Should I just eat at TDEE of goal weight?
MrsLannister
Posts: 347 Member
So, I have been doing MFP for almost a year. I've lost 82 pounds, so it is clearly working. I just get tired of constantly adjusting my calorie intake. I am 5'9" and am 325 lbs. My goal weight is 135 lbs. If I just eat at the TDEE of the goal weight (around 1650 calories a day) won't I just naturally end up there eventually?
Currently, I am eating around 1500 calories a day. So it isn't a huge change, but this would allow me to just have one calorie goal until I finally reach my end weight.
Currently, I am eating around 1500 calories a day. So it isn't a huge change, but this would allow me to just have one calorie goal until I finally reach my end weight.
0
Replies
-
If you use the TDEE method, you will need to subtract a certain percentage in order to continue to lose weight. The calorie amount MFP calculates already has a deficiency built in. With the TDEE method, you have to create it by subtracting from the initial amount generated.
This website will explain it better: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/0 -
Short answer: Yes.
It will take much longer, but should get there eventually. I say, go ahead. Do it for a few weeks/months. Then when you get that urge to go a bit faster, go back to a lower amount.
The difference you're looking at is 125 calories as you mentioned... which is 1 pound in 28 days... roughly 12.5 pounds a year. Which is not bad at all if it those extra 125 calories keep you feeling better, fuller, healthier, and happier.0 -
I did the math on this once. Let's say you're 5'8, 30 years old, and female. You're 180 pounds and you want to be 130. Let's further assume that your TDEE is 1.6 of BMR, and use the Harris Benedict equation to estimate BMR. Then your TDEE at 180 is about 2239 and at 130 it is about 2587.
So let's say you start eating at 2239. At first, this is a 348 calorie deficit - so you lose between half a pound and a pound each week. Not bad. As you lose, though, your TDEE also goes down - so your deficit gets smaller and smaller, and your loss gets slower and slower.
By the time you get to the last 10 pounds, you're only at a 70 calorie deficit. If you ate at a constant 70 calorie deficit, it would take 72 weeks to lose 10 pounds. But, your deficit continues to shrink - when you (after a very long time) get to five pounds over, you will be at a 35 calorie deficit, and by the time you eventually get to one pound over, you are at a 7 calorie deficit - so it would take you another 72 weeks just to lose that last pound.
If we treat it as a strict mathematical equation, you never actually get to 130 - although you get infinitely close, so the scale rounds it off and we don't care about the infinitesimal fraction. It takes a very long time to get there, though. If you have a scale that weighs to the nearest .2 of a pound, it will show 130.0 in 418 weeks, or a little over 8 years.
If you eat at TDEE for just a little bit lower - 120 pounds, or TDEE of 2169 - you'll get there in 129 weeks, or 2 and a half years - a big difference for a change of 70 calories per day.
(For the fellow math dorks who care, the relevant differential equation is w' = (c - 1333.79)/6.96 + k e^(-6.96 t / 500) , where w is weight at week t, c is calorie intake, 1333.79 and 6.96 are constants generated by the Harris Benedict equation for the assumed height, age, and gender, and 500 represents the daily deficit necessary to lose a pound a week. k is a constant of integration that works out to be the difference between the starting weight, and the weight at which c = maintenance.)0 -
(For the fellow math dorks who care, the relevant differential equation is w' = (c - 1333.79)/6.96 + k e^(-6.96 t / 500) , where w is weight at week t, c is calorie intake, 1333.79 and 6.96 are constants generated by the Harris Benedict equation for the assumed height, age, and gender, and 500 represents the daily deficit necessary to lose a pound a week. k is a constant of integration that works out to be the difference between the starting weight, and the weight at which c = maintenance.)
As a fellow math nerd, I salute you.
I guess my thinking was that if I wanted to lose faster I could just increase my activity level, which I expect to be easier the more weight I lose. Hopefully.0 -
(For the fellow math dorks who care, the relevant differential equation is w' = (c - 1333.79)/6.96 + k e^(-6.96 t / 500) , where w is weight at week t, c is calorie intake, 1333.79 and 6.96 are constants generated by the Harris Benedict equation for the assumed height, age, and gender, and 500 represents the daily deficit necessary to lose a pound a week. k is a constant of integration that works out to be the difference between the starting weight, and the weight at which c = maintenance.)
As a fellow math nerd, I salute you.
...and I totally messed up that equation, as I switched midway into typing the solution to the differential equation instead of the Diff. Eq. itself. It should be w' = (c - 6.96 w - 1333.79)/500, which solves to w = (c - 1333.79)/6.96 + k e^(-6.96 t / 500). But the point stands.I guess my thinking was that if I wanted to lose faster I could just increase my activity level, which I expect to be easier the more weight I lose. Hopefully.
This would work, but at that point you're no longer eating your TDEE at your new weight, unless you plan on decreasing your activity level again when you get there. You've just shifted to creating your deficit through exercise instead of food.0 -
yes. that works pretty well until you get close.0
-
Please consider the fact that at 5'9" 135 lbs may be too light for your frame. Rather than putting a number on it right now, see how you feel when you get closer. Your body will change along the way and you may find another number is better for you.
All the best as you change your health for the better.0 -
So, I have been doing MFP for almost a year. I've lost 82 pounds, so it is clearly working. I just get tired of constantly adjusting my calorie intake. I am 5'9" and am 325 lbs. My goal weight is 135 lbs. If I just eat at the TDEE of the goal weight (around 1650 calories a day) won't I just naturally end up there eventually?
Currently, I am eating around 1500 calories a day. So it isn't a huge change, but this would allow me to just have one calorie goal until I finally reach my end weight.
I would go TDEE,
But every 4 weeks or so, you may want to check your numbers and see if you need to lower calories again, due to weight loss.0 -
Oh, ya, that might be light. I'm 5'4, currently 140, and I'm quite happy at 135.
Regardless, the answer is still the same; yes, eating at goal weight TDEE works.0 -
Please consider the fact that at 5'9" 135 lbs may be too light for your frame. Rather than putting a number on it right now, see how you feel when you get closer. Your body will change along the way and you may find another number is better for you.
All the best as you change your health for the better.
I'm 5'9" and I'd agree.0 -
I did the math on this once. Let's say you're 5'8, 30 years old, and female. You're 180 pounds and you want to be 130. Let's further assume that your TDEE is 1.6 of BMR, and use the Harris Benedict equation to estimate BMR. Then your TDEE at 180 is about 2239 and at 130 it is about 2587.
So let's say you start eating at 2239. At first, this is a 348 calorie deficit - so you lose between half a pound and a pound each week. Not bad. As you lose, though, your TDEE also goes down - so your deficit gets smaller and smaller, and your loss gets slower and slower.
By the time you get to the last 10 pounds, you're only at a 70 calorie deficit. If you ate at a constant 70 calorie deficit, it would take 72 weeks to lose 10 pounds. But, your deficit continues to shrink - when you (after a very long time) get to five pounds over, you will be at a 35 calorie deficit, and by the time you eventually get to one pound over, you are at a 7 calorie deficit - so it would take you another 72 weeks just to lose that last pound.
If we treat it as a strict mathematical equation, you never actually get to 130 - although you get infinitely close, so the scale rounds it off and we don't care about the infinitesimal fraction. It takes a very long time to get there, though. If you have a scale that weighs to the nearest .2 of a pound, it will show 130.0 in 418 weeks, or a little over 8 years.
If you eat at TDEE for just a little bit lower - 120 pounds, or TDEE of 2169 - you'll get there in 129 weeks, or 2 and a half years - a big difference for a change of 70 calories per day.
(For the fellow math dorks who care, the relevant differential equation is w' = (c - 1333.79)/6.96 + k e^(-6.96 t / 500) , where w is weight at week t, c is calorie intake, 1333.79 and 6.96 are constants generated by the Harris Benedict equation for the assumed height, age, and gender, and 500 represents the daily deficit necessary to lose a pound a week. k is a constant of integration that works out to be the difference between the starting weight, and the weight at which c = maintenance.)
Awesome reply. Very well done.
I faced something a bit similar. Back in Nov, I had a complex BF% analysis done on me. I think it had me at like 19%BF at 203. I said I wanted to get to approx 8% BF. So they figured out my lean body mass and spit out that I'd have to go down to 172.4. However, it failed to take into consideration that as one loses body weight, it's inclusive of both fat AND muscle. Even if you lift heavy and take in lots of protein. So while the majority is fat, there is some lean muscle lost. I found a website that worked this out as a 3 to 1 ratio. And long story short, it figured I'd have to hit an even 170 to be 8%. It may not seem like much difference, but at the single digit BF%, I can go up or down 1% with as little as 1.6lbs.0 -
Please consider the fact that at 5'9" 135 lbs may be too light for your frame. Rather than putting a number on it right now, see how you feel when you get closer. Your body will change along the way and you may find another number is better for you.
All the best as you change your health for the better.
I'm definitely flexible on the weight goal. I just chose 135 because when I plugged various weights into the "Better Ideal weight" thing that was the weight around which women of my height stopped feeling like they needed to lose more weight. I'll go with whatever feels right as I get closer.
http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm0 -
I'm definitely flexible on the weight goal. I just chose 135 because when I plugged various weights into the "Better Ideal weight" thing that was the weight around which women of my height stopped feeling like they needed to lose more weight. I'll go with whatever feels right as I get closer.
http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm
Off-topic, but that thing is fascinating. I agree that it doesn't matter that much what your goal is now and that you should just revise based on how you feel as you start getting closer, but I just played around with it like you did, and at my weight (5'3) apparently women of my height want to be a lot thinner (so do I), but not especially so--more like a BMI of 25.1. But at that weight (142), they want to bemore like 130 and at 130 they want to be 125 and so on. I was curious whether the results would ever end up with them (on average) wanting to be heavier, and eventually they did. For my height (5'3), women wanted to be thinner (even if just a little bit) until they got to 116, and then lower than 116 they wanted to be heavier. 5'9 and 135 rounds to a 20 BMI and 5'3 and 116 is a 20.5. I wonder if they are all around 20?0 -
Off-topic, but that thing is fascinating. I agree that it doesn't matter that much what your goal is now and that you should just revise based on how you feel as you start getting closer, but I just played around with it like you did, and at my weight (5'3) apparently women of my height want to be a lot thinner (so do I), but not especially so--more like a BMI of 25.1. But at that weight (142), they want to bemore like 130 and at 130 they want to be 125 and so on. I was curious whether the results would ever end up with them (on average) wanting to be heavier, and eventually they did. For my height (5'3), women wanted to be thinner (even if just a little bit) until they got to 116, and then lower than 116 they wanted to be heavier. 5'9 and 135 rounds to a 20 BMI and 5'3 and 116 is a 20.5. I wonder if they are all around 20?
Since I've already outed myself as a math geek on this thread...
I found the formula that page uses, and it is based on BMI, plus age for women. Apparently the guy who came up with the formula determined through his research that women tended to change their ideal weight as they got older, while for men age wasn't a significant factor.
For women: Ideal BMI = 0.4 * current BMI + 0.03 * age + 11
For men: Ideal BMI = 0.5 * current BMI + 11.5
This means that for women, the BMI at which ideal BMI = current BMI is equal to 18.33 + .05 * age. So at age 20, this is a BMI of 19.33; at age 40, 20.33; at age 60, 21.33.
For men, this doesn't vary with age; when BMI is 23, ideal BMI = current BMI.0 -
okay I didn't look at the math it makes my head hurt...
How can someone predict TDEE of goal weight...TDEE is dependent on exercise and is a flucuting number.
And mine has gone up since I lost weight as my exercise levels have increased...
Sorry if I am missing something here but my logic brain part isn't computing this...0 -
So, I have been doing MFP for almost a year. I've lost 82 pounds, so it is clearly working. I just get tired of constantly adjusting my calorie intake. I am 5'9" and am 325 lbs. My goal weight is 135 lbs. If I just eat at the TDEE of the goal weight (around 1650 calories a day) won't I just naturally end up there eventually?
Currently, I am eating around 1500 calories a day. So it isn't a huge change, but this would allow me to just have one calorie goal until I finally reach my end weight.
TDEE of your "future weight" should work.
However, the hard part is figuring out what that number truly is. With TDEE you have to be diligent with workouts. There will be many estimates. Is your "future weight" estimate appropriate or just a guess? Those who manage to keep a fair amount of muscle (while losing) & those who are more muscular to begin with can look good at a higher weight.
If the difference isn't huge.....and you're happy with the progress.....then go for it!0 -
Oh, I should have read how it worked. For some reason I was assuming they did surveys, heh.0
-
Oh, I should have read how it worked. For some reason I was assuming they did surveys, heh.
It's based on surveys, but the guy who did the research used the surveys as data points to come up with a formula that approximated the results. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/people.htm0 -
If I just eat at the TDEE of the goal weight (around 1650 calories a day) won't I just naturally end up there eventually?
Assuming you calculate it correctly, yep, that'll work. Most exercise burn numbers will be a function of weight - do the math right and you'll be golden.
"Fire and forget..."0 -
okay I didn't look at the math it makes my head hurt...
How can someone predict TDEE of goal weight...TDEE is dependent on exercise and is a flucuting number.
And mine has gone up since I lost weight as my exercise levels have increased...
Sorry if I am missing something here but my logic brain part isn't computing this...
You're right that you can't really predict it - but the idea here is that you determine your current level of activity, and then calculate TDEE for that level of activity but at your goal weight. So if I weigh 180 now and my average activity level puts my TDEE at approximately 1.6 of my estimated BMR, I could figure out what my estimated BMR would be if I weighed 130, and multiply that by 1.6 to approximate TDEE at goal weight.0 -
I did the math on this once. Let's say you're 5'8, 30 years old, and female. You're 180 pounds and you want to be 130. Let's further assume that your TDEE is 1.6 of BMR, and use the Harris Benedict equation to estimate BMR. Then your TDEE at 180 is about 2239 and at 130 it is about 2587.
The thing is, Harris Benedict is giving inflated numbers for someone who has that much to lose. Use Katch-McCardle, and you get a number that - surprise! - is quite close to the BMR of the not-so-fat body weight.
Harris-Benedict really messes a lot of people up by letting them believe they can eat more than they should be eating.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions