What's your plan for maintaining? In maintenance, you'll need to fuel your exercise somehow, or you'll keep losing weight. Eventually, in long term maintenance, you may go through periods when life logistics limit your exercise for long-ish time periods. In that context, it's helpful to gain an understanding of how exercise affects your calorie needs, especially if you plan to continue calorie counting for a while in maintenance. During loss is, IMO, a good time to figure out how to estimate and fuel exercise, because we have the cushion of an expected deficit to fall back on, in case of errors as we learn.
I look at weight loss, especially in the latter stages, as maintenance practice. Ideally, we arrive at maintenance with a good, tested plan for how we're going to stay at that healthy weight long term. *Not* figuring that out, but instead treating weight loss as a project with an end date, is one of many reasons that many people regain.
Personally, I've lost the 10 pounds over roughly the last 10 months pretty consistently, whether I exercise a lot (for weeks at a time) or very litte (other weeks at a time) because my personal maintenance strategy is continuing calorie counting, and I have a good understanding of my calorie needs with varying exercise levels. I'm in year 4+ of maintenance, in the sense that I've been at a healthy weight that whole time, after about 3 decades of obesity previously. I *don't* think others need to maintain the way I do (continuing calorie counting), but I feel pretty strongly that that "weight loss as maintenance practice" idea was a pretty big factor in changing my weight and life in a sustainable way I can continue easily.
I think I'm out of advice for you, but to underscore what I think is most important: Pick an approach, be consistent, get good consistent calorie data for at least one whole menstrual cycle. Then adjust based on experience. Consider how you want to maintain your weight loss, and start practicing, if you haven't already.
Best wishes!
Thank you so much for the advice! I’m going to try it!
Also..... I’m on day 5 of my period. Should I try next cycle?
0 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
You'll likely see a water weight increase for muscle repair when you start strength training. If you're losing slowly, that can be enough to confuse matters for quite a while. My weight looked like it was going *up* during July after I resumed strength training after a break, but after a few weeks starting creeping down again.
Ok! Should I stick with the calories I was eating previously or eat what MFP tells me - around 1,700?
I have to admit, I'm having trouble getting your details clear in my mind, over the multiple posts. Is 1900 what you were eating previously? You mention exercise calories, but don't seem to have a consistent pattern of eat them back, or don't? If you follow MFP you would be eating 1700 plus at least a good chunk of exercise calories?
If that's right, my suggestion would be to try a full menstrual cycle with:
* Base calories at 1700, using food weights whenever remotely possible.
* Adopt a *consistent* practice of eating back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories, trying to be accurate about estimating those, too. It could be 100% of the exercise calories, but something like 50%-75% of them is OK if 100% seems scary.
I'd underscore the idea of being consistent with eating the exercise calories (some standard fraction), vs. "when feeling more hungry", for this trial period. You don't have to eat them the day of the exercise, necessarily, you could bank them to use within a small number of days instead. I completely understand the appeal of taking the extra deficit with the goal of losing faster, if you don't feel a strong urge to eat the exercise calories. But doing that creates very much more difficult to analyze conditions for your "science experiment" of finding your calorie needs.
If you stick with a consistent routine for that time period, and stick with it no matter what happens along the way (as long as it isn't unexplained significant fatigue/weakness that can indicate undereating!), then by the end of that period you'll have clean data to know that X base calories + Y% exercise calories = Z amount of weight change. That's what you need to get an experience-based estimate of your calorie needs, adjust your intake, and go on from there.
The one caution I feel about this, is that if you're targeting 0.5 pounds a week, that takes a long time to show up clearly in the data, and might take a couple of menstrual cycles to really clarify your calorie needs. (I say that based on personal experience with slow loss and scale weirdness.) If your health and energy level are now *really excellent*, with no wishful thinking involved, it would probably not be excessively risky to target a pound a week for one month only, eating back exercise, to minimize that slow-loss effect, before switching to half a pound after that. (Others may differ about this, and I'd probably go with the 0.5 lb/week for 2 cycles instead, as creating better circumstances for maintenance practice, as well as just - frankly - being easier to live with.)
I hope that makes sense. I also hope you understand that this is just advice from some random stranger on the internet, so you should think about it skeptically. (Even though I wouldn't give you advice I thought was bad.)
No matter what you decide, wishing you much success!
Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified that - so my calorie goal my has been around 1,900, and some days I eat back most of my exercise calories, some days I don’t really eat much of it back. It just depends. I guess what I’m asking should I stick with what I currently am doing (goal is 1,900 but that isn’t including exercise calories - I would say on the days I eat back it’s probably around 2,000)? Or try the 1,700 goal not including exercise calories?
Only you can decide what you'd like to do. I'd just encourage you not to try losing faster than 1 pound a week (and slower is fine) with so little left to lose, and to pick an approach and be *very consistent* with it for at least one full menstrual cycle, including a standard arithmetic approach for the exercise calories.
If MFP gave you a goal of 1700, and you picked your activity level setting based on your life *before* exercise as per MFP instructions, MFP intends that you should eat back at least a fair chunk of exercise calories.
This is a side point, but: Some day, you'll reach goal weight. What's your plan for maintaining? In maintenance, you'll need to fuel your exercise somehow, or you'll keep losing weight. Eventually, in long term maintenance, you may go through periods when life logistics limit your exercise for long-ish time periods. In that context, it's helpful to gain an understanding of how exercise affects your calorie needs, especially if you plan to continue calorie counting for a while in maintenance. During loss is, IMO, a good time to figure out how to estimate and fuel exercise, because we have the cushion of an expected deficit to fall back on, in case of errors as we learn.
I look at weight loss, especially in the latter stages, as maintenance practice. Ideally, we arrive at maintenance with a good, tested plan for how we're going to stay at that healthy weight long term. *Not* figuring that out, but instead treating weight loss as a project with an end date, is one of many reasons that many people regain.
Personally, I've lost the 10 pounds over roughly the last 10 months pretty consistently, whether I exercise a lot (for weeks at a time) or very litte (other weeks at a time) because my personal maintenance strategy is continuing calorie counting, and I have a good understanding of my calorie needs with varying exercise levels. I'm in year 4+ of maintenance, in the sense that I've been at a healthy weight that whole time, after about 3 decades of obesity previously. I *don't* think others need to maintain the way I do (continuing calorie counting), but I feel pretty strongly that that "weight loss as maintenance practice" idea was a pretty big factor in changing my weight and life in a sustainable way I can continue easily.
I think I'm out of advice for you, but to underscore what I think is most important: Pick an approach, be consistent, get good consistent calorie data for at least one whole menstrual cycle. Then adjust based on experience. Consider how you want to maintain your weight loss, and start practicing, if you haven't already.
Best wishes!
Thank you so much for the advice! I’m going to try it!
Also..... I’m on day 5 of my period. Should I try next cycle?
Probably not a question you should ask a woman who's been in menopause for almost 20 years. 😆
My best guess would be that starting now is fine (as long as you don't have some other, subjective reason not to start now**), and as long as you compare your weight today, to your weight on day 5 of your period next cycle. The point is to equalize the conditions, in a setting where we know that hormonal cycles can cause water weight fluctuations for many women, in quite individualized ways. Perhaps someone with long weight loss experience pre-menopausally can give you more expert advice.
** What I mean by "subjective reason" is something like this: If you expect the new routine to be lower calories most days, but you already struggle with appetite during your period, then it might make sense to time the expected calorie drop for a time when it will be easier . . . or any of that sort of individual, feelings/happiness oriented things.3 -
I think AnnPT77 means try a strategy for one whole menstrual cycle, meaning day 1 - day 28 (or whatever) and sydneypink23 is thinking just the week she has her period.
I gain water weight at ovulation and right before my TOM, and have a subsequent loss afterwards. Because of this, I compare myself to the same point in my cycle last MONTH, not last WEEK.2 -
sydneypink23 wrote: »Set your MFP activity level based on daily life, before exercise. Most moms with home chores are at least lightly active. Log your exercise (or synch a fitness tracker) and eat exercise calories back, too. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, at least one full menstrual cycle so you can compare your bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles. Log your food carefully along the way. After that, you'll have determined your calorie needs with the ideal calorie needs calculator, your actual body. Whatever your average weekly loss is, in pounds and fractions of pounds, times 3500, is your approximate calorie deficit per week. If you're losing faster than would be reasonable from a health risk standpoint, eat more. If you're losing slower than your safe rate, eat a little less. Use that "3500 calories = roughly one pound" to adjust your weekly intake (divide the weekly by 7 to adjust daily goal.
FWIW, I'm losing weight very, very slowly (on purpose) right now, at 5'5" and about 128 pounds, on around 1850 calories plus exercise. For some reason, I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner, so your calorie needs might be somewhat lower even though I'm smaller (and more than twice your age, at 64). For clarity, I'm intentionally losing slower than my highest possible safe rate, shooting for like a pound a month. It's been averaging around that since last October, so I'm down around 10 pounds. You needn't lose quite that slowly, but I'm just trying to be clear about how I'm describing myself, as a comparison.
But your body will do what *your* body does, so the "stick with it for a few weeks and observe results" idea is the very best way to dial in a safe, sensible, healthy, *personalized* calorie level.
But 1900 doesn't sound crazy to me, for you, to get the slow loss (half a pound a week or thereabouts) that would be appropriate with only a few pounds to lose. It will take patience, and it may not show up on the scale except over a period of weeks, but slow loss is pretty manageable, IME.
Thank you so much for the advice! I’ve been stuck in the 146 range since July 28.. Is that considered a plateau? I did change programs a few weeks ago which includes more weight training.. What do you think is happening and what can I do to get out of this rut?
I gained 7 pounds of water weight after starting weightlifting after a long break. It took a few weeks to come off.1 -
Thank you all for the advice! It’s been super helpful 😊2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions