Does the size of my calorie deficit matter for weight loss.

CleanUpWhatIMessedUp

So MFP says that the number of calories I am allowed every day is the standard 1200. Most days I work out and burn about 700 calories. So in actuality I am allowed to eat 1900 calories after exercise. Generally I will actually eat 1800 calories, so that leaves 100 extra calories left over, and I lose weight that way. Would it matter if I started to eat 1700 calories every day, so that I had 200 extra calories left over? Would I lose more weight that way, less weight, or the same amount??? Does size matter in this case or is it irrelevant unless there is a huge difference, like say if i went from leaving 100 extra calories after exercise to leaving 700 extra calories after exercise?

P.S. I am using a HRM and I believe it to be pretty accurate.

WalkingAlong

Size matters. 100 extra calories of deficit per day would mean losing roughly another pound every 35 days (assuming 3500 calories per pound).

SezxyStef

Yes it does...

your goal should be to eat as much as you can and still lose a reasonable amount of weight.

Esp if you are working out a lot...you need to fuel your workouts and no hunger is not the best indicator of what your body needs...

BigT555

its not the size of the deficit, its how you eat it.












just kidding its totally the size of the deficit

sheedy17

its not the size of the deficit, its how you eat it.












just kidding its totally the size of the deficit

LOL that was great

thavoice

So MFP says that the number of calories I am allowed every day is the standard 1200. Most days I work out and burn about 700 calories. So in actuality I am allowed to eat 1900 calories after exercise. Generally I will actually eat 1800 calories, so that leaves 100 extra calories left over, and I lose weight that way. Would it matter if I started to eat 1700 calories every day, so that I had 200 extra calories left over? Would I lose more weight that way, less weight, or the same amount??? Does size matter in this case or is it irrelevant unless there is a huge difference, like say if i went from leaving 100 extra calories after exercise to leaving 700 extra calories after exercise?

P.S. I am using a HRM and I believe it to be pretty accurate.

You are cutting it pretty close. HRM are not dead on with calories burned. They measure heart rate and estimate your calories burned and if you are leaving just 100 to the deficit then that may not get you any loss.
HRM are better than the machines in calories burned but if you are following exactly what you are saying then you may be set up for disappointment.

700 cals burned in exercise is quite a bit. That is equivalent to 6 miles of running, 10 miles of walking, etc.

Veil5577

its not the size of the deficit, its how you eat it.

:laugh:












just kidding its totally the size of the deficit

RHachicho

So MFP says that the number of calories I am allowed every day is the standard 1200. Most days I work out and burn about 700 calories. So in actuality I am allowed to eat 1900 calories after exercise. Generally I will actually eat 1800 calories, so that leaves 100 extra calories left over, and I lose weight that way. Would it matter if I started to eat 1700 calories every day, so that I had 200 extra calories left over? Would I lose more weight that way, less weight, or the same amount??? Does size matter in this case or is it irrelevant unless there is a huge difference, like say if i went from leaving 100 extra calories after exercise to leaving 700 extra calories after exercise?

P.S. I am using a HRM and I believe it to be pretty accurate.

You are cutting it pretty close. HRM are not dead on with calories burned. They measure heart rate and estimate your calories burned and if you are leaving just 100 to the deficit then that may not get you any loss.
HRM are better than the machines in calories burned but if you are following exactly what you are saying then you may be set up for disappointment.

700 cals burned in exercise is quite a bit. That is equivalent to 6 miles of running, 10 miles of walking, etc.

700 cals is pretty decent but hardly beyond someone of even a moderate level of fitness. Especially if they are somewhat overweight. Believe it or not carrying around a bunch of dead weight all the time actually improves the calorie burn of exercise XD.

dopeysmelly

There's only one way to know for sure, and that's to change your deficit and see what happens to your rate of weight loss over 2-3 months. Everyone's body is made differently and even accurate HRMs are based on estimates (OK, probably better estimates than MFP, but even so).

Laurenloveswaffles

There's only one way to know for sure, and that's to change your deficit and see what happens to your rate of weight loss over 2-3 months. Everyone's body is made differently and even accurate HRMs are based on estimates (OK, probably better estimates than MFP, but even so).

I'll also add that HRMs are only good for steady state cardio. So if you're doing strength training too, it won't be that accurate.

SideSteel

Yes, size matters.

So this is actually a question where answer in theory and the answer in practice could be two entirely different things, and with that being said there's some things to mention that you should at least be aware of, IMO.

First of all there's a massive amount of variance in calorie tracking. Most people eat more than they think even when under conditions where they attempt to monitor calorie intake. The reason this piece of information MAY be important, is that your 1800 calorie intake COULD be significantly higher, so any advice that says "You definitely need to eat more, because 1700-1800 is just too low" sort of ignores that. So that I'm very clear here, I'm not blaming you for tracking wrong nor am I suggesting that you're way off. I'm simply saying that we have some indications that this happens. (For some anecdote I also experience this personally and I see it in my clients and in people we help in our forum group here).

Next, regardless of what any online calculator tells you, your results should always be used as one indicator regarding deficit size. So for example if you are eating 1800 calories and over 6 weeks you have dropped a total of 2 lbs, and for purposes of making an example suppose you are a 300lb person, then I would absolutely consider making a reduction in calorie intake. Conversely, if you were 150lbs and losing 2lb/week I wouldn't even consider a reduction in calories (might even consider increasing it in this scenario). So keep that in perspective. A reasonable rate of loss for most people will be somewhere in the .5 to 1% change in bodyweight per week. This is an important point to mention in case the issue is simply that your expectations for rate of loss are skewed/unreasonable.

Finally, as others have mentioned you can also just try and see, paying attention to rate of weight loss and overall adherence/mental well-being while at the reduced intake.

cwolfman13

Your 1200 calorie goal is already a substantial deficit from your non-exercise maintenance number. Let's say for your stats that your non-exercise maintenance calories are 1800...with a 1200 calorie plan you have a 600 calorie deficit which would equate to about 1 Lb per week.

Now, if you exercise your maintenance number is going to increase...I think your 700 calorie burn is probably a bit inflated but lets say you burned 350 calories. You would net your 1200 calories by eating 350 more exercise calories bringing your total to 1,550...but you still have a 600 calorie deficit because your maintenance number will have increased by the same 350 calories to 2,150 due to exercise is an additional activity if you set up your profile as per the MFP method.

WBB55

Yes, size matters.

SS swoon