Calorie deficit

laranas23

Hi. I am new to counting calories I know somewhat bout it but still a little unclear on it. I have a question for anyone who can answer. My calorie deficit is 1,490 and I see on other macro calculators it say I should be eating around 1,700. I am 5"2 and weight ruffly around 130-133 lb.

quiksylver296

This site expects you to add back your exercise calories and eat those. The other sites add exercise calories in at the beginning.

That’s where the other 200ish calories come from. It all equals out.

laranas23

@quiksylver296 Hi. Thanks for replying. So it is best that I stay at the 1,700 calories instead?.

AnnPT77

MFP gives you a calorie estimate that's intended to be based on daily life activity level *excluding* intentional exercise, and expects you to log the exercise separately when you do some. Most other calculators estimate total calories including your intentional exercise. Therefore, it's pretty typical to get a lower goal from MFP. For most people, MFP estimate + exercise (called NEAT method, for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) is approximately equal to other calculators' total-calories estimate (called TDEE method, for Total Daily Energy Expenditure).

Some people prefer one method, some prefer the other. My main exercise is seasonal and weather-dependent, so I like the MFP NEAT method, personally.

laranas23

@AnnPT77 Thanks for the advice. I am still trying to figure things out with this. it's just Me making sure I am eating the right calorie deficit. I notice that I have lost weight trying it for two weeks with MFP but decided to up it cause someone told Me that 1,490 calories was too low. My husband also said just follow MFP!. So you would say stick with MFP as well?

quiksylver296

laranas23 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 Thanks for the advice. I am still trying to figure things out with this. it's just Me making sure I am eating the right calorie deficit. I notice that I have lost weight trying it for two weeks with MFP but decided to up it cause someone told Me that 1,490 calories was too low. My husband also said just follow MFP!. So you would say stick with MFP as well?

Are you logging your exercise and eating those calories, using MFP?

AnnPT77

laranas23 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 Thanks for the advice. I am still trying to figure things out with this. it's just Me making sure I am eating the right calorie deficit. I notice that I have lost weight trying it for two weeks with MFP but decided to up it cause someone told Me that 1,490 calories was too low. My husband also said just follow MFP!. So you would say stick with MFP as well?

The big deal is how fast are you losing, averaged over 4-6 weeks? If you're a woman who still has monthly hormonal cycles, average over at least one whole cycle (start and end the averaging at same relative points in each cycle).

Any calculator just gives you a starting estimate. It's sort of a statistical average of calorie needs for people who are similar to you with respect to the few data points you put into the calculator. Like most statistical estimates, it will be close for many people (the average-ish people), a bit farther off (high or low) for some, and way off for a very rare few. So, you start with a calculator estimate, run your own personal experiment for a few weeks, then adjust.

Many of us think that 1% of current body weight weekly is the fastest most people should be losing, and for those with fewer than 50 total pounds to lose, even slower would be better. (Yes, the implication is that it's good to slow the loss rate as one gets closer to goal.) Losing any faster than that is maybe suitable for people who are so overweight that their weight itself is a major health risk, and who are losing weight under close medical supervision. Even those needing to lose 50+ may get better results from a slow loss rate they can stick with, vs. something that's white-knuckle tough and risks compensatory binges or giving up.

Sustainability is one reason to take it slowly. Another is that losing fast can create greater health risks, because losing weight is a physical stress on the body (and it adds up on top of any other stresses, physical or psychological, that we may have in our lives, from poor sleep to job stress to, oh, say, a pandemic).

So, I think it matters less whether you pick MFP or a higher number from another calculator. If you used an outside calculator that included your intentional exercise, don't log exercise separately. If you used MFP to get an estimate as per its instructions, then log and eat back exercise calories, too (or a good chunk of them - some people worry at first that they may overestimate exercise, and start by eating back 50-75% - just be consistent).

If you felt weak or fatigued on the 1490, eat more. If 1490 felt sustainable, and you were logging/eating exercise on top of it, then stick with it.

Even though the calculators only give you an estimate you have to try out (and maybe adjust based on experience), it's a better (more science-based) place to start than some random number someone gives you based on their personal experience, in my opinion.

What I did personally (to lose 50+ pounds and maintain a healthy weight for 5+ years since) was one version what I'm suggesting you do: Believe MFP at first, log my exercise, adjust my calorie goal based on my personal results after a few weeks. "Results" means both the average loss rate, and how sustainable that rate feels.

Best wishes!

laranas23

@AnnPT77 Yes. I totally agree with you. I don't feel fatigued or weak at that calorie deficit. I believe that is just right for Me. My thing is the more calories I eat I feel as I am forcing to eat my meals and ain't even hungry at times. Thanks again You patience in writing this information I appreciate it.

heybales

laranas23 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 Thanks for the advice. I am still trying to figure things out with this. it's just Me making sure I am eating the right calorie deficit. I notice that I have lost weight trying it for two weeks with MFP but decided to up it cause someone told Me that 1,490 calories was too low. My husband also said just follow MFP!. So you would say stick with MFP as well?

Dittos to sticking with MFP method as well. The whole MFP method.
Correctly done of course - which means the base eating goal is only on days you do no exercise.
If you do more you'll be eating more, right?
Same deficit to cause weight loss.
More food to aid repair or have a good workout, to make positive changes.
Which why wouldn't you want to have a good workout - if spending the time and energy on it afterall.