In a deficit but…

2»

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,334 Member
    edited August 2023
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    What?

    I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".

    It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
    https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/
    Ugh, what?

    I just tried that calculator. That's the worst calculator I've ever seen. I'm maybe 10-15 pounds from a level I'd be happy to maintain at. If I enter a goal of fat loss it tells me to have 2.9g per pound, which is INSANE. If I choose maintenance it tells me 1.6g per pound, which is RIDICULOUS. And if I choose muscle gain it gives 2.2g per pound, which is not only ABSURD, it's far less than if I choose a fat loss goal!!

    Total garbage.

    Btw, just going with the 1g per cm presented earlier, that would give you 172g.

    It was reasonable for me....don't know what you're doing (?)

    Regardless, it is James Smith, which is who the guy I quoted was referencing - THAT WAS MY POINT - THAT JAMES SMITH IN HIS CALCULATOR USES MORE PARAMETERS THAN JUST CENTIMETERS OF HEIGHT.

    I used "Maintenance" and "Moderately Active." Result was 102g.

    ...And, yes, I'm aware that 5'8" = 172 cm = 172g according to that guy I quoted. That is way too high regardless of which calculator I use i.e. Examine.com or NIH. At my age, weight (22 BMI,) gender and activity level I should top out at 126g, max.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    What?

    I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".

    It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
    https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/
    Ugh, what?

    I just tried that calculator. That's the worst calculator I've ever seen. I'm maybe 10-15 pounds from a level I'd be happy to maintain at. If I enter a goal of fat loss it tells me to have 2.9g per pound, which is INSANE. If I choose maintenance it tells me 1.6g per pound, which is RIDICULOUS. And if I choose muscle gain it gives 2.2g per pound, which is not only ABSURD, it's far less than if I choose a fat loss goal!!

    Total garbage.

    Btw, just going with the 1g per cm presented earlier, that would give you 172g.

    It was reasonable for me....don't know what you're doing (?)

    Regardless, it is James Smith, which is who the guy I quoted was referencing - THAT WAS MY POINT - THAT JAMES SMITH IN HIS CALCULATOR USES MORE PARAMETERS THAN JUST CENTIMETERS OF HEIGHT.

    I used "Maintenance" and "Moderately Active." Result was 102g.

    ...And, yes, I'm aware that 5'8" = 172 cm = 172g according to that guy I quoted. That is way too high regardless of which calculator I use i.e. Examine.com or NIH. At my age, weight (22 BMI,) gender and activity level I should top out at 126g, max.

    I take your point about it being his calculator, but . . .

    FWIW, I get insane results, too. (I also resent how many times I had to hit the "+" to get to 67 y/o.)

    Swapping around activity levels and goals, the lowest one I got was 144.1g (for sedentary maintenance), which is still unnecessarily high. (I target 100g minimum, a bit over 1g per pound of estimated lean body mass.)

    Here's the one with what I consider to be accurate entries: What do you think I'm doing wrong?
    4h7zea1bprxl.jpg
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    This calculator is even worse! If I chose maintenance I get 75gr protein. For weight gain I get 120. Ok, that's fine. If I say fat loss I get 230gr! As a woman. So now lets say one of those 'I want to lose 2lbs per week' ladies uses this and gets 230gr of protein. What is she going to eat? Nothing but lean chicken?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    craigneal42 wrote: »
    Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
    This info is from a James Smith book.

    To the bolded, no. Not accurate.

    Nutrition is important, but calories are simply a measure of the energy in the food, not a complete story. Foods have not only a calorie level, but varying amounts of nutrients, and varying effects on satiety (which may be quirkily individual), among other attributes. All of that can matter directly or indirectly when it comes to weight management and health.

    Protein has a slightly higher TEF. That may have a small effect on weight loss rate, but it's truly pretty small in a normal mixed-foods, balanced macros kind of context. (We need things other than protein, after all.)
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,776 Member
    Btw Ann, you can click the age or other numbers to type yours in.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,334 Member
    edited August 2023
    @AnnPT77

    :lol: I have no idea. I suspect it may be a conversion problem in the calculator's programming...Here's mine (172 cm) :

    cqpjx35gu4h2.png
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    @AnnPT77

    :lol: I have no idea. I suspect it may be a conversion problem in the calculator's programming...Here's mine (172 cm) :

    cqpjx35gu4h2.png

    Ah. At least in part, it's that the imperial version is . . . um, flawed - it seems. This is still a little high, but not insane:

    pk4kur6efq0z.jpg

    I don't have a high level of confidence in a "calculator" that can't even handle imperial vs. metric.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    Btw Ann, you can click the age or other numbers to type yours in.
    Thanks. That wasn't obvious until I saw the arrows on Riverside's, but I did type the next time.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,334 Member
    edited August 2023
    I don't have a high level of confidence in a "calculator" that can't even handle imperial vs. metric.

    :lol: LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.

    Apparently. Or something...
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,784 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    :lol: LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.

    Apparently. Or something...

    🤣

    Perhaps Americans are assumed to need more protein? 😉
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,334 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    :lol: LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.

    Apparently. Or something...

    🤣

    Perhaps Americans are assumed to need more protein? 😉

    That doesn't really explain Retroguy's weird variances. But, yeah.

    I'm from Murica...I just used the Metric numbers because I'm a rebel.

  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,776 Member
    I just double checked, yep I get 2.9g per pound, using Imperial and choosing 'moderately active' and 'fat loss'. Same settings in metric it gives me 1.68g per pound, which is insanely high. Garbage calculator.

    Btw, I have seen "1g per cm" in a video by Jeff Nippard I think, where he said it can be used as a simpler method than the 0.7g-1g he promotes (based on obese/lean), though he noted it wasn't ideal iirc.
  • Nephelys
    Nephelys Posts: 27 Member
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    I just double checked, yep I get 2.9g per pound, using Imperial and choosing 'moderately active' and 'fat loss'. Same settings in metric it gives me 1.68g per pound, which is insanely high. Garbage calculator.

    Btw, I have seen "1g per cm" in a video by Jeff Nippard I think, where he said it can be used as a simpler method than the 0.7g-1g he promotes (based on obese/lean), though he noted it wasn't ideal iirc.

    Basically, as soon as you go for the weight loss option, the results just go absolutely crazy. I tried it too, out of curiosity, and in my case, it recommends 200g a day of protein for weight loss (versus 80g for maintenance and 120g for muscle gain). In each case, it's too much. At least for me.

    Beyond those insane numbers, you need quite the budget too. 200g of protein a day is enormous... Where I live, good quality meat/fish is clearly not very affordable, so my groceries would clearly cost me an arm and a leg.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,230 Member
    and anyway, despite this lengthy tangent about protein calculators - that really wasnt OP's question or issue.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    :lol: LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.

    Apparently. Or something...

    🤣

    Perhaps Americans are assumed to need more protein? 😉

    I used metric, and got 230gr protein for trying to lose weight. There's something really, really wrong with this calculator.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,853 Member
    edited August 2023
    Nephelys wrote: »
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    I just double checked, yep I get 2.9g per pound, using Imperial and choosing 'moderately active' and 'fat loss'. Same settings in metric it gives me 1.68g per pound, which is insanely high. Garbage calculator.

    Btw, I have seen "1g per cm" in a video by Jeff Nippard I think, where he said it can be used as a simpler method than the 0.7g-1g he promotes (based on obese/lean), though he noted it wasn't ideal iirc.

    Basically, as soon as you go for the weight loss option, the results just go absolutely crazy. I tried it too, out of curiosity, and in my case, it recommends 200g a day of protein for weight loss (versus 80g for maintenance and 120g for muscle gain). In each case, it's too much. At least for me.

    Beyond those insane numbers, you need quite the budget too. 200g of protein a day is enormous... Where I live, good quality meat/fish is clearly not very affordable, so my groceries would clearly cost me an arm and a leg.

    Sounds like quick weightloss :D

  • zebasschick
    zebasschick Posts: 1,067 Member
    it seems the takeaway here is not all calculators are equal... :D
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,504 Member
    craigneal42 wrote: »
    Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
    This info is from a James Smith book.

    Yup @craigneal42 Welcome to MFP. Glad you are sharing your story here.

    The locals will make their sounds and raise their hackles, but of course the hope is you will remain, contribute, share your successes, and unconditionally love those others who are brave enough in the face of obesity and poor health to log on here and engage. Stick with it. MFP can be a powerfully good place.

Categories