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

MarKayDee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

4leighbee

This idea of my not understanding how MFP works has intrigued (and challenged) me. So, I went to my reports for the first time and look at trends. Most were very predictable and expected. My "net calories," however, for the last 30 days show a trend of falling well below the daily goal. But I'm not sure I'm interpreting this correctly. I thought I was getting close to my caloric goal, after workouts, each day. This makes it look like I'm not.

MountainMoverJosh

Its just a numbers thing. If you ate your absolute TDEE every day, you wouldn't gain an ounce, all things considered. like me...some days I lose 2 lbs, some days I dont lose any. But I know I am doing better. When my muscles hurt, I know they need protein, so I eat some chicken, or ground beef, or a protein shake. So yes...it is pretty much saying that if you overeat, you will get fat. If you dont, and you stay just under your TDEE, you will gradually lose some weight. But I am a guy, so it is a lot more volatile with me than with you slender women out there.

MountainMoverJosh

The only variable in that equation is the caloric intake. The system assumes you do the same motions every day to use the same TDEE.

MountainMoverJosh

Math and Health Science....I love it!

Morgaath

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?

I'd be happier if they gave me the same statement based on what I did today, the average of the last 7 days, and average of the last 28 days.... That would be a more realistic version of projecting future trends than a single data point.

I also would not object to seeing it tell me something like "If every day were like today, you would be dead in 5 weeks" when I only NET something like 400 cals.

4leighbee

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?

I'd be happier if they gave me the same statement based on what I did today, the average of the last 7 days, and average of the last 28 days.... That would be a more realistic version of projecting future trends than a single data point.

I also would not object to seeing it tell me something like "If every day were like today, you would be dead in 5 weeks" when I only NET something like 400 cals.

LOL! yes ...

jonnythan

The only variable in that equation is the caloric intake. The system assumes you do the same motions every day to use the same TDEE.

This is wrong. The only variable is calorie deficit (or surplus). It calculates your TDEE by adding exercise calories to BMR and lifestyle calories.