Hunger and correct calorie counts

castironmaiden

I'm trying to figure out if I've got the right calorie goals for me.

When I set up MFP, I set it to sedentary and 2lb/wk loss. I weighed 315 at 6', 34yo female. I've been at this for almost 2 months now, I'm 299 as of this morning. My cals were set at about 1780.

I have a fitbit alta hr that I set to do negative counts with sync, and I wear it on my ankle so it's not miscounting repetitive arm movements while inactive. I only ever do walks/hikes for actual exercise, otherwise it's just counting how active I am around the house (sahm).

I track everything by weight to the gram, err on the side of a small overestimation by tacking on extra grams to everything. I rarely eat out, if I do, again will err on an overestimation. I count all drinks and condiments, even 0 calorie stuff like diet soda. I make sure I'm accounting for cooked vs raw foods, frozen vs thawed, etc. I go out of my way to do absurdly specific calculations for family dinner recipes to make sure my portion is as correct as possible. Point being I'm trying to account for the underestimation of calories vs the overestimation of exercise.

At the start, I would eat back some of my calories. Some days I would be right at or a bit below my NET goal, a few days I went a little over, some days I would be way under like my lowest was 550 net cals. Every week I was 1500-3500 under the net weekly.

Here is my concern:

Using fake rounded numbers, if I eat 3000 calories a day, and my fitbit adjusts MFP to say I burned an additional 1500 calories, that puts me under my net, but I am not very hungry at the end of the day. I took a break from the fitbit because I hurt my foot, did not have calorie adjustment for 5 days, ended up eating over my goal every day and still went to bed hungry af. I researched reasons why I would be hungry - upped my water intake with electrolytes significantly, made sure I was getting enough fiber and protein, not filing in calories with junk - still hungry! I get a full to bursting bladder throughout the day and wake up several times in the night to go.

I've read so many posts about net cals, and then read a bunch of independent research on the effects of exercise, which basically says there are diminishing returns on how many exercise calories you can burn. I would agree the exercise adjustment isn't correct because I have barely lost despite supposedly having an extreme calorie deficit, but also I feel like hot garbage eating at 1700, or even 2000 for that matter, even with sitting on my butt most the day. I'm hungry and sick of constantly running to the bathroom. There's no way that hunger is dehydration with all the salts I chug and continue to pee constantly.

For the record, I've already worked on all the emotional and other physical aspects of this issue. I actually started at 410 and lost 100lbs over a few years just by going to therapy and finding a doctor who gave a damn about my messed up lab work. I'm in the best shape I've ever been so far and haven't had an emotional attachment to food for quite a while. When I say hungry, I mean hungry, not just craving comfort or dealing with weird hormone issues.

AnnPT77

castironmaiden wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out if I've got the right calorie goals for me.

When I set up MFP, I set it to sedentary and 2lb/wk loss. I weighed 315 at 6', 34yo female. I've been at this for almost 2 months now, I'm 299 as of this morning. My cals were set at about 1780.

Strong implication from this that your daily average maintenance calories during this period were roughly 1000 calories more than the average amount of calories you actually ate, if it was really 16 pounds in about 8 weeks.

I have a fitbit alta hr that I set to do negative counts with sync, and I wear it on my ankle so it's not miscounting repetitive arm movements while inactive. I only ever do walks/hikes for actual exercise, otherwise it's just counting how active I am around the house (sahm).

I track everything by weight to the gram, err on the side of a small overestimation by tacking on extra grams to everything. I rarely eat out, if I do, again will err on an overestimation. I count all drinks and condiments, even 0 calorie stuff like diet soda. I make sure I'm accounting for cooked vs raw foods, frozen vs thawed, etc. I go out of my way to do absurdly specific calculations for family dinner recipes to make sure my portion is as correct as possible. Point being I'm trying to account for the underestimation of calories vs the overestimation of exercise.

At the start, I would eat back some of my calories. Some days I would be right at or a bit below my NET goal, a few days I went a little over, some days I would be way under like my lowest was 550 net cals. Every week I was 1500-3500 under the net weekly.

Here is my concern:

Using fake rounded numbers, if I eat 3000 calories a day, and my fitbit adjusts MFP to say I burned an additional 1500 calories, that puts me under my net, but I am not very hungry at the end of the day. I took a break from the fitbit because I hurt my foot, did not have calorie adjustment for 5 days, ended up eating over my goal every day and still went to bed hungry af. I researched reasons why I would be hungry - upped my water intake with electrolytes significantly, made sure I was getting enough fiber and protein, not filing in calories with junk - still hungry! I get a full to bursting bladder throughout the day and wake up several times in the night to go.

Have you experimented with changes in eating timing? For some, that makes a difference.

I'm a little unclear about what you're saying here: Are you saying that if you eat what the adjusted numbers say, you aren't hungry, but without the calorie adjustment you were hungry? Do you feel like your exercise per se affects your hunger level, by any chance?

(Some people find that certain types of exercise provoke hunger, but not all; some people find that certain types of exercise suppress their hunger, but not all. This stuff seems to be quite individual. Personally, while I was losing, I found that strength training made me hungry, but cardio - in my case rowing & cycling - didn't. Anecdotally, it seems like high-intensity exercise or strength exercise are the things most likely to trigger hunger for some folks, mild/moderate exercise more likely to suppress it, but that's not universal.)

I've read so many posts about net cals, and then read a bunch of independent research on the effects of exercise, which basically says there are diminishing returns on how many exercise calories you can burn. I would agree the exercise adjustment isn't correct because I have barely lost despite supposedly having an extreme calorie deficit, but also I feel like hot garbage eating at 1700, or even 2000 for that matter, even with sitting on my butt most the day. I'm hungry and sick of constantly running to the bathroom. There's no way that hunger is dehydration with all the salts I chug and continue to pee constantly.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in the bolded. I've seen reasonably legit research that seems to point at a true effect (at least at aggregate levels, i.e., populations), in which people who exercise hard can rest more in other aspects of their day, and end up in about the same place (in calorie expenditure) as if they hadn't done all that exercise.

I'm a little skeptical that that applies universally at n=1, because - for example - elite athletes need to consume really high calories when training, and a bunch of us regular duffers around here burn more calories than our mere demographics would predict, from being individual athletically active. I'm sedentary AF in daily life, but still burn relatively more calories than a lot of women my age/size, as estimated from weight-management results. (I suspect gradual build up in training volume is a useful thing when it comes to avoiding fatigue penalty, but that's gut feelz, not science.)

I've also seen sources say that your body gets used to an exercise, so burns fewer calories doing that exercise, which IMO is pure BS - like counter to basic physics BS. Again, elite athletes are one counter-example, and - while it legitimately may not persuade you - my n=1 is that the same exercise I've been doing for 20 years, starting when I was obese, and continuing to now when I'm not, is burning about the same number of calories it always did, once adjusted for the relevant change in bodyweight. It sure hasn't been a gradual decrease in the calories from that exercise steadily over the 20 years I've been doing it. It's still far from zero now, y'know?

For the record, I've already worked on all the emotional and other physical aspects of this issue. I actually started at 410 and lost 100lbs over a few years just by going to therapy and finding a doctor who gave a damn about my messed up lab work. I'm in the best shape I've ever been so far and haven't had an emotional attachment to food for quite a while. When I say hungry, I mean hungry, not just craving comfort or dealing with weird hormone issues.

The only things you haven't mentioned here are stress and sleep. I suspect that some people struggle more with hunger than others inherently. Sometimes that yields to changes in eating - not just the macro mix, but sometimes even specific food choices, timing of meals/snacks, relative size of meals/snacks, when various nutrients or foods are eaten, and more. There are some timing strategies that work well for some people (like 5:2 IF) that help some people, but frustrate others intensely.

Also, if you've lost a lot of weight already, there's an implication that you've maybe been in a calorie deficit for a long time. Have you looked into diet breaks or refeeds, and their potential to affect hunger/satiety? There's more about that in this thread:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

I'm sorry, this is all kind of shot in the dark stuff. I'd like to help, but . . . .

castironmaiden

Have you experimented with changes in eating timing? For some, that makes a difference.

I'm a little unclear about what you're saying here: Are you saying that if you eat what the adjusted numbers say, you aren't hungry, but without the calorie adjustment you were hungry? Do you feel like your exercise per se affects your hunger level, by any chance?

(Some people find that certain types of exercise provoke hunger, but not all; some people find that certain types of exercise suppress their hunger, but not all. This stuff seems to be quite individual. Personally, while I was losing, I found that strength training made me hungry, but cardio - in my case rowing & cycling - didn't. Anecdotally, it seems like high-intensity exercise or strength exercise are the things most likely to trigger hunger for some folks, mild/moderate exercise more likely to suppress it, but that's not universal.)

Exercise reducing hunger might be it. I've read a bunch about exercise causing hunger. I'll try to do some more digging.

there are diminishing returns on how many exercise calories you can burn.

Here's a Vox article for a summary:
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

Here's the study referenced in point 8 of the article:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8

My point is that even when I have 3500 under weekly net calories - so the built in calorie deficit of MFP, plus an additional large deficit - I'm not losing any faster, but I'm also not hungry. And I'm just walking more, not lifting weights or anything. If I eat what I'm "supposed" to eat, but stay sedentary, I'm effing starving. My concern is that my calorie goals are just completely wrong, and I don't know if I'm screwing myself up by trying to make 1700ish calories, considering I haven't actually been able to achieve eating that little. Trying to figure out a middle ground between toxic diet mentality saying hunger is a lie vs not sabotaging myself with the net calorie trap.

Also, if you've lost a lot of weight already, there's an implication that you've maybe been in a calorie deficit for a long time. Have you looked into diet breaks or refeeds, and their potential to affect hunger/satiety?

All the weight I have lost was unintentional. I never tracked a thing or consciously restricted food/exercised more. It was literally the difference of no longer having PTSD + whacky hormones. I would lose ~40lbs over 2-3 months, plateau/re-gain ~15lbs over 1-2 years, then suddenly drop again. The several doctors working with me over the last 5 years have been confounded.

sijomial

" I researched reasons why I would be hungry - upped my water intake with electrolytes significantly, made sure I was getting enough fiber and protein, not filing in calories with junk - still hungry! I"
That seems to be missing the main cause of hunger - eating too little. Most of the strategies to cope with hunger when dieting are helpful but getting the basic numbers/deficit right is probably more important.

If you are using MFP to set your calorie goal I'd be surprised if a SAHM is truly fitting in a sedentary activity setting.
If you are using your Fitbit derived goal the activity level you choose in MFP just changes the size of the adjustments.
You need to decide which method you are going to use and stick with it, they can both work, both may well need to be trialled over weeks and then tweaking to personalise. I wouldn't suggest trying to game the numbers by under-estimating or excluding valid calorie needs of your body, you do need to trust the methods enough to give them a fair trial.

At your weight yes 2lbs/week may be a reasonable choice but be wary of making a hard job too hard to be able to sustain long term. In reality it's more important you continue to lose rather than how fast you lose. Time passes anyway.....

If you are peeing all day and night, drink less!
You really shouldn't be having to take on a load of electrolytes all the time. They should be exceptional, if you stopped over-hydrating the need to add salts would decrease too.

As for exercise diminishing returns it's very nuanced and personal. For walking I doubt it's much of a factor for many and wouldn't try to account for what is just a possibility.

I regularly have massive exercise calorie burns from my main sport of cycling as it's what most people would consider very long duration - but that has very little impact on my hunger signals. But yesterday I did a short indoor training session with 10 max effort sprints (overall similar burn rate to moderate cycling due to the recovery periods and for me a small total burn) and was starving all evening. Even as a large volume exerciser I very much doubt “diminishing returns” is a factor at all for me.

Exercise is simply a good thing to do for health and fitness and to me that's the main focus, not calorie burns.

AnnPT77

@castironmaiden, overall I'd encourage you to do a little more personal experimenting, and a little less general theory-seeking. I strongly believe there's quite a lot of individual variability in what triggers hunger/appetite, or what results in satiation.

The studies - or others' experiences - can give you things to try, but their conclusions are statistical, i.e., they're generally telling you what's common/average. In reality, there's variation around the mean, i.e., some individual people will have been a stronger responder to some stimulus/intervention, others weaker responders.

What really matters for you is what works for you. An experimental attitude is a good way to figure that out, IMO - treat it like a fun n=1 science fair experiment.

You already have some good personal evidence: You were less hungry on lower calories when more active, and more hungry on higher calories when less active. If I were you, I'd be using that, at least until I figured out that it wasn't working. Honestly, who cares if there's a theory that explains it, if it works?

(. . . and I say that as someone who really, really likes to understand things!).

castironmaiden wrote: »

Have you experimented with changes in eating timing? For some, that makes a difference.

I'm a little unclear about what you're saying here: Are you saying that if you eat what the adjusted numbers say, you aren't hungry, but without the calorie adjustment you were hungry? Do you feel like your exercise per se affects your hunger level, by any chance?

(Some people find that certain types of exercise provoke hunger, but not all; some people find that certain types of exercise suppress their hunger, but not all. This stuff seems to be quite individual. Personally, while I was losing, I found that strength training made me hungry, but cardio - in my case rowing & cycling - didn't. Anecdotally, it seems like high-intensity exercise or strength exercise are the things most likely to trigger hunger for some folks, mild/moderate exercise more likely to suppress it, but that's not universal.)

Exercise reducing hunger might be it. I've read a bunch about exercise causing hunger. I'll try to do some more digging.

In the article you cited, it mentioned several times that long term success in weight management was more likely for people who do exercise. There's a hint in there, IMO.

there are diminishing returns on how many exercise calories you can burn.

Here's a Vox article for a summary:
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

Here's the study referenced in point 8 of the article:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8

My point is that even when I have 3500 under weekly net calories - so the built in calorie deficit of MFP, plus an additional large deficit - I'm not losing any faster, but I'm also not hungry. And I'm just walking more, not lifting weights or anything. If I eat what I'm "supposed" to eat, but stay sedentary, I'm effing starving. My concern is that my calorie goals are just completely wrong, and I don't know if I'm screwing myself up by trying to make 1700ish calories, considering I haven't actually been able to achieve eating that little. Trying to figure out a middle ground between toxic diet mentality saying hunger is a lie vs not sabotaging myself with the net calorie trap.

Thank you for the article. I think I understand better where you're coming from.

Before I forget: If that's been your experience, I like sijomial's advice that shooting to lose 2 pounds a week is optional, if going slower makes it steadier - that can actually add up to reaching goal in the similar calendar time, maybe even faster, because of avoiding slips and such. Given what you've said here, I'd certainly say going for a lower loss rate - higher calories - would be a good idea while you're not working out. I know that's weird, but achievability is a big, big, factor in long-term success, IME.

I've seen most of the research in that article, and generally don't argue with it: Exercise calories are a small fraction of our total calories, for typical people. (I don't love every common-language conclusion drawn from it by people quoted in the article, though - but that's quibbling.)

Some people can lose weight by increasing exercise if they are either hugely inactive/unfit so that exercise increases fitness, encourages them to move more in daily life (because it's easier and more fun); or if they've been gaining super-slowly or maintaining a higher weight than they like, so that adding exercise puts them in a moderate overall calorie deficit; or some non-average scenario like that. And yes, even both of those are only likely to work if calorie intake is held steady or even reduced, whether via calorie counting or some other eating strategy.

Personally, I was very active, training 6 days most weeks for over a decade while obese, even competing as an athlete (not always unsuccessfully, in age group events) . . . and stayed obese. For me, a pretty robust exercise schedule amounts to maybe one open-face peanut butter sandwich on a nice hearty bread, and it's super easy to eat that much extra. I didn't increase exercise to lose weight. Even now, having increased exercise volume (for fun, not calories), it's still maybe only 10-15% of my TDEE most days.

Again: The article suggests exercise is important to reaching/maintaining a healthy weight for many people, even if it doesn't pin down why.

I'd say that walking is a pretty great starting point, as exercise, for a lot of people. When I've seen people here on MFP - in my 7+ years here - say that exercise increases their hunger, it's most often either intense exercise, or very high volume exercise, or heavy-to-them strength exercise. I don't recall anyone saying that about moderate amounts of moderate exercise - at worst, it's rare. (Fatigue is going to trigger energy seeking, and food is energy, right? Maybe avoid (much) fatigue.)

Careful analysis and experimenting will get you further than dramatic contrasts between "toxic diet mentality saying hunger is a lie vs not sabotaging myself with the net calorie trap". There's a lot of middle ground in there to be tried!

Also, if you've lost a lot of weight already, there's an implication that you've maybe been in a calorie deficit for a long time. Have you looked into diet breaks or refeeds, and their potential to affect hunger/satiety?

All the weight I have lost was unintentional. I never tracked a thing or consciously restricted food/exercised more. It was literally the difference of no longer having PTSD + whacky hormones. I would lose ~40lbs over 2-3 months, plateau/re-gain ~15lbs over 1-2 years, then suddenly drop again. The several doctors working with me over the last 5 years have been confounded.

I think you can figure this out. Obviously, it's your call, but I'd suggest you pick some non-extreme calorie deficit (loss rate). Then exercise when you can, and allow yourself to eat a little less if you're then less hungry (but don't eat crazy much less, as that often seems to result in an unexpected backlash later).

Some people here have even had long term success by setting their calorie goal at maintenance calories (I'd include tracker-observed exercise in that, personally), then eating anything up to but not over those calories, with the amount below it determined by perceived hunger. It's an option.

One of my strongest personal beliefs about weight loss, based on my own experience plus reading many posts here over the 7 years, is that finding the right personalized approach to weight management is a key factor in success, and that can vary surprisingly much from one person to the next. We each have different preferences, strengths, limitations, genetics, lifestyles, and more - the solution has to work in our individual context.

Best wishes!

AnnPT77

@castironmaiden, you might want to take a look at this thread:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10871436/exercise-training-and-diet-resistant-obesity#latest

It may be interesting in itself, but I'd call your attention to the 3rd reply (4th post) which among other things says:

If I am pretty active, and eat accordingly, I can lose the expected weight as long as I stay in my allotted calories and I don't find it particularly difficult to do so.

. . .

Now, if I try to lose weight (with the same "deficit") WITHOUT exercise, I will fail every single time. I may lose for a bit, but eventually my hunger is unmanageable and I just can't sustain it. My hunger when my activity level is high, however, is very reasonable.

That sounds like another person who experiences the kind of thing you're describing here?

The thread's subject may have a hint at why (speculative). Be aware that that post/thread is in the Debate Club area, where people's posts may be more direct and even argumentative (still supposed to be polite, though).

PAV8888

My apology if the below is not 100% relevant and I admit to skimming not reading as carefully as I perhaps should.

My understanding is that there is a "discrepancy" between amount of hunger when eating at goal without any "exercise activity" and when there exists exercise activity and still eating at goal.

I put forward a few points for your consideration as to whether they could apply in your specific situation or not.

-- the fact that a deficit size is "safe" f.e. 1000 Cal for 2lbs a week, doesn't mean that for a specific individual at a specific point of time it is ultimately the most sustainable. Personally I lost weight at a mixed rate that averaged just under 750 Cal a day the first year I was on MFP. And my TDEE was pretty high. which brings us to:

-- a certain size of deficit from a high TDEE is a smaller percentage of that TDEE than when the same deficit comes from a smaller TDEE.

1000 Cal is 25% of a 4000 Cal TDEE and for an obese person this might be a doable and sustainable level given a person's size and overall activity. 1000 Cal, however, is 50% of a 2000 Cal TDEE. The sustainability of a 50% deficit is something I would question. Two months at 1000 Cal is a heck of a lot less effective than twelve months at 500 Cal. Sustainable effort is the name of the game for me.

-- I tend to lose faster if I don't exercise and keep to a 500 Cal deficit than if I exercise and keep to a 500 Cal deficit. I am pretty sure that IN MY PARTICULAR situation my fitbit is giving me a bit of a bonus for being more active... perhaps a bit of a fictitious bonus. OTHER considerations could also be in play. While more active there may be temporary water weight increases and when less active decreases havimg to do with the normal process of a well functioning body. Overall my fitbit is predictable enough for me to be able to make valid decisions as to how much i should eat... and that's all that's needed, as opposed to absolute accuracy.

Right sized effort commensurate to acceptable results and willingness to continue to adjust up and down as circumstances change beats heroic unsustainable efforts.

Hopefully some of this is relevant!

kshama2001

Different exercises and different durations effect my hunger signals differently.

For example, I used to feel ravenous after a long swim, and then I realized I was actually thirsty, so had fluid available for immediately after I got out of the water, and that fixed that.

One hour of intense yardwork suppresses my appetite. Four hours of intense yardwork makes me hungrier than my allowed calorie burn would suggest. I cut myself off at two hours now. I do try to hydrate sufficiently, but perhaps I was not being aggressive enough.