Help!! Calories Goal too high??

AnnPT77

PAV8888 wrote: »

To interject re Ann's (as usual very complete and relevant) post, most people who don't purposefully try to undercut fat to extreme minimums will be hitting the base minimum level of fat she is discussing just by trying to meet their protein needs.

Also, the protein numbers chosen by the OP coming up to 0.7g per lb of current weight are well within the common 0.6 to 0.8g per lb range and even if we assume some loss (but not extreme) they would be unlikely to be "too far" off.

If I recall without losing my position here the target was in the 130g range... which is at about 0.7g per lb for current weight, about 0.75g per lb at 80kg and about 0.8 per lb for 75kg. Even at 70kg it becomes 0.85g per lb so just above the common 0.6g to 0.8g per lb range that takes into account body composition. If the OP is extra lean/lots of muscle that would be biased a tad higher. In any case... good enough. Certainly not too little or extremely excessive.

So... really. This only leaves CALORIES and the carbs vs fats debate. Since minimal fats are almost impossible to NOT take in if you're consuming 130+g of protein..... it leaves fats vs carbs for fuel.

I get close to that protein level and often fall short on fats, unless I pay close attention**. Maybe it's a vegetarian thing. Nonetheless, it makes me feel that it should be made explicit that we need a fat minimum. Beyond that minimum, sure, fine to get more, as preferred. Carbs (IMO) have no minimum, theoretically - and I say that as someone who eats a lot of them.

** (Sometimes I even need to eat chocolate for the extra fat, poor me.)

I know I type way too much, but I mostly don't believe in leaving out facts that are quite relevant to the issues under discussion, but that the OP . . . doesn't need to know? I don't like being treated that way, personally. I'd rather learn more.

I agree with you about the protein likely being fine. I included the Examine link because protein is especially important to athletes, and . . . we're just random people on the internet, whereas the Examine folks are random science-centric experts. I'm reasonably confident their calculator would have her goal in range.

Which is why I said preference in the end. because maybe the OP does want to carb load for her triathlon. Or prefers to be more satiated by fats. But I will leave her to sort it out with her coach... if they ever figure out their goals.

I think that the goal setting here is probably where the game will be played as tanking athletic performance would be a pity.... elephant in the room remaining: how much weight loss is this whole endeavor... endeavoring to achieve????!

Well . . . the intended weight loss rate might be more important than the total amount to achieve.

IIRC, she mentioned a 10% cut off TDEE at one point. That would be quite moderate. Reasonable when a person has athletic goals, and no current significant weight-related health problems.

PAV8888

You know, I'm literally flummoxed. Of course one of the reasons my fats are relatively high (and my saturated fats at that) is the total quantity of processed cocoa I consume! Duh! And even during major weight loss there was more than an occasional square.... I think I may have to reconsider the I can't get my fats anywhere close to minimum in view of this revelation! Especially the saturated which exceed my desired maximum solely on processed cocoa! 🤯

ddsb1111

Your trainer likely has the nutrition side pretty dialed in, in terms of what will help you recover, build stamina, and get stronger for that type of sport. Would it be possible to use his macro % split with the MFP calorie goal so you can have the best of both worlds? I don’t imagine it’s a good idea to have a serious deficit when training, but I can’t see how losing weight would be a problem since it’s less impact on your joints and heart each and every time you’re training. Even something as low as losing half a lb a week could be beneficial, without feeling depleted or experiencing hunger pains.