Frantic about adhering to the "right" calorie intake? Read t

Flacachica

bump

robin52077

Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

I love that video, I passed it around facebook about a year ago. I wanted to show someone recently but couldn't find it.

jgkimo

Bump for later reading.

ebgbjo

bump to read later (unless you have additional advice on those who are hypothryorid on how to adjust calories)

Thank you

stroutman81

I typically don't get into clinical stuff. It's beyond my scope of practice. Are you medicated? If so, are you feeling sure it's the right medication? Do you have a good relationship with your doc?

For hypo folks, calories in vs. calories out still apply. It's just that they get screwed on the calorie out side of the equation and, in turn, have to be more strict on the calorie front.

writtenINthestars

Bumpitybumpbump

DianaPowerUp

I don't know why when I check my BMR here on MFP, it says that my BMR is like 1260 (roughly), but if I calculate according to these formulas, I get a BMR of 1600-2000, dep. on my activity level. I don't get it. I find it hard to believe that my BMR could be so low like MFP says. I'm 46, weigh 134 currently, am 5' 6", and workout 2 hrs/day, 5-6 days/wk (one hr strength, one cardio).

I've been trying to follow the 1200 cal. limit that MFP has put on (my goal weight is 126), but it's HARD! That's so little. On days where I burn 600 cal, that extra cal. boost helps, but it still seems low, esp. if I don't eat them all back. Should I be eating my cal back?

Thanks for all the great advice on MFP, btw. I've read tons of stuff that has been really enlightening.

Eskimopie

bump

stroutman81

I don't know why when I check my BMR here on MFP, it says that my BMR is like 1260 (roughly), but if I calculate according to these formulas, I get a BMR of 1600-2000, dep. on my activity level. I don't get it

I could be reading you incorrectly but it sounds like you're confusing BMR for total calorie needs. In reality, BMR is merely one component of total calorie needs.

Total Calorie Needs = Maintenance = BMR + TEF + SPA + TEA

In this equation, TEF is the thermic effect of feeding, SPA is spontaneous physical activity (sometimes referred to as NEAT) and TEA is the thermic effect of activity.

It sounds to me like you're plugging in your numbers in that formula in the first post and then multiplying that by an activity factor. If you go through all of that you're really calculating an estimated total calorie need. To calculate BMR, you have to stop at the equation part of it before you multiply it by an activity factor.

Does that make sense? And is this where you're messing up? If I'm wrong about where you're confused or you simply want me to crunch the numbers for you, feel free to provide me with your stats.

I find it hard to believe that my BMR could be so low like MFP says. I'm 46, weigh 134 currently, am 5' 6", and workout 2 hrs/day, 5-6 days/wk (one hr strength, one cardio).

Just remember that BMR is the energy expended maintaining basal functions - really the stuff that's happening at complete rest. So it doesn't take into account your exercise, as it seems you're including it in this above statement.

A very very rough estimate of BMR is body weight x 10.

I've been trying to follow the 1200 cal. limit that MFP has put on (my goal weight is 126), but it's HARD! That's so little. On days where I burn 600 cal, that extra cal. boost helps, but it still seems low, esp. if I don't eat them all back. Should I be eating my cal back?

Assuming you're exercising quite a bit, without knowing more, if you were my client your calorie goal would be somewhere around 1500 for starters.

meanness67

Bump for later.

DianaPowerUp

I don't know why when I check my BMR here on MFP, it says that my BMR is like 1260 (roughly), but if I calculate according to these formulas, I get a BMR of 1600-2000, dep. on my activity level. I don't get it

I could be reading you incorrectly but it sounds like you're confusing BMR for total calorie needs. In reality, BMR is merely one component of total calorie needs.

Total Calorie Needs = Maintenance = BMR + TEF + SPA + TEA

In this equation, TEF is the thermic effect of feeding, SPA is spontaneous physical activity (sometimes referred to as NEAT) and TEA is the thermic effect of activity.

It sounds to me like you're plugging in your numbers in that formula in the first post and then multiplying that by an activity factor. If you go through all of that you're really calculating an estimated total calorie need. To calculate BMR, you have to stop at the equation part of it before you multiply it by an activity factor.

Does that make sense? And is this where you're messing up? If I'm wrong about where you're confused or you simply want me to crunch the numbers for you, feel free to provide me with your stats.

I find it hard to believe that my BMR could be so low like MFP says. I'm 46, weigh 134 currently, am 5' 6", and workout 2 hrs/day, 5-6 days/wk (one hr strength, one cardio).

Just remember that BMR is the energy expended maintaining basal functions - really the stuff that's happening at complete rest. So it doesn't take into account your exercise, as it seems you're including it in this above statement.

A very very rough estimate of BMR is body weight x 10.

I've been trying to follow the 1200 cal. limit that MFP has put on (my goal weight is 126), but it's HARD! That's so little. On days where I burn 600 cal, that extra cal. boost helps, but it still seems low, esp. if I don't eat them all back. Should I be eating my cal back?

Assuming you're exercising quite a bit, without knowing more, if you were my client your calorie goal would be somewhere around 1500 for starters.

Thanks! You're right, I had that all confused. I think I get it now. My maintenance for my CW is around 1700 cal, so MFP is giving me a 500 cal/day deficit (net), so that I lose a lb/wk til I get to my goal. I can see now that I haven't been eating enough on most days, and that I really need to eat more, which I am more than happy about!

Eidajan

bump

charityateet

Bump so I can read later. Thanks for the info!

mosaicpaloma

I have a question for us larger ladies, who need to really buckle down and lose the pounds... (in no way do I want to hijack the thread either... I am just confused about the following point... I hope it's okay I ask this? )
I have been reading the articles posted here and find them extremely helpful. I am confused though, on one point;
I read that for an obese person, a deficit of up to 1000 calories is okay for weight loss, however, then I read the information
about keeping closer to your calorie goal/and or eating your workout calories will change the metabolism and is actually BETTER for weight loss. I am a 5' 4" female, weighing in at 199 lbs. I started working out a month ago, and changed my dietary intake to whole grains, fruits and veggies, yogurts, and lean meat. I never did trendy diets or some such, I just slowly gained weight over the years due to sedentary lifestyle and caring for my children(I was a steady 135 all my life ). I also drank wine every day. (I have actually cut out the wine completely now). My calorie counter has been consistently under the goal, with warnings, due to the fact that I spend hours at the gym. So now, after reading your recent articles, I believe I am going about this all wrong. As a female who is looking to lose considerable weight, would staying in the range of my calorie needs be a better way to shed the weight?

stroutman81

Thanks! You're right, I had that all confused. I think I get it now. My maintenance for my CW is around 1700 cal, so MFP is giving me a 500 cal/day deficit (net), so that I lose a lb/wk til I get to my goal. I can see now that I haven't been eating enough on most days, and that I really need to eat more, which I am more than happy about!

Glad you figured it out! I don't remember what you said you've been consuming each day but if it's a significant amount that you're under eating I wouldn't jump straight up to where you should be in one shot. Let your metabolism adjust accordingly by systematically ramping up calories over a number of weeks by 10% or so each step up.

stroutman81

I have a question for us larger ladies, who need to really buckle down and lose the pounds... (in no way do I want to hijack the thread either... I am just confused about the following point... I hope it's okay I ask this? )
I have been reading the articles posted here and find them extremely helpful. I am confused though, on one point;
I read that for an obese person, a deficit of up to 1000 calories is okay for weight loss, however, then I read the information
about keeping closer to your calorie goal/and or eating your workout calories will change the metabolism and is actually BETTER for weight loss. I am a 5' 4" female, weighing in at 199 lbs. I started working out a month ago, and changed my dietary intake to whole grains, fruits and veggies, yogurts, and lean meat. I never did trendy diets or some such, I just slowly gained weight over the years due to sedentary lifestyle and caring for my children(I was a steady 135 all my life ). I also drank wine every day. (I have actually cut out the wine completely now). My calorie counter has been consistently under the goal, with warnings, due to the fact that I spend hours at the gym. So now, after reading your recent articles, I believe I am going about this all wrong. As a female who is looking to lose considerable weight, would staying in the range of my calorie needs be a better way to shed the weight?

Overweight people can handle a larger deficit without running into the typical issues leaner folks run into (ie. hormonal disruptions to insulin, ghrelin, leptin, peptide YY, muscle loss, stalled fat loss, etc). The leaner you get, the more careful you have to be.

Overweight people lose more fat and less muscle

Lean people lose more muscle and less fat

The more body fat you have, the harder it is to get the body to think it's underfed.

With that said, there's not one correct answer to your question. I've encountered some obese folks who can psychologically handle larger deficits. Others... not so much. They wind up rebounding and eating everything in site. Deprivation isn't for most folks.

I'd wager that most folks fare better in the long run adhering to more conservative deficits (35% off of maintenance or so).

If I were to set a bottom limit, I'd make sure that at least some minimums were covered regardless of calorie intake. They'd be:

- 1 gram of protein per pound of goal body weight
- 3-6 grams of fish oil
- loads of fibrous veggies

This would not be a long term minimum at all.... but an acute way of eating to trigger rapid fat loss in the obese. And like I said previously.... it's not something I'd recommend to most people. And for those I would... they'd also have plenty of full diet breaks where carbs are brought way up to maintenance levels before long.

So in truth, I can't say what's right for you. I'd likely lean towards the more conservative route. And don't get stuck in the rut where you're trying to beat your body into submission with endless amounts of exercise. You've to set up sustainable habits that you'll stick with for live. All these extremists I'm running into on MFP are simply delaying the point where they actually "get it" and get off the volatility wagon.

Another very general rule is shoot for an average rate of weight loss of 1% of total body weight each week. Granted, some weeks will be higher and others lower as fat loss is not a linear process since it involves so many dynamic variables. But over the long run, especially in overweight folks, this is a good target to shoot for. And obviously, the greater your weight, the greater the rate of weight loss can be in absolute terms. And you can use this metric to compare where you are currently... if you're drastically over it, think about bringing calories up a bit or reducing some exercise. If you're drastically under it, recheck what you're doing and make sure you're being consistent, honest, and accurate with your calorie intake.

mosaicpaloma

Okay, this helps clarify somewhat-Thank you so much. As a person new to the journey of weight loss, I am seeking out healthy ways to achieve this goal, as a lifestyle change. Don't know much about what I'm doing, so thank you for time and articles to help guide us along...

pragya728

bump

3LittleMonkeys

If I were to set a bottom limit, I'd make sure that at least some minimums were covered regardless of calorie intake. They'd be:

- 1 gram of protein per pound of goal body weight
- 3-6 grams of fish oil
- loads of fibrous veggies

See that makes more sense to me. MFP has me at 1,380 Cal 190 carbs 46 fat 52 protein. I am 167 pounds right now ( was 232) with a rough goal weight of 125.

DianaPowerUp

Thanks! You're right, I had that all confused. I think I get it now. My maintenance for my CW is around 1700 cal, so MFP is giving me a 500 cal/day deficit (net), so that I lose a lb/wk til I get to my goal. I can see now that I haven't been eating enough on most days, and that I really need to eat more, which I am more than happy about!

Glad you figured it out! I don't remember what you said you've been consuming each day but if it's a significant amount that you're under eating I wouldn't jump straight up to where you should be in one shot. Let your metabolism adjust accordingly by systematically ramping up calories over a number of weeks by 10% or so each step up.

Good to know. I'm trying to inch my way back up, esp, since now I'm trying to build more muscle (ramping up my weights).

taiyola

Bump!

Eidajan

bump

jlsAhava

Bump!

cutmd

When you get up to step 4, lets say you haven't noticed any change at all, but you already have a deficit that you think is in the region of 750-1000 cals/day. Is there any indicators as to wether you should reduce further on the assumption that your estimated deficit is just wrong, or wether you should increase on the basis that you're under-eating and hurting your own progress that way?

If you're supposedly in that large of a deficit and you're not losing (given enough time) there's only so many possible explanations. They are, generally speaking:

1. You're eating more than you think you are, which is by far the most common case, even in those who feel they're overestimating if anything. I posted research in my other thread showing how even dietitians were significantly off on their own estimated intakes.

2. You're not expending as much as you think you are. This is also pretty common.

3. You calculated maintenance in the beginning, have since lost an appreciable amount of weight, thus lowering your calorie requirements, yet, you've not adjusted your intake. Smaller body means less tissue to support (even fat is metabolically active) and less energy required to move around. So obviously, and I'm sure most people around here know this, when you lose weight, you've to adjust your intake to follow suit. If you don't.... especially if you lose significant weight, what was once a deficit can easily become maintenance.

4. The calculation you used to determine your calorie needs was wrong - either entirely or wrong for you.

5. Lifestyle changes - remember - the energy out side of the equation is very much dynamic. Exercise comprises part of the energy out side, but so does NEAT or SPA (non-exercise activity thermogenesis or spontaneous physical activity respectively), thermic effect of feeding, and basal metabolic rate.

6. You're holding onto water, thus masking true fat loss, which is BEYOND common as I discussed in the lean people getting leaner thread.

7. You're adding muscle, which isn't typically significant or usual while dieting, but it does indeed happen. Especially if you're applying novel stimuli to the body - prime example would be someone doing true strength training for the first.

8. Adaptive thermogenesis. I'm guessing this is what you're getting at. This is what some people refer to as "starvation mode." And what it is is when metabolism slows down more than what would be expected given a specific weight loss. So you lose 20 pounds, you'd expect calorie needs to fall by 200 or so, yet, when you account for that 200 and eat what should be maintenance, you gain, indicating you're in a surplus. Which can be the case if adaptive thermogenesis is playing a role.

If this is the case, and more often than not I'd say it's not given all the above possibilities that are much more common, I'd suggest taking a break. And this is really topic for another article all together. But a population of exercisers exist who take the extremist approach. They workout hard enough to feel pain each time. They diet forever without letting up. They use huge calorie deficits for extended periods of time. They're anxious people by nature, always stepping on the scale, worrying about the next workout, wondering if they should try the next diet, or whatever. On and on it goes. Genetics can play a role too. But due to various stress response issues, adaptive thermogenesis hits them harder than others.

Our bodies are constantly working to manage stress. It's the good old GAS principle (general adaptation syndrome). Our bodies have finite capacities to handle stress. And stress is cumulative - physical and psychological. If we outpace our bodies abilities to manage this stress.... whacky things can happen and select dieters often display this repeatedly. This is why it's a good idea to remove some of the stress and let some of our "biology" settle down and reset.

I've had women ramp up to maintenance over a month's time and while doing so, remove exercise. Then they'd stay at maintenance for a week or so and by then, things should be settled enough where they can start back at the original goal but this time using much saner parameters.

Hopefully this is at least a start to answering what I think was a great question. Let me know.

This is a fantastic summary of what I have become to believe over the last few months. For this reason, I cringe when people tell me or others struggling to eat more, since I'm likely overeating. When I set my calories to 1200, maybe I'm really taking in 1500 or even 1700 (my maintenance). However after a few days of REALLY trying to undershoot it I get very powerful urges and weakness and end up binging. Maybe if I could be reasonable enough to adopt a calm approach as you detailed in the original post I would make more progress, but I'm all over the place! Water flux also drives me nuts - my weight varies 1-5lbs overnight, what am I to do with that???? :sad: Ah well.

what kind of digital scale do you recommend? Do you really believe in the 1200 calorie minimum?

Thanks for the great thread

stroutman81

This is a fantastic summary of what I have become to believe over the last few months. For this reason, I cringe when people tell me or others struggling to eat more, since I'm likely overeating.

Glad you enjoyed.

When I set my calories to 1200, maybe I'm really taking in 1500 or even 1700 (my maintenance).

This is very true - especially if you're not using a food scale and/or you're forgetting to record various foods. I've found that some people are militant about weighing and recording. Others think they're militant but they forget to count the slice of cheese they ate cooking dinner, the soda they drank with lunch, or the candy they grabbed from the bowl in the office. When you're not very large of a person, your calorie needs aren't very high. And that means minor oversights can very easily throw you into maintenance or even a surplus.

I've also found that even the some people who really are militant lose focus when they're weight isn't heading in the direction they had hoped fast enough or at all. They'll become an emotional mess and slide on their nutrition a bit. They do this unconsciously it seems. Then, when their weight ticks up slightly, they go back to meticulous tracking. But from the outside onlooker, it's easy to see that calories are very controlled sometimes and other times they're not, which nets in near maintenance intakes.

Yet the "dieter" is left frustrated, scratching her head not understanding why she's not losing. All she remembers seems to be the times she was very precise. She seems to black out the "off periods" or slips, crazy as that might seem.

It's not the calories at the end of the day that make the difference. It's the calories at the end of the week, the month, etc. Hell, I've seen people who eat very regimental during the week, as it's easiest then when their schedule with work is also very regimental. Then the weekend comes and they eat whatever floats their boat. I've discussed this in my blog quite a bit. They don't realize that the net calories for the week are close to maintenance once you factor in the weekend indulgences. But in their minds they at perfectly almost the entire week... so shouldn't 5 out of 7 days win? And that's not necessarily the case. They have to take an honest look at what their calorie balance is for the full seven days.

However after a few days of REALLY trying to undershoot it I get very powerful urges and weakness and end up binging.

Can't really say what the cause is.

You could be undershooting too much.

Your food selection could be such that doesn't promote satiety (too low protein, not enough fat, not enough fiber, no fructose, etc)

It could be psychological.

You could be far too rigid, which usually leads to what I refer to as "lash backs" where you resist of fight back against the rigidity on a subconscious level.

Who knows.

Maybe if I could be reasonable enough to adopt a calm approach as you detailed in the original post I would make more progress, but I'm all over the place! Water flux also drives me nuts - my weight varies 1-5lbs overnight, what am I to do with that???? :sad: Ah well.

Who cares what the scale says. I don't get it. If you lost 2 lbs for the month of pure fat but the scale said you gained 3 lbs, you'd be upset. Which is completely illogical. The scale can't dictate your sense of progress when you're not overly fat. You're interested in losing fat and the scale is measuring fat, muscle, connective tissue, water, bowel matter, etc.

It's like trying to calculate your fuel usage in your car with a calculator and assumed rate of fuel consumption per mile. Actual consumption is comprised of many variables, so your likely not going to get an accurate reading with your calculator.

what kind of digital scale do you recommend?

I don't have a particular one I recommend. I have this one, but I'm not married to it. I've used cheaper ones from walmart with no problem.

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/salter-1450.aspx

Do you really believe in the 1200 calorie minimum?

Nope. Calorie needs are dependent on weight, body composition, activity levels, health, etc. You can't pick a particular intake and say it's appropriate or inappropriate for all populations. By and large most folks don't need to go lower than 1200, but there's no such thing as a cutoff that everyone's body recognizes as a lower limit and if crossed, starvation will kick in.

jansus

I am 53 female - office job - on here it says I should have 1200 calories to lose weight

I have always struggled with my weight in that i eat a healthy diet - nearly always cook from scratch and dont eat much junk so when I do cut down its not a drastic change .

At the moment I have been on 1200 and 1400 calories and the last three weeks have stayed the same weight and I have been measuring food and excercise ( bit restricted on this due to an injury)

if I use your calculation I could be on 190lb x 12 - 2200 roughly

then say reduce by 500 calories just to be dropping weight gently ( thats all I want) so 1700 roughly?

That seems a lot more than I have been eating -but I am willing to try for two weeks if you think that might help.?

hpsnickers1

I personally think MFP's calculators are spitting out numbers that are WAY too low.

Here is my experience and reasoning:

When I first started here I was 130 lbs and was thrown into MFP's one-size-fits-all-eat-1200-to-lose category. I was ignorant at the time so I did it, of course it melted off, mostly water weight, and the first ten was gone like magic. Then I SLOWLY crept down another ten. I STOPPED SHORT at 110 but wanted to aim for 102-105.
Eventually I gave up and decided to switch to "maintenance". Which MFP told me was 1500. Once I went up to 1500, I went down to 104 lbs eating more!
Why was I losing more while on maintenance?
Because apparently My maintenance is more like 2000, according to the BodyMediaFit I have been wearing for the last 5 days. I have broken 2000 all 5 days! And have been eating 1700-1800, and NOT gaining.
All that time spent eating 1200 and getting headaches and being exhausted and cranky, I was STARVING!

People, you CAN eat more!!!!!! I can eat between 1800 and 2200 calories every day! And I weigh 104!!!!

Don't starve yourselves!

This is so true. I've been on 1200-1250 calories per day according to MFP. But I decided to try wearing my HRM through a 24 hour lazy day. So no exercise, slow work day - I have a desk job - and relaxed in front of the TV that evening. I burned and ESTIMATED 2300 calories in 24 hours. And I'm 5'2" and 124 pounds. Not big at all. (Subtracted my 'resting caloires' from this and it almost matched the BMR that MFP gave me according to my activity level - 3 calorie difference that day).

stroutman81

I am 53 female - office job - on here it says I should have 1200 calories to lose weight

I have always struggled with my weight in that i eat a healthy diet - nearly always cook from scratch and dont eat much junk so when I do cut down its not a drastic change .

At the moment I have been on 1200 and 1400 calories and the last three weeks have stayed the same weight and I have been measuring food and excercise ( bit restricted on this due to an injury)

if I use your calculation I could be on 190lb x 12 - 2200 roughly

then say reduce by 500 calories just to be dropping weight gently ( thats all I want) so 1700 roughly?

That seems a lot more than I have been eating -but I am willing to try for two weeks if you think that might help.?

The 12 calories per pound is the high end of a deficit for most non-obese folks assuming they're exercising moderately most days of the week. If you're not exercising that much, the high end of the deficit is lower. Maybe 10 or so.

stroutman81

This is so true. I've been on 1200-1250 calories per day according to MFP. But I decided to try wearing my HRM through a 24 hour lazy day. So no exercise, slow work day - I have a desk job - and relaxed in front of the TV that evening. I burned and ESTIMATED 2300 calories in 24 hours. And I'm 5'2" and 124 pounds. Not big at all. (Subtracted my 'resting caloires' from this and it almost matched the BMR that MFP gave me according to my activity level - 3 calorie difference that day).

2300 seems a bit high, but who knows. Using the poor mans approach, for "normal weight " people BMR is generally around 10 calories per pound. If you're burning 1000 calories more than that on what appears to be a very sedentary day, you're probably of the type who can't sit still. Which is how I am. Research terms this as spontaneous physical activity. Or sometimes they'll refer to it as non-exercise activity thermogenesis.

Biologically we have great systems in place to slow things down if we're not eating enough, which stems from large chunks of time where food scarcity was a very real problem for the human genome. Unfortunately, because of how slowly things work in evolutionary terms, we aren't equipped with the opposite safety mechanism. When we eat too much, things don't speed up considerably to offset the surplus of energy. Which is one of the reasons why obesity is such a widespread problem.

Now, people who are lean or light by nature tend to have high spontaneous physical activity levels. They are always moving around even when they're working at a desk, they've high energy, always fidgeting or bouncing a leg or whatever. And their SPA tends to be more reactive to energy surpluses, meaning their total energy costs go up when they eat too much.

Mateo1985

Awesome article!!!