New here...
mrsfyredude
Posts: 177 Member
...to this Board not MFP. Let me get this straight, you're saying that once I figure out my BMR (1456), my TDEE (2257) and deduct 15% (1918), I can eat that much food and in theory lose weight? I'm gonna give it a shot. One question though...I don't quite understand the whole "if you work out and burn calories" thing....so if I burn 400 calories in my work out, I have to eat (1918 + 400) 2318 calories on that day?!
0
Replies
-
...to this Board not MFP. Let me get this straight, you're saying that once I figure out my BMR (1456), my TDEE (2257) and deduct 15% (1918), I can eat that much food and in theory lose weight? I'm gonna give it a shot. One question though...I don't quite understand the whole "if you work out and burn calories" thing....so if I burn 400 calories in my work out, I have to eat (1918 + 400) 2318 calories on that day?!
To lose weight, you have to eat less than what you burn in total, right?
If the biggest extreme difference is the best, why not stop eating?
Because you know that wouldn't be healthy long-term, likely unsustainable, and probably unsuccessful long term, right?
So a reasonable difference is usually better, especially if exercising, which the body can't make improvements if it's starved for energy.
So the TDEE is an estimate of what you likely burn daily - you merely need to log accurately and eat less than that by a reasonable amount, 15%.
Like any tool though, including MFP, best results are if you use it correctly.
So good job selecting 3-5 hrs if that's the case.
That means you included exercise in your TDEE level and therefore eating goal, so unlike the MFP method where there is NO exercise accounted for in your eating goal, you would not log it and eat it back.
You can log it, but after you meet your daily goal so as not to confuse MFP and the math done, and yourself. Or log as 1 calorie whenever you want to.
And to your thought 1918 is a lot of food, if you were doing MFP correctly and eating back your exercise calories, how much did you actually eat daily on average, not net, but gross?
Remember too, that 400 calories exercise burn is based on what exactly, and how accurate it is?
And the fact it includes calories you would have burned anyway, it's not really what you burned in execise above and beyond what was already account for.0 -
...to this Board not MFP. Let me get this straight, you're saying that once I figure out my BMR (1456), my TDEE (2257) and deduct 15% (1918), I can eat that much food and in theory lose weight? I'm gonna give it a shot. One question though...I don't quite understand the whole "if you work out and burn calories" thing....so if I burn 400 calories in my work out, I have to eat (1918 + 400) 2318 calories on that day?!
To lose weight, you have to eat less than what you burn in total, right?
If the biggest extreme difference is the best, why not stop eating?
Because you know that wouldn't be healthy long-term, likely unsustainable, and probably unsuccessful long term, right?
So a reasonable difference is usually better, especially if exercising, which the body can't make improvements if it's starved for energy.
So the TDEE is an estimate of what you likely burn daily - you merely need to log accurately and eat less than that by a reasonable amount, 15%.
Like any tool though, including MFP, best results are if you use it correctly.
So good job selecting 3-5 hrs if that's the case.
That means you included exercise in your TDEE level and therefore eating goal, so unlike the MFP method where there is NO exercise accounted for in your eating goal, you would not log it and eat it back.
You can log it, but after you meet your daily goal so as not to confuse MFP and the math done, and yourself. Or log as 1 calorie whenever you want to.
And to your thought 1918 is a lot of food, if you were doing MFP correctly and eating back your exercise calories, how much did you actually eat daily on average, not net, but gross?
Remember too, that 400 calories exercise burn is based on what exactly, and how accurate it is?
And the fact it includes calories you would have burned anyway, it's not really what you burned in execise above and beyond what was already account for.
Okay, so if i'm understanding correctly, the 1918 is IT. Whether I work out or not, because I chose the 3-5 hr a week "moderate" level.
And you're correct, with the other method I was limiting to 1450 a day, but I ate back the calories which put me up near my TDEE anyway.
That being said, does anyone think I should do the "reset"? God knows I haven't really been watching my intake recently, and as I was close to my TDEE anyway the past week or so....thoughts?0 -
Past week or so your gross eating level was up near the TDEE itself - or the deficit from TDEE?
And how long and at what level were you eating prior to this?
That's the really kicker.
The reset is to unstress a body that's been under a big deficit. If you are just starting basically, no need.0 -
Past week or so your gross eating level was up near the TDEE itself - or the deficit from TDEE?
And how long and at what level were you eating prior to this?
That's the really kicker.
The reset is to unstress a body that's been under a big deficit. If you are just starting basically, no need.
Sorry the deficit from the TDEE or near (but not quite) the 1918. I have that right, right? 15% of the TDEE of 2257 is the 1918 so to lose I should eat at or slightly below the 1918. This place is very confusing, everyone doing something different...ugh!0 -
Past week or so your gross eating level was up near the TDEE itself - or the deficit from TDEE?
And how long and at what level were you eating prior to this?
That's the really kicker.
The reset is to unstress a body that's been under a big deficit. If you are just starting basically, no need.
Sorry the deficit from the TDEE or near (but not quite) the 1918. I have that right, right? 15% of the TDEE of 2257 is the 1918 so to lose I should eat at or slightly below the 1918. This place is very confusing, everyone doing something different...ugh!
If slightly below you mean perhaps 50 calories yes, otherwise around 1918, 50 over is better than 100 below.
So you have been eating at a reasonable deficit in essence for past week or so.
You missed the bigger part of the questions.
What level were you eating prior to this and for how long?
As you confirmed with your own numbers - is it really that different in the end?
It's not that confusing really, it's all eating less than you burn.
One is a reward system, do your exercise you get to eat more.
One is a goal system, do your exercise because your loss depends on it.
One may work better than another for you personally.
The goal system has the benefit of a more reasonable deficit being plainly visible, as to a big block of calories taken off some number most don't even know about.0
