ISO Someone to Confirm my Math and Assumptions
Options
Replies
-
I've often heard that calories per pound metric mentioned by male fitness experts I follow. IIRC they suggest about 10-12 for losing weight, 14-15 for maintenance. Perhaps it's a metric better suited for men than women? It's also not intended as a substitute for more accurate tracking, rather as a simple starting point for people (men?) if they are put off by calorie calculators or whatever.(BTW, that idea of 10-12 calories per pound of goal weight is much less nuanced an estimate than Sailrabbit, MFP, or other online (so-called) calculators you may've consulted. It treats someone with an active job who trains hard for fun the same as someone with a sedentary job whose hobby is watching movies on TV. Even without an active job, I'd lose much faster than any sane person should on 10 calories per pound of goal weight: That's about half my maintenance calories at goal weight, like 1250 when maintenance calories are in the low/mid 2000s. I.e., I'd expect to lose at least two pounds a week at calories 10 times goal weight, a terrible plan at 131 pounds. Even 12 calories per pound would make me lose much faster than sensible for my size - that's true even now, just a few pounds up from goal post holidays, let alone some years back when I had a material amount of weight to lose. I admit I'm a weird outlier in calorie needs: I'm losing weight very slowly now at 1850 + all carefully estimated exercise calories, at 5'5", 131 pounds this morning, female, age 68.)
I find myself in maintenance at around 220 pounds at about 14x calories, mostly sedentary aside from workouts.1 -
Your scale is probably trash at calculating bf. You're better off taking pics and tracking measurements.Tango_Bravado wrote: »Thank you for the support! I am 3 weeks in and my weight has stayed stable, with some decrease in body fat (according to my scale). I have noticed a bit of visual change so I am happy that I am progressing in the right direction. I am looking forward to doing a self review around the 4-6 week mark.
If you're new to the workout regimen I could see initial water weight gain from that offsetting diet weight loss, since at 1800 you should be losing weight.1 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »Your scale is probably trash at calculating bf. You're better off taking pics and tracking measurements.
Just to clarify: Retroguy2000 wasn't criticizing YOU and your scale, but all at-home scales in general: virtually all scales used at home will be wrong in terms of BF% and water-weight estimates. Use the home scale for weight only, measure BF at the doctor or with a personal trainer who is actually trained how to measure using calipers, and even then take the result with a grain of salt as an estimate only.2 -
@nossmf No worries haha, I take nothing here personally. Everyone is trying to help. I consider the cal/lb idea that @Retroguy2000 mentioned as definitely another tool in the toolbox. For me personally, to maintain at 15 cal per lb @ 222lbs puts me at 3330 cals, which I think I was eating less than before I started tracking and I was still going up. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good reference point to start from. Everyone is different, which is why everyone keeps saying to review every 4-6 weeks and adjust if needed. That right there I think is one of the most important points I have taken away from this thread.
1000% I do not consider my scale accurate on BF. Heck I don't really even consider it super accurate on weight. I am using it to follow my trends rather than get accurate numbers. As long as it calculates it the same every time, and I stand on it in the same place, same time of day, and same physical state, it should reflect a semi accurate trend in my BF. Maybe. Who knows. Not this guy lol but at least it might be an indicator to look more closely if it seems my BF isn't going down for some reason.2 -
As you said, you're sedentary. I'm similar stats to you, and I find maintenance to be about 14x. Someone doing far more steps in their regular day to day might be 15x or more. It also depends on muscle mass etc.Tango_Bravado wrote: »@nossmf No worries haha, I take nothing here personally. Everyone is trying to help. I consider the cal/lb idea that @Retroguy2000 mentioned as definitely another tool in the toolbox. For me personally, to maintain at 15 cal per lb @ 222lbs puts me at 3330 cals, which I think I was eating less than before I started tracking and I was still going up.1 -
Anecdotal responses on threads like these can often mislead someone trying to figure out what calorie amount to use and can cause a lot of confusion.
Between vastly varying NEAT, inaccurate weekly calorie counting/tracking, varying degrees of exercise intensity, etc, numbers will be all over the place.
Pick something that sounds reasonable, however the most foolproof method is eat/drink your normal diet for a week and track the calories.
If your weight has been consistent or at least very close to consistent the last month or so, that is your actual maintenance and you can work from there however it’s important to not vary your diet from the norm as some people will be conscious of having their diet under their microscope and inadvertently change some things
A week invested in that method can save a lot of time in the long run trying to figure things out.3 -
@Tango_Bravado I look forward to following your progress. It sounds like you have a good plan. I sure hope you took before pics, you’ll be happy you did.
For clarification, in 3 weeks are you saying you’ve maintained on 1800 calories? Or have you lost any weight? If so, how much?1 -
Was going to interject about the rough guide of 14/15 but I see that the OP is more than cognizant of what the correct answers are!
Tom I do have some trouble imagining someone who diligently tracks NOT modifying to SOME degree what they do every day. No bites. No licks. No samples. No sips. I'm about to pop candy... nah. I'm about to chew gum? I have to LOG it?!?!? Nah... as a behavior modification diligent logging is... very modifying.
That said my back of the napkin calculation says that the OP is a larger than average more muscular than average averagely sedentary (which truthfully means too sedentary but that's another story) male of average age... which means that the "universal" 2500 male cal have no a priori reason to over-estimate him. So the 700 Cal deficit implicitly mentioned up-thread given his 1800 Cal target does not seem to be out of place as a "liquidated pre-estimate of potentially expected losses".
Of course n=1 does not follow averages and the effectiveness of individualized tracking is always a variable and the compare expected results to WEIGHT TREND results and make adjustments.. is always the correct answer!1 -
@ddsb1111 I have maintained 1800 cal/day for three weeks in two days, to be accurate as possible. I have had two days where I didn't log and accepted them as "cheat days" because I had to go out of town and didn't have foresight to prep travel meals. I didn't go absolutely crazy, I just didn't track and tried to eat somewhat healthily from the options available on the road.
For those three weeks I have been engaged in a fairly intensive weight lifting program. My scale has bounced between 224 and 222 for the entire time, never above and never below. I have been attributing that to water weight, losing fat, and gaining muscle to relatively even itself out. But that is just my guess from my rudimentary knowledge.0 -
and that is the caveat to the whole thing, being accurate which is no different than normal day to day counting. Bottom line is what ever method you choose will have issues with accountability and accuracy so pick your inaccurate method and forge ahead.Was going to interject about the rough guide of 14/15 but I see that the OP is more than cognizant of what the correct answers are!
Tom I do have some trouble imagining someone who diligently tracks NOT modifying to SOME degree what they do every day. No bites. No licks. No samples. No sips. I'm about to pop candy... nah. I'm about to chew gum? I have to LOG it?!?!? Nah... as a behavior modification diligent logging is... very modifying.
That said my back of the napkin calculation says that the OP is a larger than average more muscular than average averagely sedentary (which truthfully means too sedentary but that's another story) male of average age... which means that the "universal" 2500 male cal have no a priori reason to over-estimate him. So the 700 Cal deficit implicitly mentioned up-thread given his 1800 Cal target does not seem to be out of place as a "liquidated pre-estimate of potentially expected losses".
Of course n=1 does not follow averages and the effectiveness of individualized tracking is always a variable and the compare expected results to WEIGHT TREND results and make adjustments.. is always the correct answer!
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Anecdotal responses on threads like these can often mislead someone trying to figure out what calorie amount to use and can cause a lot of confusion.
Between vastly varying NEAT, inaccurate weekly calorie counting/tracking, varying degrees of exercise intensity, etc, numbers will be all over the place.
Pick something that sounds reasonable, however the most foolproof method is eat/drink your normal diet for a week and track the calories.
If your weight has been consistent or at least very close to consistent the last month or so, that is your actual maintenance and you can work from there however it’s important to not vary your diet from the norm as some people will be conscious of having their diet under their microscope and inadvertently change some things
A week invested in that method can save a lot of time in the long run trying to figure things out.
Yep, this.
The human body is complex and the math and calculators can't capture the nuance of individual metabolic differences from one person to another. Things like genetics, hormones like cortisol and insulin, age, sex, sleep patterns, and stress levels, diet as well other health conditions like hypothyroidism or polycystic ovary syndrome, as well as the adaption to exercise. As Tom said, record what you eat as best you can and live your life for a while and from there make adjustments which I believe would reduce the number of posts that question their calorie accuracy. imo0 -
Tango_Bravado wrote: »@ddsb1111 I have maintained 1800 cal/day for three weeks in two days, to be accurate as possible. I have had two days where I didn't log and accepted them as "cheat days" because I had to go out of town and didn't have foresight to prep travel meals. I didn't go absolutely crazy, I just didn't track and tried to eat somewhat healthily from the options available on the road.
For those three weeks I have been engaged in a fairly intensive weight lifting program. My scale has bounced between 224 and 222 for the entire time, never above and never below. I have been attributing that to water weight, losing fat, and gaining muscle to relatively even itself out. But that is just my guess from my rudimentary knowledge.
Okay, I see, thanks for the deets. When I got a trainer I too gained water weight. I’m relieved you know that’s just how it goes when your body’s recovering.
I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been at least a small loss on roughly 1800 calories, even with the 2 off days in 3 weeks. Like everyone says, you’ll have a clearer picture in weeks 4-6. Even though it sounds like your eyeballing has been close, you might be eating more than you think. I know, we never want to hear that because it’s hard enough as it is. Something to keep in mind if you see no weight loss soon.
Have you taken measurements by any chance? You may also be losing inches, and at the end of the day that’s what most of us want- to look and feel better. With your stats, I’m sure it won’t take much. GL!0 -
@ddsb1111 I actually had an appointment with a dietician yesterday. It was a follow up, so she measured my waist and noted I had lost just over an inch since just before Christmas. So I do think things are happening.
She also mentioned my 1800 and said if I am not seeing weight loss within another week or two to try increasing my cal by a couple hundred a day.
I have only just started, and as many people have said everyone is different so experimentation especially at this stage is the name of the game lol. I am going to keep that mind set.1 -
Get a new dietician or none at all.Tango_Bravado wrote: »@ddsb1111
She also mentioned my 1800 and said if I am not seeing weight loss within another week or two to try increasing my cal by a couple hundred a day.
Taking in more calories to lose fat never has and never will work.
Unless the added calories cause you to me more active calorie burning wise over and above the extra calories and then some you'll just start adding fat.
1 -
Yeah that is baffling. You aren't in a large deficit, and you're probably on more than 1800, and it's only been a few weeks. Had you been in a huge deficit for a long time then maybe she might be thinking your NEAT has dropped to compensate, but that's very unlikely based on everything you've said here.Tango_Bravado wrote: »She also mentioned my 1800 and said if I am not seeing weight loss within another week or two to try increasing my cal by a couple hundred a day.0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
Get a new dietician or none at all.Tango_Bravado wrote: »@ddsb1111
She also mentioned my 1800 and said if I am not seeing weight loss within another week or two to try increasing my cal by a couple hundred a day.
Taking in more calories to lose fat never has and never will work.
Unless the added calories cause you to me more active calorie burning wise over and above the extra calories and then some you'll just start adding fat.
Agreed. If you're not losing weight, then increasing calories isn't going to work. Most dieticians actually know next to nothing about weight loss, unless they happen to be a bariatric dietician. They're about eating "healthfully" not about losing weight.0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
Get a new dietician or none at all.Tango_Bravado wrote: »@ddsb1111
She also mentioned my 1800 and said if I am not seeing weight loss within another week or two to try increasing my cal by a couple hundred a day.
Taking in more calories to lose fat never has and never will work.
Unless the added calories cause you to me more active calorie burning wise over and above the extra calories and then some you'll just start adding fat.
Agreed. If you're not losing weight, then increasing calories isn't going to work. Most dieticians actually know next to nothing about weight loss, unless they happen to be a bariatric dietician. They're about eating "healthfully" not about losing weight.
Right? And what really IS healthy? That term is so ambiguous.1 -
@tomcustombuilder @sollyn23l2 @Retroguy2000
I am military, so that dietitian is the one I get. I was honestly there for a separate issue which was mostly ignored by the dietitian, and instead was given a bunch of unsolicited advice on the diet stuff lol.
I assume the dietitian was referring to "starvation mode", which from what I have read online and here on the forums, wouldn't come into play unless I held this deficit for a really long time.
I am definitely a firm believer in CICO, and I also think I will start seeing more noticable results in the next few weeks since I am only just going into week four (in addition to the apparent inch I have lost on the waist).
My question, hypothetical as it may be, is what would I do if I just kept maintaining at 1800/day? I can't go much lower (and shouldn't need to, given the deficit already) and still be able to maintain the nutrients I need. I fully understand that miscounting is the number one reason for weight loss failure, but even if I was miscounting by 200/day I would still be in at least a 500/day deficit not including exercise. I really can't believe that I could miscount more than 200 cal. I am very meticulous, I weigh everything that isn't a single serving (at least until I notice there is only negligible difference, i.e. the protein powder). It is almost like a game, to see how accurate I can be on a daily basis.
If I continue to not notice any weight change, is it possible that my body is burning fat and building muscle at a mass equivalent rate?0 -
Tango_Bravado wrote: »@tomcustombuilder @sollyn23l2 @Retroguy2000
I am military, so that dietitian is the one I get. I was honestly there for a separate issue which was mostly ignored by the dietitian, and instead was given a bunch of unsolicited advice on the diet stuff lol.
I assume the dietitian was referring to "starvation mode", which from what I have read online and here on the forums, wouldn't come into play unless I held this deficit for a really long time.
I am definitely a firm believer in CICO, and I also think I will start seeing more noticable results in the next few weeks since I am only just going into week four (in addition to the apparent inch I have lost on the waist).
My question, hypothetical as it may be, is what would I do if I just kept maintaining at 1800/day? I can't go much lower (and shouldn't need to, given the deficit already) and still be able to maintain the nutrients I need. I fully understand that miscounting is the number one reason for weight loss failure, but even if I was miscounting by 200/day I would still be in at least a 500/day deficit not including exercise. I really can't believe that I could miscount more than 200 cal. I am very meticulous, I weigh everything that isn't a single serving (at least until I notice there is only negligible difference, i.e. the protein powder). It is almost like a game, to see how accurate I can be on a daily basis.
If I continue to not notice any weight change, is it possible that my body is burning fat and building muscle at a mass equivalent rate?
I agree, I think you will start seeing results as long as you're consistent (especially since you say you lost an inch already). Just focus on making sure you're as tight on your tracking as possible.0 -
@Tango_Bravado
First of all, congrats on the inch lost! That’s no small thing so you’re definitely doing something right.
As for increasing your cals, I agree with everyone else, it doesn’t make sense and increasing calories will cause weight gain unless you’re increasing your neat. I’m sure you don’t want to undo your hard work. You’re right, starvation mode is a myth, highly confused with thermodynamics, and not something you need to worry about.
Since you’re basically maintaining (on paper), losing inches, and started a rigorous lifting routine, time will tell what’s really happening here. Just keep pushing, checking your measurements, and watching the trend line.
Worst case scenario, you are eating more calories than necessary and will need to adjust how you eat slightly. Side note- just because you may need to reduce your calories doesn’t mean you need to starve. You may need to shift your ratios in terms of what you eat ie more low calorie food for volume eating in place of some fat and carbs perhaps. This is the personal part, and IMO, the fun part. You get to be your own personal experiment and figure out what your diet and lifestyle needs to be to reach your goals, keep you satiated, and make you happy.
Also, sorry the dietician didn’t listen to your other concerns. Hope you get a second opinion, or I suppose a first opinion, since it was ignored. Thanks for checking back.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions