Goals playing up
Lildarlinz
Posts: 276 Member
Hey guys quick question
I’m on a 1200 calorie diet at the mo I’m losing 2lb a week
9lbs weight loss so far 
I want to up my calories a bit
Buttttt…
If I put lose 1lb a week…all I get is 1270
If I lose 0.5lb a week it gives me 1560
Shouldn’t there be something in between? Like 1300-1400 calories to lose a 1lb a week?
I think the goals are playing up…
If I look on Google it says I can have 1450 calories to lose 1lb a week x
I’ve also put myself as sedentary because I am literally a couch potato this week in my annual leave 🤣🤣
Thankssss xxx
I’m on a 1200 calorie diet at the mo I’m losing 2lb a week
9lbs weight loss so far I want to up my calories a bit
Buttttt…
If I put lose 1lb a week…all I get is 1270
If I lose 0.5lb a week it gives me 1560
Shouldn’t there be something in between? Like 1300-1400 calories to lose a 1lb a week?
I think the goals are playing up…
If I look on Google it says I can have 1450 calories to lose 1lb a week x
I’ve also put myself as sedentary because I am literally a couch potato this week in my annual leave 🤣🤣
Thankssss
xxx 0
Replies
-
1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.0 -
Congrats on the 9 lbs.
I personally never get the math, or how they arrive at it, and have never found it to be an exact science. I just tweak a little at a time to find my sweet spot. Maybe give yourself an additional 50 calories and see how that goes, then 50 more, etc. till you're happy.
3 -
1200 is the lowest MFP will give you.
Lets just say your current maintenance calories were 1700 calories and you wanted to lose 2lbs per week. Then you'd need to eat 1000 calories per day less. 1700-1000 = 700. MFP will still give you 1200, meaning you'll lose slower.
If you chose 1lbs per week, then you have a 500 calorie deficit per day. 1700-500 = 1200. Yeah, that's most likely what you'll lose.
However, not everyone's body is the same. Some people lose a bit faster regardless of the calculator, others a bit slower. Logging accuracy and activity level also play a role here.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900 0 -
1200 is the lowest MFP will give you.
Lets just say your current maintenance calories were 1700 calories and you wanted to lose 2lbs per week. Then you'd need to eat 1000 calories per day less. 1700-1000 = 700. MFP will still give you 1200, meaning you'll lose slower.
If you chose 1lbs per week, then you have a 500 calorie deficit per day. 1700-500 = 1200. Yeah, that's most likely what you'll lose.
However, not everyone's body is the same. Some people lose a bit faster regardless of the calculator, others a bit slower. Logging accuracy and activity level also play a role here.
I’m very religious in tracking my calories sometimes when I scan a barcode the input is wrong
So I input it as a new food and follow all the calories,fat,carbs etc on the back of the packet followed by weighing it on a kitchen scale xx
0 -
The issue isn’t about how you track your calories.
The reason you got only 70 extra calories from reducing your weekly weight loss goal is because your previous goal was so aggressive that it put you under the minimum calories that MFP will give you.
The MFP math works out right, it just factors in a minimum that changed what calorie goal you were originally given.2 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
In what world is 12 hours walking the floor at a hospital "sedentary"? Sedenatary is literally sitting at a desk all day and getting in 3K steps or less. You're only getting 1270 for 1 Lb per week because you're putting sedentary which most of the time you are not. Also, if you've been losing 2 Lbs per week at 1200 then your maintenance is around 2200, not 1700-1900. You're not getting correct outputs because your inputs are bad.5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
In what world is 12 hours walking the floor at a hospital "sedentary"? Sedenatary is literally sitting at a desk all day and getting in 3K steps or less. You're only getting 1270 for 1 Lb per week because you're putting sedentary which most of the time you are not. Also, if you've been losing 2 Lbs per week at 1200 then your maintenance is around 2200, not 1700-1900. You're not getting correct outputs because your inputs are bad.
Well in nicest ways considering you sound so mad at me…
I’m not exactly working in a hospital this week am I because I’m on annual leave…neither have I done 3K steps neither…🤦♀️ so hence why it’s put at sedentary…when I’m more active at work I set it as active
I’m going by what google says I input the same data and I’m inputting into here and my maintenance is between 1700-1900 for different calorie calculators…
It’s no bother on me really…I can live with 1200 calorie diet for a while…I’m not a big eater anyway…my problems was chocolate and alcohol intake that I mainly needed to give up which I’ve done…
1 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
You seem to be active or very active with the work you do. I would change sedentary to that, and keep your weightloss goal to 1lbs per week. Why? You're tired and exhausted. You're working hard and massively undereating. Hey, it's great you lost so much weight so quickly, but it's not healthy in the long run, so please slow down. There's no point in speeding if you end up sick due to that. The magic of sustainable weightloss is finding a spot where you're losing weight but have enough energy to do everything.5 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
You seem to be active or very active with the work you do. I would change sedentary to that, and keep your weightloss goal to 1lbs per week. Why? You're tired and exhausted. You're working hard and massively undereating. Hey, it's great you lost so much weight so quickly, but it's not healthy in the long run, so please slow down. There's no point in speeding if you end up sick due to that. The magic of sustainable weightloss is finding a spot where you're losing weight but have enough energy to do everything.
Thank you yirara…I only have 2lb to go to get to my 1st weight loss goal and then I intend to up my calories a little
I’m actually tired because of boredom…I should be up and about doing stuff…but this week I’m bored 🤣 I don’t no why.I should be love life being at home for a whole weeek!
It’s hard bloody graft at work
I’m Going out for tea and cake tommorow! So I will have my fair share of that cake I think 🍰 YUM 😝😝😝0 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
You seem to be active or very active with the work you do. I would change sedentary to that, and keep your weightloss goal to 1lbs per week. Why? You're tired and exhausted. You're working hard and massively undereating. Hey, it's great you lost so much weight so quickly, but it's not healthy in the long run, so please slow down. There's no point in speeding if you end up sick due to that. The magic of sustainable weightloss is finding a spot where you're losing weight but have enough energy to do everything.
I’m quoting this because, yup.3 -
Ignore what MFP says, because you have personal data you can rely on. That is much more personalized and reliable as a guide, going forward.
Look at how many pounds per week you've lost on average since you started. (Divide the number of pounds by the number of weeks, keeping the decimal places.)
Look at how many calories you've eaten daily on average to lose that weight. (Close estimate is good enough, I know it varies.)
Now, multiply the average weekly pounds lost by 500. Add that number to the average daily calories you've eaten.
That's your approximate calories to maintain your current weight, doing the things you typically have done over the time since you started losing.
To lose about a pound a week going forward, subtract 500 from the number of calories you just estimated you'd need to maintain your current weight. That's your new goal calories.
Follow that for at least a full menstrual cycle so you can compare body weight at the same relative day in at least two different cycles. (Go 4-6 weeks, if you don't have cycles.) If you've lost about a pound a week, you're close enough. Otherwise, go through the steps above with the new month or so of results.0 -
Ignore what MFP says, because you have personal data you can rely on. That is much more personalized and reliable as a guide, going forward.
Look at how many pounds per week you've lost on average since you started. (Divide the number of pounds by the number of weeks, keeping the decimal places.)
Look at how many calories you've eaten daily on average to lose that weight. (Close estimate is good enough, I know it varies.)
Now, multiply the average weekly pounds lost by 500. Add that number to the average daily calories you've eaten.
That's your approximate calories to maintain your current weight, doing the things you typically have done over the time since you started losing.
To lose about a pound a week going forward, subtract 500 from the number of calories you just estimated you'd need to maintain your current weight. That's your new goal calories.
Follow that for at least a full menstrual cycle so you can compare body weight at the same relative day in at least two different cycles. (Go 4-6 weeks, if you don't have cycles.) If you've lost about a pound a week, you're close enough. Otherwise, go through the steps above with the new month or so of results.
I had to read that about 10 times
Soooo
I’ve lost 9lb in 4 and a bit weeks
So 9 divided by 4 is 2.25
I’ve eaten 1200 calories a day so 2.25 x 500 + 1200 is 2325
- 500 = 1825
So I can eat 1825 to lose a 1lb a week? Lol
1 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »Ignore what MFP says, because you have personal data you can rely on. That is much more personalized and reliable as a guide, going forward.
Look at how many pounds per week you've lost on average since you started. (Divide the number of pounds by the number of weeks, keeping the decimal places.)
Look at how many calories you've eaten daily on average to lose that weight. (Close estimate is good enough, I know it varies.)
Now, multiply the average weekly pounds lost by 500. Add that number to the average daily calories you've eaten.
That's your approximate calories to maintain your current weight, doing the things you typically have done over the time since you started losing.
To lose about a pound a week going forward, subtract 500 from the number of calories you just estimated you'd need to maintain your current weight. That's your new goal calories.
Follow that for at least a full menstrual cycle so you can compare body weight at the same relative day in at least two different cycles. (Go 4-6 weeks, if you don't have cycles.) If you've lost about a pound a week, you're close enough. Otherwise, go through the steps above with the new month or so of results.
I had to read that about 10 times
Soooo
I’ve lost 9lb in 4 and a bit weeks
So 9 divided by 4 is 2.25
I’ve eaten 1200 calories a day so 2.25 x 500 + 1200 is 2325
- 500 = 1825
So I can eat 1825 to lose a 1lb a week? Lol
Yup, that's what I'd do.
If that seems like a big number to you: I'm a li'l ol' lady, 5'5", age 67, about 130ish pounds right now, sedentary outside of intentional exercise, no active job like you have. I have a goal of 1850 plus exercise calories now, and if I eat that consistently, I'll lose weight at around half a pound a week, maybe a little slower. That implies that my actual maintenance calories are more like 2000-2100 plus exercise calories, or something like 2400 total calories most days when I include the exercise. MFP is close for most people, when they set their profile up accurately (which I agree with others that you have not done
. I absolutely have to use this method to estimate my calorie needs, because I'm one of the rare people for whom MFP is way off, even with accurate profile settings.
The method works pretty well, I think. I've been using it for over 8 years now, year of loss, 7+ years of maintenance.1 -
My guess is the number would be more accurate if you ignored the first week of loss (some water weight there).
But would only be accurate if you in fact consistently ate the 1200 calorie goal in that span of time.0 -
Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Lildarlinz wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »1200 is the floor. If you get 1270 for 1 Lb per week it just means that MFPs estimation is off and/or you're more active than you have input to MFP. MFP just gives you estimates using simple multipliers and algorithms based on average population statistics...it's a starting point, not gospel. At some point, your own data and real worlds results should guide you, not some calculator that is meant to be a generalization for billions of people.
Do the math and customize your calorie goals appropriately.
I always put sedentary and never track my exercise calories…to be honest I haven’t been doing much exercise this week 🤣🤣 I’ve been falling asleep on the sofa…because I’m usually doing 12 hours of walking at work in a hospital so I’m enjoying the rest 😴💤
I am going to up my calories my maintenance according to google is between 1700-1900
In what world is 12 hours walking the floor at a hospital "sedentary"? Sedenatary is literally sitting at a desk all day and getting in 3K steps or less. You're only getting 1270 for 1 Lb per week because you're putting sedentary which most of the time you are not. Also, if you've been losing 2 Lbs per week at 1200 then your maintenance is around 2200, not 1700-1900. You're not getting correct outputs because your inputs are bad.
Well in nicest ways considering you sound so mad at me…
I’m not exactly working in a hospital this week am I because I’m on annual leave…neither have I done 3K steps neither…🤦♀️ so hence why it’s put at sedentary…when I’m more active at work I set it as active
I’m going by what google says I input the same data and I’m inputting into here and my maintenance is between 1700-1900 for different calorie calculators…
It’s no bother on me really…I can live with 1200 calorie diet for a while…I’m not a big eater anyway…my problems was chocolate and alcohol intake that I mainly needed to give up which I’ve done…
You stated that you're always set to sedentary...not just this week. Google is giving you those calories because...you're telling Google you're sedentary...MFP is giving you those number because you're telling the program you're sedentary. I'm not mad at all (why would I be, you have zero impact on my life), I'm just explaining why none of your numbers jive...like that's literally what you came to ask. The answer is garbage in/garbage out.3 -
Others have already pointed this out but your goal of losing 2lbs/week (regardless of whether that is what is happening or not) is too aggressive.
That means that MFP did the math with the stats you gave it - figured your maintenance calories and then subtracted 1000 calories from that. If it goes below 1200, MFP will give you 1200/day.
So, likely what's happened is:
MFP estimated (based on your personal stats) that your maintenance level calories per day is ~1770. So when you said you wanted to lose 2lbs/week -- it subtracted 1000 calories from that (which would be 770 calories, which is too few calories for any adult woman to eat)...so it defaulted to give you 1200 cal/day. Then when you changed your weight loss goal to 1lb/week it only subtracted 500 from your maintenance and gave you 1270. And if you say you want to lose .5lbs/week...it'll only subtract 250 -- which would give you ~1560 as you stated.
So there's nothing wrong with the math that MFP did. You can choose whatever weigh loss goal you like -- but for your circumstances it would *likely be best to choose a more conservative weight loss rate, plus you get to eat more that way
. 3 -
You have already gotten excellent explanations, analysis, and advice here, so I can't add to that. Just two thoughts, though.
First, "Google" isn't in itself a reliable source. It's a search engine that directs you to various resources, some of which are reliable and some of which or not - so I would advise paying close attention to which resources are legitimate and appropriate and using those for information.
Second, unless I'm mistaken, I think you have reported elsewhere having had disordered eating and being on medication? If that's the case, the aggressive weight-loss plan seems especially concerning, and I would hope you are consulting with medical professionals for guidance on whether your current approach is the best way forward.7
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