if ... then weight statements at the end of each day

Options
2

Replies

  • lsorci919
    lsorci919 Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    LOL I tested it, to see how accurate it is..... WAY off. "In 5 weeks you will weigh 154....." Those 5 weeks were up before Christmas and I'm just now closing in on 156. I think it's purely for motivational purposes.

    It says "If every day were like today, you would weigh ___ in 5 weeks." I'm assuming every day wasn't like that day, or did you eat the exact same thing for 5 weeks?

    Pretty dang close..... May not have been the exact same foods but close on the exact same calorie intake.
  • lsorci919
    lsorci919 Posts: 772 Member
    Options
    LOL I tested it, to see how accurate it is..... WAY off. "In 5 weeks you will weigh 154....." Those 5 weeks were up before Christmas and I'm just now closing in on 156. I think it's purely for motivational purposes.

    Then you probably didn't eat that way everyday, or you ate more than you logged (thought you did) or you would be within a lb or so of the amount.

    We can also take into account that MFP sometimes over or under estimates your calories burned when logging workouts and your activity level (TDEE) can change from day to day resulting in a varied calorie deficit.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    I love your responses - thanks!

    I'm at 150, only 5'4" and on the curvy side (lol - like the positive spin on that?) - I don't think I *want* to weigh 131 again ... ;) I like my muscles and my curves, and at 131, I'd probably be sacrificing some of that.

    You guys are inspiring ... have a great afternoon!
  • Debbjones
    Debbjones Posts: 278 Member
    Options
    I don't know... I don't put much credence to the number! For the last 690 days I have eaten virtually the same foods (for the most part... lets just say approximately 90% of the time over nearly the last 2 years my food consumption has not changed...). I log everything I eat except for a few sugar free, 0 calorie, flavor additives to my bottles of water and zero calorie tea.

    Throughout all this time I NEVER reach the number factored to be my weight after 5 weeks of the same diet. I do not come close to the number factored and have consistently weighed in, on average, 5 pounds greater than advised.

    Each persons metabolism is different and as another poster to this topic noted... this number is calculated by a computer algorithm. This algorithm could never factor in all the variables. As with most information presented and used in this app, there are variables... counting calories and predicting future weight cannot be an exact science.

    :smile:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I love your responses - thanks!

    I'm at 150, only 5'4" and on the curvy side (lol - like the positive spin on that?) - I don't think I *want* to weigh 131 again ... ;) I like my muscles and my curves, and at 131, I'd probably be sacrificing some of that.

    You guys are inspiring ... have a great afternoon!

    If you're 150 lbs and MFP is telling you that you'll be 131 lbs in 5 weeks, you're running 1900 calorie deficit a day.

    You are eating far, far too little.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    I love your responses - thanks!

    I'm at 150, only 5'4" and on the curvy side (lol - like the positive spin on that?) - I don't think I *want* to weigh 131 again ... ;) I like my muscles and my curves, and at 131, I'd probably be sacrificing some of that.

    You guys are inspiring ... have a great afternoon!

    If you're 150 lbs and MFP is telling you that you'll be 131 lbs in 5 weeks, you're running 1900 calorie deficit a day.

    You are eating far, far too little.

    I agree, if they are recording correctly. But am going to guess that they are eating much more than they think or burning less than they think, otherwise they would be losing like that in 5 weeks, assuming they eat like that most days.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    131 was an anomaly and was funny so I mentioned it. Usually it says somewhere in the low 140s. I am often about a hundred calories short ...
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    131 was an anomaly and was funny so I mentioned it. Usually it says somewhere in the low 140s. I am often about a hundred calories short ...

    I strongly suggest you reconsider your strategy. You really, really need to eat more. A lot more. Assuming you are logging accurately, you are consistently running large calorie deficits to get these numbers.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    your response confuses me a bit. If it says 142 in 5 weeks, then that's 8 pounds in 5 weeks. Its aggressive, but not outrageous. Hence the reason for my post in the first place. I don't expect to be 142 in 5 weeks. I eat close to what it suggests in calories. I work out every day. I think I'm doing the right things. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    your response confuses me a bit. If it says 142 in 5 weeks, then that's 8 pounds in 5 weeks. Its aggressive, but not outrageous. Hence the reason for my post in the first place. I don't expect to be 142 in 5 weeks. I eat close to what it suggests in calories. I work out every day. I think I'm doing the right things. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    You're looking at a loss of aroudn 2 lbs a week on average. You're only 150 lbs. That's an overly aggressive goal since you have little weight to lose. Your diary is closed, but I suspect you're not getting nearly enough protein and perhaps not enough fat either.
  • MarKayDee
    MarKayDee Posts: 196
    Options
    These are silly and arbitrary, right? I'll never weigh 131 pounds again, lol (that one makes me laugh) ... and because I'm lifting and generally pretty solid, I can't imagine I'll lose weight as rapidly as they suggest I will, only due to my caloric intake and daily exercise. Should I just ignore these statements altogether?

    Unless you're running some ridiculous calorie deficit, the projection should only be a couple of pounds away from where you are now. Why would you never be 131 pounds again?

    My if then is 156 almost every day, I'm 170 now. I'm not eating at a crazy deficit and it projects almost a twenty pound loss. Unless you mean once you get to a point where it's projecting 131lbs you should be within that range because smaller people lose slower?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Well, you say you both eat close to what is suggested, but also say you are often about 100 calories short.

    The eating goal is a goal to reach, not miss. 50 over better than 100 below.

    Are you willing to miss your goal weight by that same 7-9% and just say that's enough?
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    your response confuses me a bit. If it says 142 in 5 weeks, then that's 8 pounds in 5 weeks. Its aggressive, but not outrageous. Hence the reason for my post in the first place. I don't expect to be 142 in 5 weeks. I eat close to what it suggests in calories. I work out every day. I think I'm doing the right things. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    And if that is how you eat but in 5 weeks you don't get there then you are actually eating more or burning less than you think you are, or else you would be that weight, or very close in 5 weeks. It's simple math, and if the equation isn't balancing, most likely the inputs are incorrect. That could be your BMR, activity level, exercise cals burned, food eaten (if you don't weigh solids and measure liquids, this is probably the biggest calculation problem in your equation)
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    These are silly and arbitrary, right? I'll never weigh 131 pounds again, lol (that one makes me laugh) ... and because I'm lifting and generally pretty solid, I can't imagine I'll lose weight as rapidly as they suggest I will, only due to my caloric intake and daily exercise. Should I just ignore these statements altogether?

    Unless you're running some ridiculous calorie deficit, the projection should only be a couple of pounds away from where you are now. Why would you never be 131 pounds again?

    My if then is 156 almost every day, I'm 170 now. I'm not eating at a crazy deficit and it projects almost a twenty pound loss. Unless you mean once you get to a point where it's projecting 131lbs you should be within that range because smaller people lose slower?

    170 - 156 lbs in 5 weeks is 2.8 lbs per week, or a 1400 calorie deficit daily.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    okay thank you. You are right that I don't get enough protein. I am working on that. That is actually the single most important thing I've learned about myself since starting this.

    and by the way one man's "simple math" is another man's "huh?"

    I am happy to ignore the if then numbers taking all of this into consideration.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    These are silly and arbitrary, right? I'll never weigh 131 pounds again, lol (that one makes me laugh) ... and because I'm lifting and generally pretty solid, I can't imagine I'll lose weight as rapidly as they suggest I will, only due to my caloric intake and daily exercise. Should I just ignore these statements altogether?

    Unless you're running some ridiculous calorie deficit, the projection should only be a couple of pounds away from where you are now. Why would you never be 131 pounds again?

    My if then is 156 almost every day, I'm 170 now. I'm not eating at a crazy deficit and it projects almost a twenty pound loss. Unless you mean once you get to a point where it's projecting 131lbs you should be within that range because smaller people lose slower?

    It is just projecting based on how you actually did eat so 20 lbs in 5 weeks is 4 lbs/week, so 2000 cals under maintenance a day. Let me guess you set your goal to lose 2lbs/week and don't eat back exercise calories? That said if your numbers don't match with the 5 week expected goal, assuming you do eat the same everyday then one or more of your inputs for cals in or out are wrong.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    These are silly and arbitrary, right? I'll never weigh 131 pounds again, lol (that one makes me laugh) ... and because I'm lifting and generally pretty solid, I can't imagine I'll lose weight as rapidly as they suggest I will, only due to my caloric intake and daily exercise. Should I just ignore these statements altogether?

    Unless you're running some ridiculous calorie deficit, the projection should only be a couple of pounds away from where you are now. Why would you never be 131 pounds again?

    My if then is 156 almost every day, I'm 170 now. I'm not eating at a crazy deficit and it projects almost a twenty pound loss. Unless you mean once you get to a point where it's projecting 131lbs you should be within that range because smaller people lose slower?

    20 lbs in 5 weeks = 4 lb weekly x 3500 calories = 140000 / 7 days = 2000 calorie day deficit from what it estimated as maintenance and is basing your math on.

    So perhaps you logged some exercise that was badly inflated, and ate none of it back at all.

    So you created a bigger deficit than needed and probably desired and obviously recommended, but inflated calorie burn also shouldn't be totally eaten back.

    edit - doh!
  • MarKayDee
    MarKayDee Posts: 196
    Options
    I try to log conservatively with exercise unless it actually feels like exercise and usually eat back some of the calories. Although I don't really focus on my net calories because I am afraid of my workouts being drastically exaggerated. I usually come within 100 calories of my suggested intake for the day.
    Actually seeing the math laid out like that is really helpful though, and yes I have it set to 2 pounds a week so if I eat over I'm not dooming myself.
  • 4leighbee
    4leighbee Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    Well, you say you both eat close to what is suggested, but also say you are often about 100 calories short.

    The eating goal is a goal to reach, not miss. 50 over better than 100 below.

    Are you willing to miss your goal weight by that same 7-9% and just say that's enough?

    Good point! I don't think of like that (food is the enemy mindset) and should adjust the way I approach the goal.
  • natesmom1497
    natesmom1497 Posts: 3
    Options
    One day I logged a particularly high amount of calories. Like REALLY high. When it said my weight in five weeks would be higher than my start weight, it gave me a good hard slap in the face!

    This!!! Otherwise I don't pay a lot of attention to the "if... then". The one day I really went nuts and it showed what I could weigh in 5 weeks was a defnite eye opener...

Categories