Calories on shorter days?

Stormchaser123

Pardon me if this has been done to death.

Average calories are X for a X human right?

So most humans, Person A, get up 8am , walk the dog, feed the kids, take the kids to school, iron, wash up, go to work, walk from the train, come home maybe cook train and go to bed about 11.

Lets say that the above human's guideline calories to maintain weight or repair muscle are say 2500kcal.

Person B. Wakes up around 10am does nothing much but sit at a desk, does his or her training, no housework ever and goes to bed around 10pm

Person B has used a ton less energy right?

So, does person B require less maintenance calories?

Let's say person B was me. If I had to be person A there is no way I would be able to survive on such low calories.

Stormchaser123

Another way to put this; If you have a shorter day and you have met you minimum - would you continue to eat to your normal calorie goal or would you amend it without damaging any repair or growth?

wunderkindking

The activity level during the day is the difference, not the time of waking up and going to bed.

But yeah, you eat more when you move more. MFP asks for a daily activity level (job, lifestyle movement) and then asks you to add intentional exercise separately.

AnnPT77

To put it another way:

If person A and person B are using MFP correctly, they won't have the same calorie goal in the first place.

Person A probably sets their activity at "Active", maybe even "very active", based on their busy daily life routine. They get a calorie goal, based on that (plus their height, weight, age, and how fast they said they wanted to lose weight - let's say they said they wanted to lose a pound a week, sensible if not extremely obese). Let's say they get a calorie goal of 2500, based on all of that. Then, when they train, they log that exercise on MFP, get more calories added to their goal. Let's say they do a moderately intense hour on an exercise bike, get 350 calories for that. They get to eat 2850 calories, and still expect to lose that pound a week, if they're close to average in calorie needs.

Take person B. We'll say they're the same age, weight, height, want to lose that same pound a week. But they set their activity level at "sedentary"/"not very active". Maybe that gives them a calorie goal of 2000 calories. They they don't train, so they don't add any more calories to the 2000. They eat the 2000, and still can expect to lose that pound a week, if they're close to average in calorie needs.

(The 2500/2000 are just made up, different height/weight/age combinations would give different results from MFP. But the person with the higher activity level would get more calories, then they'd add to those calories by doing exercise.)

Both of those people should follow the recommendations for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles if female of the relevant age), then look at average weekly weight loss. If it's different from the 1 pound a week they asked for, they would then adjust their base calories to dial in the right weight loss rate, using the concept that 1 pound of weight loss requires eating about 500 calories daily less than one burns. That adjusts for the possibility that the individuals aren't average.

If we're talking about the actual *you*: Set your activity level based on your typical day, sort of averaging it out if weekends are way different than weekdays, for example. Log your exercise, but only if you do some, and use reasonable estimates. Do the 4-6 week trial thing, then adjust.

Don't try to lose weight too fast, if you're feeling like you're trying to survive on too few calories. Losing 0.5-1% of your current weight weekly is probably the maximum you want to lose to keep reasonable odds of good health, preferably toward the lower end of that, especially if you don't have a lot of weight to lose in total.

Stormchaser123

Nice post wow really good. And yes also thanks Wunder this is good eat more when you move more yes. If I ever do a long day to London and back not only am I exhausted but I either eat less due to adrenalin or eat more the following day because I am ravenous. Thanks again. This has been good to note. I don't mind adding food to meet my protein needs but eating for the sake of it wen you are 2-300 under seems a waste...

wunderkindking

Stormchaser123 wrote: »

Nice post wow really good. And yes also thanks Wunder this is good eat more when you move more yes. If I ever do a long day to London and back not only am I exhausted but I either eat less due to adrenalin or eat more the following day because I am ravenous. Thanks again. This has been good to note. I don't mind adding food to meet my protein needs but eating for the sake of it wen you are 2-300 under seems a waste...

Sorta depends on how often 200-300 happens, and how big your deficit already is. These days the odd day under my calorie goal by a few hundred is a bigger deal (my BMI is 22ish) than when I was obese. Yeah, it means it'll let me lose more but it's also more likely that I'm going to feel even that little bit more under in being low energy and dizzy. There just isn't room for me to have a big deficit anymore without being into 'ate way too little'.

When I was obese? I'd let a few hundred calories under ride. Maybe use it against a slightly over day later or something. Now? ...Absolutely not.

penguinmama87

I'm kind of disappointed this thread isn't about calorie needs based on the solstices.