Let's see how it goes! Testing the "If everyday were like this..." calculation.

daveloan
daveloan Posts: 4 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I weighed 248lbs on Sunday. On Monday, April 22, 2024, MFP told me that if everyday were like this, I'd weigh 220lbs in 5 weeks.

So I'll try it. And I'll track it. And I'll let you know how it goes.
Tagged:

Replies

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,247 Member
    Good luck!
    Much will depend on how accurate you are with calorie data input. Some data will be beyond your control as far as accuracy as the food choices on MFP are crowd sourced, Products with listed calories can be off by 20% and just how focused you are on logging everything you eat and drink.
  • shines555
    shines555 Posts: 2 Member
    Wait how does it tell you progress like that
  • nb6397
    nb6397 Posts: 1 Member
    It did work for me in the initial months but doesn't take into account the plateau which is bound to occur. If already on a significant deficit, the only way to reach those goals is increasing steps/activity.

    Waiting to hear how it works for you!
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,300 Member
    edited April 25
    The projection is perhaps useful in highlighting what might happen if the next 35 consecutive days resulted in the exact same caloric balance as today.

    Assuming the one day balance today was actually correctly evaluated, it sort of makes you go "woohoo" today was on point and on goal--that's awesome. Or "kitten it" I had better pay a bit more attention tomorrow, oh well: live and learn.

    Uses beyond that are highly suspect.

    Log everything as consistently as you can. Plug your weight in a weight trend app. Evaluate results in multi week chunks (2 to 4 weeks if no monthly cycles; 4 to 6 weeks or preferably same point of hormonal cycle if wired that way). Adjust based on expected vs observed results and keep on going regardless.

    Heading in more or less the correct direction and achieving long term adherence wins more so than any short term brilliance.

    Structures/set ups that encourage as easy as possible day to day compliance are better long term than big time wins that require a consistently high degree of effort.

    All mini games that entertain in the meantime are fun.... as long as they remain entertaining!

  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,867 Member
    Are you updating your weight in MFP?

    Knowing rate of weight change is a fundamental part of projecting the future, since without that knowledge there is no way to confirm if the size of an assumed deficit is correct.
  • NCGOALIEMOM
    NCGOALIEMOM Posts: 83 Member
    Those calculations are based on calories in calories out math. Science is now proving that is an inaccurate measurement of weight loss success. So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose. There are so many more factors to weight loss than CICO.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,867 Member
    NCGOALIEMOM wrote: »
    So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose.
    How does that work? If you burn more than you consume, but don't lose weight, where exactly did the "more" come from?
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,300 Member
    weight change does not equal fat change

    population statistics do not equal individual measurements

    perceived caloric balance does not equal actual caloric balance

    achieving a caloric balance over a day, a week, a month, three months does not equal figuring out how to achieve it over six months, a year, three years, five years, all through changing health and life challenges.
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 14,372 Member
    NCGOALIEMOM wrote: »
    Those calculations are based on calories in calories out math. Science is now proving that is an inaccurate measurement of weight loss success. So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose. There are so many more factors to weight loss than CICO.

    Can you provide some peer-reviewed scientific studies that show you can eat in calorie deficit and not lose weight?

    That's like getting in your car that gets 26.5 miles per gallon, filling up the 14 gallon tank, and thinking there might be a way to go more than 400 miles before you need to get more fuel. That's also "calories in - calories out" math.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    NCGOALIEMOM wrote: »
    Those calculations are based on calories in calories out math. Science is now proving that is an inaccurate measurement of weight loss success. So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose. There are so many more factors to weight loss than CICO.

    There is more to weight loss, as a practical matter, than just getting calorie intake right, and getting calorie intake right isn't just about complying with a so-called calculator or fitness tracker.

    Human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out, and potentially vice-versa.

    There are some other sources of variability in results that surprise many people, such as that some foods require more calories to digest/metabolize than others (though that doesn't get us to zero net calorie foods, as some speculate).

    I've read several popular-press articles that claimed fat loss wasn't founded on CICO, or that calorie counting didn't work. Frankly, they were stupid articles. They weren't understanding what CICO is, or how to do calorie counting realistically. (Example: Thinking that so-called calculators are truth machines rather than statistical estimators.)

    I'm not claiming to have read everything out there, so if you have a good source, post it. I'm willing to learn.

    I mentioned that there are many more factors to practical weight loss than CICO. Some of these:
    * figuring out how to stay reasonably full and happy on reduced calories;
    * learning how food choices affect energy level and why that's important;
    * dealing with potentially very difficult individual issues where we may use food for something other than fuel or nutrition, such as self-soothing or pure pleasure;
    * counting accurately enough without slipping into a destructive relationship with food.

    CICO is just the symbolic equation, essentially a principle of physics expressed in a domain specific way: We can't live without expending energy, and we can't make energy out of nothing. What we eat may not be absorbed, but the energy absorbed from food is either spent or stored.

    Calorie counting is the most direct application of the CICO concept to weight loss, but all fat loss methods rely on calorie balance as their foundation, or they don't work. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but that's where I stand right now.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,247 Member
    NCGOALIEMOM wrote: »
    Those calculations are based on calories in calories out math. Science is now proving that is an inaccurate measurement of weight loss success. So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose. There are so many more factors to weight loss than CICO.

    Which factors are you referring to exactly? Please elaborate ……

  • SaraAlexandre
    SaraAlexandre Posts: 1,313 Member
    I’m game!
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    edited May 7
    NCGOALIEMOM wrote: »
    Those calculations are based on calories in calories out math. Science is now proving that is an inaccurate measurement of weight loss success. So many people can eat in a deficit, doing all the things, and struggle to lose. There are so many more factors to weight loss than CICO.

    I like unicorns. I would like to see your proof of this...and not a cover of Cosmo.

    If you're eating in an actual deficit you have to lose weight. Science won't be disproving that. It's the definition.

    Is that an easy number to nail down? Not always. . .but it does exist. Because science.
  • Christi6604
    Christi6604 Posts: 247 Member
    shines555 wrote: »
    Wait how does it tell you progress like that

    When you click the button at the bottom of your food diary that says "complete diary", you get a pop up message.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited May 13
    Mine always says I'll gain 8lb in 5 weeks meanwhile I'm losing lol. I had to over ride the calorie goal though. That's probably screwing with it. There's no breastfeeding setting and I'm never going to bother inputting it as exercise daily when is me sitting trapped all day.
  • ByeByeToDiabetes
    ByeByeToDiabetes Posts: 61 Member
    edited May 13
    I love the idea and it doesn't matter if it's accurate or a suggestion. In general, I like the idea of being lighter, even if I lose less, it's still a win and I will be smiling.

    I am all game. If I eat every day like today I will weigh.....hold on, now I have to look...(back/edit)
    I should weigh 320 on 6/17
  • Hungry_catapillar
    Hungry_catapillar Posts: 24 Member
    It’s never worked for me but I’m interested to see if it was accurate for others🧐
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,657 Member
    It was never accurate for me, but it was amusing, and encouraging/discouraging at the same time.

    It was like opening a fortune cookie with a really great fortune, but knowing the recommended lottery number was a waste of a buck.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,997 Member
    nb6397 wrote: »
    It did work for me in the initial months but doesn't take into account the plateau which is bound to occur. If already on a significant deficit, the only way to reach those goals is increasing steps/activity.

    Waiting to hear how it works for you!

    LOL no it doesn’t.
    My weight here on MFP is still sitting right where it was when I hit a long plateau and became demotivated.

    I know how much I weighed two weeks ago.
    But I’m not gonna tell MFP until I finally get past that (redacted) number.
    girlwithcurls2 wrote: »
    I wish mfp would ditch that "motivator." It's not accurate for all of the reasons stated above. And, if you are trying to lose .5 a pound per week, it's demoralizing. In order for me to see any noticeable difference in my body, it's going to be literally months of work. That's fine with me because I need to keep this up after I lose the weight. But my weight loss in five weeks will be negligible and not make a bit of difference in how my clothes fit. Just close the diary and get a message that says, "Today is over. Did you do your best? Make tomorrow a good day!" or something like that :expressionless:

    Spark People had something similar to that.
    I think it’s a much better idea than the generic guestimate.

    One thing I think they should keep is the warning when you’re too low. I get that sometimes, because my TDEE is unusually low due to my mobility issues.

  • ridiculous59
    ridiculous59 Posts: 2,910 Member
    Okay......now you have me curious so I'm going to try it too and see what happens 😆
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 14,372 Member
    @daveloan

    There's an exercise in the CARDIO section for lifting weights that gives a reasonable burn estimate if you're interested.

    Another thing you can try if you use spreadsheets is to record your daily calorie allowance, your intake, and your burn. You can then apply the estimate of 3500 calories per pound gained/lost.

    Track that over time. See if you gain/lose the amount that you calculate.

    If you do, then the assumptions are correct. If not, you can apply a "correction factor" to your daily calorie log or just adjust your goal a bit. The goal will change over time if you lose weight because it takes less energy to move yourself around when there's less of you. It's an experiment you can continue indefinitely to keep fine tuning your goal to your current weight and fitness level.

Categories