When Math Isn't Math?

AutumnWindRaider

I thought math was an absolute science; however, my weight loss journey has taught me that math goes out the window when you put a human body in the middle of an equation.

For me, calories in versus weight loss is not working out and it is frustrating.

I have determined the correct weight, caloric intake, and macros for my age, weight goal, and activity level (nil). While I do not work out, walk, or do anything else but work and spend my free time writing, the math says I should lose weight based on my caloric intake.

If you think in extremes, lowering the amount of calories taken in must eventually have the desired effect. I have been at 1542 calories for three months and have lost 26 pounds, but I have been undulating around that number for three weeks. If I were to lower my caloric intake to 1000 calories, I am sure I would see a loss, but it would not be a sustainable solution.

Due to physical limitations, I am limited in my exercise, so I am stuck playing the calorie math game.

Why isn't math working for me?

Thanks!

cmriverside

You lost 26 pounds in three months. Why do you think it isn't working? That is a super high rate of loss. What is your current height, age, weight?

I would say you are now pushing up against a too-low calorie goal for your current height/weight/age/activity level. 1526 is really low for anyone, and unless you're five feet even and really do no house chores, or any other kind of physical activity (like, do you sit for virtually ALL your waking hours?) then you need a whole lot MORE nutrition...your body is likely so stressed at this point.

How about taking a diet break?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

George_1980

Sadly the math does not work without exercise. The weight you lose is partly or mostly muscle if you are not working out. Then you will plateau and be stuck unless you lower calories more. Being at 1500 that does not seem to be the solution. Its all about matabilksm

cmriverside

j89zdhntf9 wrote: »

Sadly the math does not work without exercise. The weight you lose is partly or mostly muscle if you are not working out. Then you will plateau and be stuck unless you lower calories more. Being at 1500 that does not seem to be the solution. Its all about matabilksm metabolism

^fixed that for you...

This isn't true. Weight loss doesn't depend on exercise.

springlering62

“Weight loss is made in the kitchen”. Trite, boring? But true.

It’s super common to have brief plateaus. It may feel glacial, but if you’re truly in a deficit, it will pick back up.

But my question to you is, you be done all the math on one side of the equation, but how accurate is your problem solving on the other side? Are you weighing and logging every bite? Or are you guesstimating? Eyeballing? Using imperial cups and spoons, versus far more accurate grams ?

Speaking for myself, I can rationalize a “cup” of anything into a cup and a half in the real world. Using grams, far more accurate, less room to fudge. And ultimately, lots easier to cook with metric.

Wash my mouth out with soap, but as a child of the 60’s I never ever thought I’d convert to metric. But OMG, so much more accurate, more consistent results cooking, and SO much easier to cope with. Fewer dishes to clean, too. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

springlering62

And no mistaking tsp versus tbsp for these 60’s eyes! 🤣

springlering62

One last observation, 26 pounds in three months is….mathematically… appx 2 lbs per week. That’s a very fast rate of loss unless you are extremely obese. (I lost at that rate but was 100lbs overweight).

It’s mathematically impossible to continue losing at the same rate. Your BMR drops each time your weight drops.

I used to burn 3-400 calories in a training session. So much lighter now, I burned 186 (from memory) in todays sessions which was much harder, too, btw.

Curb your expectations. It’s not a steady steady downward graph, as much as it would make sense.

Invest your energy and diligence into learning and creating new habits, and unless you’re obese, slowing down the rate of loss. You’re a desk jockey. Google stats for long term weight loss with fast loss versus slow.

yirara

You lost 26lbs in 3 months, That's roughly 2lbs per week, or a calorie deficit of 1000 calories per day. Thus your maintenance calories are around 2540 calories per day. What's not working there? Unless you're very obese your body is catching up with this super fast loss. There are always moments where weightloss might seemingly stall, due to water retention possibly. Is it how where you are? That might be the reason, or hormonal, more salt in diet, stressing your body too much because you're losing weight too fast. Weightloss is calories in and out, but there are so many factors that have nothing to do with this simple equation, like water weight fluctuations, constipation, time of day weighing, clothes on the scale, scale battery flat, etc etc.

AnnPT77

I agree with all of the above about your fast rate of loss so far.

Math is an absolute science. Applied math - such as weight loss by calorie counting - depends on having a clear understanding about the problem space. Besides what you mention, there are some additional considerations that matter.

1. Human bodies are dynamic. How much we eat (in calories, and to a much lesser extent macros) affects how many calories we burn. Why? Eat too little (by losing fast), and two things will happen: Some automatic body processes will down-regulate, because your body can't tell "a diet" from "a famine", and it wants to stay alive. Hair and nails grow slower, immune system can down-regulate (yikes!), core body temperature may decrease, and more. On top of that, low calories trigger fatigue, so a person rests more, moves less in daily life, maybe reduces exercise intensity. The result can be lower than expected calorie expenditure.

2. "The caloric intake, and macros for one's age, weight goal, and activity level" aren't "correct", they're an estimate, basically the population average for people who share those same data points. But you're not an average, you're an individual. Most people are close to average, but a few are noticeably higher or lower. A rare few are surprisingly far off average, still either high or low. The reasons may not be obvious. (I'm 25-30% off MFP's estimates, as an extreme example. I'm similar far off the estimates from my good brand/model fitness tracker, one that others here find accurate in estimating for them. It's rare to be that far off, but it can happen.)

3. As you get lighter, you need fewer calories to stay at the same body weight (maintenance calories), all other things equal. It takes less energy (calories) to keep the smaller body alive and moving through the world. This implies that calorie goal may need to change along the way . . . but there's a limit on how many calories a body can metabolize daily per pound of fat we have. That implies that as we get lighter, slower loss is a good plan if we want to preserve lean tissue alongside fat loss.

To find your personal calorie needs, follow a consistent goal for 4-6 weeks, then look at average weight change. If you were a female who has menstrual cycles, you'd figure average weight change by comparing body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different monthly cycles.

A pound of body fat change is roughly 3500 calories; a kilogram of bodyfat change is about 7700 calories. Multiply the total weight change over the whole 4-6 weeks by 3500 or 7700 (depending on whether you weigh in pounds or kg), then divide by the number of days in the period. That will give you an estimate of your daily calorie deficit (or surplus) based on your own data. That, with the calorie amount you actually for that time period, will tell you your personal calorie needs. That's better than any calculator estimate (or fitness tracker estimate).

P.S. Goal weight has no impact on your calorie goal estimate in MFP or most other so-called calorie calculators. What matters for those estimates is age, height, weight, activity level, and (for some calculators) body fat percent, plus - most importantly - desired weight loss rate (pounds or kilograms per week). The goal weight only matters if you want to figure out how long it will take to get to that goal weight at a given weight loss rate (which IMO isn't terribly useful information).

Math is an absolute science. Human physiology is complicated and dynamic. In this problem space, applied math is nuanced.

Best wishes for success going forward.

robertw486

Read all of the above, and most is correct.

Hormones, water retention, exacting measurements, and other factors all come into the picture if you want anywhere close to exact.