New Here; Help me understand!

NancyMarie13

Hey everyone!

I am new to this group but not new to weight loss (well, still kinda new) I have dropped a few pounds in the past but they have always come back.

Now I am meal prepping and walking for exercise about 3x a week. Will be getting a membership and possibly a bike in May.

I have to say I am VERY shocked by the numbers I have gotten from this ( http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/#results ) calculator.

But it makes sense right? So MFP (which we all know is flawed, but a good starting point) told me to eat 1800calories and I will lose 2lbs a week. COOL... right? No. I did that for a week. Lost 2lbs WOOT WOOT. Beginning of week 2 I WANTED TO EAT EVERYTHING. But not because I was mindlessly wanting to eat I was PHYSICALLY hungry.

So I was thinking. How is it possible that a woman who is 326lbs (not ashamed to say my weight anymore because I will NEVER be this weight again and once I am at goal I will be proud to tell people where I started NSV!) is to eat 1800 calories. What happens when I drop 100lbs. What are they gunna tell me then? eat 1200 calories? lol Who can live off that? who WANTS to live off that? Not I.

So Stats:
23 F
326lbs
66 inches
Activity level 1-3 hrs light activity
Goal: lose fat 20%
BMR 2253
TDEE 3099
Daily calories 2479
(will recalculate ever 5lbs loss)

Soooo, I can eat 2479 calories and lose fat?? Are we sure about this? lol I mean its been proven right (Rhetorical) I KNOW people have done this but I am honestly scared. I am so sick of the scale going down 3lbs then up 4lbs. I want a long term, healthy, sustainable way to live and eat and lose weight.

So this works right? I just eat those calories and wait? What if I gain weight! What if I don't lose? I just really want this and really want to be committed but I NEED to find something that works. I know weight loss isn't linear but dang can I get some consistency I mean I can stand to lose at least 130lbs... shouldn't it be easy-ish?

- Nancy

heybales

You likely could have eaten 1816, but that would have only been on non-exercise days.
If you correctly ate back exercise calories, you would have eaten more whenever you exercised.
Also, depending on if you really have a 45 hr sitting Sedentary desk job weekly outside of exercise, you might have been Lightly Active truthfully, so more eaten there too, like 2154.
And then if you selected the same 1 lb goal loss that TDEE Deficit method is giving you, more again to eat, 2654 actually, or 2316 if truly Sedentary.
Usually the MFP method does end up the same on average - if you use the same reasonable options with it.

So to this method, because there is something to be said about eating the same amount daily and being able to plan your meals. Unless exercise is just too infrequent and iffy.

Did you use Scooby's Most Accurate, with estimate of bodyfat% and using the Katch BMR?
I don't think so, because that's the Mifflin BMR that MFP uses too.
You would have to be 41% BF for the Katch BMR to be 2254.
Unless you have been very active and maintained and gained muscle mass through the years, that is likely not the case. Could be, but best to get best estimate.

Because if not, your BMR is NOT 2253, and your TDEE is not that high either, if you used the Mifflin BMR calc.

Standard BMR formulas inflate when you are overweight, it's probably 200-400 inflated, meaning your TDEE is 300-500 inflated.
When you took a deficit, you'd actually not have one in place compared to actual BMR and TDEE.

So get a bodyfat % estimate, or actually several and average them together, and use Scooby's most accurate option with Katch BMR.

Whatever that option comes up with, yes, you'll be closer to eating to maintenance if resetting, or having an actual deficit if that's the case.

How fast prior did the scale go up and down those 3-4 lbs?

Because you always gotta keep the math in mind if you think it was fat and not water weight it likely was.
You'd have to eat 250 calories over true TDEE for 2 weeks to gain just 1 lb. Make sure you appreciate that.

Because you may gain water weight, same water weight everyone loses first going on a diet. Same water weight that was going to come back on when you ate at maintenance. Same water weight that will drop fast again when you take your deficit.

And yes, it should be relatively easy at first when you can do a lot wrong and still see results, because you have large margin for error. But practice now weighing all foods, not measuring which is inaccurate.
Weigh-in on valid days.

And for faster fat loss, I'd suggest getting new measurements or BF% every 2 weeks, as you can see a decent difference there before 5 lbs is gone, and may need to adjust calorie levels fast at first.

NancyMarie13

Now, THIS makes so much sense. I was not using Katch! But when I put in what I remember my bf% to be years ago it gave me a more accurate reflection of what MFP has given me.

There is so much to learn but definitely worth taking the time to educate myself.

I will be seeing a nutritionist next week so I will be sure to get an updated bf% and put that into the equation and have her verify some other things.

Thank you or putting things into perspective also, I know I will see some fluctuation.

Question.

Lets say I get a correct BMR of 1778 (just using random numbers so I understand)
a correct TDEE of 2445
a daily calorie goal based on 20% reduction of 1956

Then what? I ALWAYS eat 1956 no matter what because it keeps in mind anticipated exercise?
And by eating that 1956 I will essentially lose fat/weight?

I also know that if I burn more than my TDEE and my BMR subtracted I need to make sure on exercise days I am at least eating back enough calories to make BMR (but I am sure I wont burn that amount in one day)

heybales

You are correct on the principle. Eat that daily.
If that estimate of what you burn daily is correct, you are eating less than that on average, and will lose fat.

Keep in mind if you miss a planned workout, skip 100 calories that day. If you make it up, add 100 that day.
If you totally add on a new workout not planned, eat those calories back, minus same 20%.

As to meeting your BMR after calorie burn is taken off - that is assuming you have a correct calorie burn.
Assume you do because it's walking and that is correct in database (current issue there, don't use an entry that doesn't finish the sentence).
It says you burn 300 calories in an hr. That includes what you were going to burn anyway.

And how much do you have accounted to burn every hour of the day?
(using your example numbers)
2445 / 24 = 100 calories an hour is already account for you burning.

So 300 reported burned for an hr minus 100 already expected to burn anyway = 200 extra calories burned.
So in reality, you did not NET below your BMR (1956-200=1756).

NancyMarie13

This makes sense to me. I really appreciate all the time you have taken to answer my many questions.
I think I will get accurate calorie burns because I use a trusty HRM
I have a lot of thing to look at but it is completely worth the education because this is my body and life I am talking about so I will be patient and implement changes necessary!

Gonna be a hell of a ride!

Thanks!

-Nancy

heybales

This makes sense to me. I really appreciate all the time you have taken to answer my many questions.
I think I will get accurate calorie burns because I use a trusty HRM
I have a lot of thing to look at but it is completely worth the education because this is my body and life I am talking about so I will be patient and implement changes necessary!

Gonna be a hell of a ride!

Thanks!

-Nancy

Even if you have test measured VO2max and HRmax and a HRM that actually allows manual input of those real tested values - that HRM isn't as trusty as you think.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Now throw in potentially a HRM that doesn't even have those stats, or it does but you don't have lab tested figures ....

The plan will help out so much for future success, and the best bang for your exercise done, which is always nice. Well, ok, best would be eating in surplus for what the body would like, but not for now of course.