The mathematical equation to losing weight

tessjordan88

Also on my blog: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/tessjordan88/
I've heard it about a dozen times... 3,500 calories = 1 pound. Right? A few easy steps to solve the weight problem... Now:

1. Check your BMR (tools tab). BMR is the number of calories your body will burn in 24 hours at rest, without exercise... just breathing and blinking. Your daily calorie goals should be really close (or just under) this number. (You can reset your goals in the settings tab.)

2. Try to exercise at least 500 calories per day, and stay under or near your BMR range on your food. This means MOVE YOUR BODY, folks! I mean really break a sweat! Dance! Take the stairs, go for a walk, a run, even vigorous housework like scrubbing the floors. Whatever gets your heart pumping! Drink plenty of water to stay hydrated.

3. Eat a healthy, satisfying diet. As long as you're not starving yourself, & getting proper nutrition, don't fear the "starvation mode" warnings. Sometimes I am a little under the "recommended" 1,200 calories per day. (See my last blog post for more on that.) Don't deprive yourself of foods you crave. Rachel Ray said it, and I will echo it. "Eat everything in moderation."

4. After logging your food and exercise each day, check the BIG GREEN NUMBER on your MFP home page. Since 3,500 calories = 1 pound, if that green number is about 500 every day, you should lose 1 pound per week. If it's more like 1,000 daily, you should lose about 2 pounds per week.

And that's the mathematical equation for losing weight! I knew math was important in school!! Yay for nerds!!

gregh74

Thank you!!!

MakingAChoice

Unless you have MFP already setup to deduct that 500 or 1,000 calories. If that is the case that that 'big green number' would read 0, or close to it.

trinityj1

You should not be eating below your BMR and exercising.

NoAdditives

MFP already figures out a calorie deficit based on your BMR and your average daily activity. For this reason you should be meeting your calorie goal and eating at least half of your exercise calories. If you don't, your calorie deficit will be too large, your body won't get enough nutrition and you really do risk sending your body into starvation mode.

Please do not spread information like this. It isn't correct and if people follow these instructions they will not achieve healthy weight loss.

Mads1997

I think you are just going to confuse newbies with this.

ladyhawk00

No offense, but completely incorrect.

MFP creates a built in calorie deficit (when you have your settings on anything other than maintain/gain), based on your chosen loss per week goal, regardless of exercise.

This means that when you choose a 1 lb per week loss goal, MFP already subtracts 500 cals per day (for 3500 per week) to allow for 1 lb loss per week, whether you exercise or not. When you exercise, MFP adds cals back to maintain that deficit. If the green number on home page were at 500, you have just created a 1000 cal deficit. If you do not replace exercise cals, you have made your defict larger than you (presumably) intended.

Having too large of a deficit leads to a lowering of the BMR, and burning a larger percentage of muscle, as well as fat. When losing weight, you will always lose some muscle, in addition to fat - it is unavoidable. Someone with a high body fat percentage will lose a high ratio of fat to muscle; someone with a low body fat percentage burns a lower ratio. Obviously, the ideal is to keep the fat loss at a maximum, while keeping muscle loss to a minimum. To do this, the deficit must be within a range that the body feels comfortable burning fat, but is not so depleted that it burns a large amount of muscle. This range varies for everyone, but is generally about 250-1000 cals (obviously the higher number is for someone with a higher BF percentage.)

This effect (muscle loss) is well documented in medical literature - as is starvation mode (or more properly termed adaptive thermogenesis or famine response).

Here are some threads (from very well-educated posters that are happy to provide research sources) that discuss metabolism and how it reacts to insufficient fuel, and muscle loss.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

There are reams of data on adaptive thermogenesis and the risks/effects of LCDs/VLCDs. A simple search online produces tons of scientific data/studies.

shreddingit

our bodys are not Math problems......

tessjordan88

MFP already figures out a calorie deficit based on your BMR and your average daily activity. For this reason you should be meeting your calorie goal and eating at least half of your exercise calories. If you don't, your calorie deficit will be too large, your body won't get enough nutrition and you really do risk sending your body into starvation mode.

Please do not spread information like this. It isn't correct and if people follow these instructions they will not achieve healthy weight loss.

The math is correct. As far as the rest of your comments, I have to say this... Every body is different. I have tried, after listening to advice from friends, to eat half my exercise calories back. This doesn't work for ME. I keep a careful watch on my nutrition. I AM getting adequate intake on all my nutrients, and I don't feel hungry at the end of the day. Also, "starvation mode" is not common at all. Only a very small percentage of people experience it, and usually just those who only eat around 600 calories a day. People who preach it to me are wasting their breath. I have done my research, and I know what's best for my body. Thank you for your comments.

tessjordan88

No offense, but completely incorrect.

MFP creates a built in calorie deficit (when you have your settings on anything other than maintain/gain), based on your chosen loss per week goal, regardless of exercise.

This means that when you choose a 1 lb per week loss goal, MFP already subtracts 500 cals per day (for 3500 per week) to allow for 1 lb loss per week, whether you exercise or not. When you exercise, MFP adds cals back to maintain that deficit. If the green number on home page were at 500, you have just created a 1000 cal deficit. If you do not replace exercise cals, you have made your defict larger than you (presumably) intended.

Having too large of a deficit leads to a lowering of the BMR, and burning a larger percentage of muscle, as well as fat. When losing weight, you will always lose some muscle, in addition to fat - it is unavoidable. Someone with a high body fat percentage will lose a high ratio of fat to muscle; someone with a low body fat percentage burns a lower ratio. Obviously, the ideal is to keep the fat loss at a maximum, while keeping muscle loss to a minimum. To do this, the deficit must be within a range that the body feels comfortable burning fat, but is not so depleted that it burns a large amount of muscle. This range varies for everyone, but is generally about 250-1000 cals (obviously the higher number is for someone with a higher BF percentage.)

This effect (muscle loss) is well documented in medical literature - as is starvation mode (or more properly termed adaptive thermogenesis or famine response).

Here are some threads (from very well-educated posters that are happy to provide research sources) that discuss metabolism and how it reacts to insufficient fuel, and muscle loss.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

There are reams of data on adaptive thermogenesis and the risks/effects of LCDs/VLCDs. A simple search online produces tons of scientific data/studies.

"Very well-educated posters" huh? Not "certified nutritionists"? I am "very-well educated" myself, and I make posts. I must be a "very well-educated poster" too! I have a degree in child development. Nutrition classes (for ages birth through adulthood) were a part of that particular field of study.

I didn't ask to be slammed with contradictions to my post. I just simply showed the math.

tessjordan88

Also, if you are eating protein and doing strength training as well as cardio, you can actually BUILD muscle while you are losing fat.

skinimin

You need to state in the first post that this works for you and is not intended as advice for everyone because new people will get confused and think it applies to them, they could end up really messing with their health. Be careful what you post.

ladyhawk00

MFP already figures out a calorie deficit based on your BMR and your average daily activity. For this reason you should be meeting your calorie goal and eating at least half of your exercise calories. If you don't, your calorie deficit will be too large, your body won't get enough nutrition and you really do risk sending your body into starvation mode.

Please do not spread information like this. It isn't correct and if people follow these instructions they will not achieve healthy weight loss.

The math is correct. As far as the rest of your comments, I have to say this... Every body is different. I have tried, after listening to advice from friends, to eating half my exercise calories back. This doesn't work for ME. I keep a careful watch on my nutrition. I AM getting adequate intake on all my nutrients, and I don't feel hungry at the end of the day. Also, "starvation mode" is not common at all. Only a very small percentage of people experience it, and usually just those who only eat around 600 calories a day. People who preach it to me are wasting their breath. I have done my research, and I know what's best for my body. Thank you for your comments.

The math is NOT correct. You are not understanding the meaning of BMR, or how MFP calculates cal goals. BMR is the amount of calories you burn each day to stay alive - as if in a coma. MFP then adds your daily activity level - chores around the house, what you do for work, etc - this does NOT include purposeful exercise. These two numbers together give you your maintenance cals (this number can be seen under Goals).

MFP then subtracts the amount you chose for your loss goal.

The numbers look like this (me as an example):

BMR 1559
Daily Activity Level: Sedentary adds 391

Maintenance cals = 1950

MFP deficit = 500

My daily cal goal = 1460

I typically exercise 300-400 cals per day, 6 days per week. On those days, I gain another 300-400 cals, because I have burned over and above my BMR + Daily Activity Level. If I don't replace them, I make my deficit larger than 500.

If I am 500 under my daily cal goal, I have just made my deficit 1000 per day, which would mean I would be attempting 2 lb loss per week (not gonna happen).

It IS simple math - and because MFP creates a built in deficit, there are usually very simple explanations for weight gain when eating exercise cals (if there is not an underlying medical issue).
1. Intake is not accurate
2. Burns are not accurate
3. Settings (daily activity level or loss per week goal) are incorrect
4. The person was in starvation mode and the body is adapting, and once the metabolism increases again, you will begin to lose again.

Most often, it's one of the first 3. But starvation mode happens.

For some VERY small people, the 1200 rule does not apply, and they may do fine on a slightly lower intake. 1200 is the number determined by WHO as a minimum for the average woman to receive adequate nutrition (it's 1500 for men). If you aren't average, it isn't necessarily appropriate for you. There are a few people outside the curve. But the vast majority cannot receive adequate nutrition (macros and micros) on less than 1200.

Because of the lower limit of 1200 on MFP, a small percentage of very small women can have trouble with the numbers. With a very low BMR, you may not be able to get to an appropriate deficit, because of the 1200 limit. In those cases, it may be necessary to eat slightly under goal to reach the deficit needed for weight loss. But this is very rare. If you're one of those cases, then by all means, do what you need to do. But please don't post inaccurate information regarding how MFP calculations work.

tessjordan88

our bodys are not Math problems......

If you are losing weight, THAT is subtraction, my friend! Almost everything is a math problem!

ladyhawk00

No offense, but completely incorrect.

MFP creates a built in calorie deficit (when you have your settings on anything other than maintain/gain), based on your chosen loss per week goal, regardless of exercise.

This means that when you choose a 1 lb per week loss goal, MFP already subtracts 500 cals per day (for 3500 per week) to allow for 1 lb loss per week, whether you exercise or not. When you exercise, MFP adds cals back to maintain that deficit. If the green number on home page were at 500, you have just created a 1000 cal deficit. If you do not replace exercise cals, you have made your defict larger than you (presumably) intended.

Having too large of a deficit leads to a lowering of the BMR, and burning a larger percentage of muscle, as well as fat. When losing weight, you will always lose some muscle, in addition to fat - it is unavoidable. Someone with a high body fat percentage will lose a high ratio of fat to muscle; someone with a low body fat percentage burns a lower ratio. Obviously, the ideal is to keep the fat loss at a maximum, while keeping muscle loss to a minimum. To do this, the deficit must be within a range that the body feels comfortable burning fat, but is not so depleted that it burns a large amount of muscle. This range varies for everyone, but is generally about 250-1000 cals (obviously the higher number is for someone with a higher BF percentage.)

This effect (muscle loss) is well documented in medical literature - as is starvation mode (or more properly termed adaptive thermogenesis or famine response).

Here are some threads (from very well-educated posters that are happy to provide research sources) that discuss metabolism and how it reacts to insufficient fuel, and muscle loss.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

There are reams of data on adaptive thermogenesis and the risks/effects of LCDs/VLCDs. A simple search online produces tons of scientific data/studies.

"Very well-educated posters" huh? Not "certified nutritionists"? I am "very-well educated" myself, and I make posts. I must be a "very well-educated poster" too! I have a degree in child development. Nutrition classes (for ages birth through adulthood) were a part of that particular field of study.

I didn't ask to be slammed with contradictions to my post. I just simply showed the math.

Both are certified trainers, and have done extensive research on these specific topics from a scientific standpoint, looking at medical studies from reputable sources.

No one has slammed you. Disagreeing with your post, in a very respectful manner, is hardly slamming you.

tessjordan88

The math is NOT correct. You are not understanding the meaning of BMR, or how MFP calculates cal goals. BMR is the amount of calories you burn each day to stay alive - as if in a coma. MFP then adds your daily activity level - chores around the house, what you do for work, etc - this does NOT include purposeful exercise. These two numbers together give you your maintenance cals (this number can be seen under Goals).

MFP then subtracts the amount you chose for your loss goal.

The numbers look like this (me as an example):

BMR 1559
Daily Activity Level: Sedentary adds 391

Maintenance cals = 1950

MFP deficit = 500

My daily cal goal = 1460

I typically exercise 300-400 cals per day, 6 days per week. On those days, I gain another 300-400 cals, because I have burned over and above my BMR + Daily Activity Level. If I don't replace them, I make my deficit larger than 500.

If I am 500 under my daily cal goal, I have just made my deficit 1000 per day, which would mean I would be attempting 2 lb loss per week (not gonna happen).

It IS simple math - and because MFP creates a built in deficit, there are usually very simple explanations for weight gain when eating exercise cals (if there is not an underlying medical issue).
1. Intake is not accurate
2. Burns are not accurate
3. Settings (daily activity level or loss per week goal) are incorrect
4. The person was in starvation mode and the body is adapting, and once the metabolism increases again, you will begin to lose again.

Most often, it's one of the first 3. But starvation mode happens.

For some VERY small people, the 1200 rule does not apply, and they may do fine on a slightly lower intake. 1200 is the number determined by WHO as a minimum for the average woman to receive adequate nutrition (it's 1500 for men). If you aren't average, it isn't necessarily appropriate for you. There are a few people outside the curve. But the vast majority cannot receive adequate nutrition (macros and micros) on less than 1200.

Because of the lower limit of 1200 on MFP, a small percentage of very small women can have trouble with the numbers. With a very low BMR, you may not be able to get to an appropriate deficit, because of the 1200 limit. In those cases, it may be necessary to eat slightly under goal to reach the deficit needed for weight loss. But this is very rare. If you're one of those cases, then by all means, do what you need to do. But please don't post inaccurate information regarding how MFP calculations work.

If the part about the BMR/calorie goal were true, MFP would have set my goal to around 1000. When I first set up my account, I set it to "sedentary", and have left it there, even though I am more active now since I've lost 30 pounds. The site sets my calorie goal to MATCH my BMR, currently 1350. I had to go in and edit it to 1200, because it wouldn't let me set it any lower. IMO, eating back the exercise calories is pointless if you want to lose weight. Why spend all that time and effort exercising if you're just going to eat it back? Eating the exercise calories is only maintaining, NOT losing. And if you're getting good nutrition, & NOT hungry, why eat?

Also, it IS safe to lose 2-3 pounds per week, so the deficit could be up to 1000-1500 per day.

tessjordan88

Both are certified trainers, and have done extensive research on these specific topics from a scientific standpoint, looking at medical studies from reputable sources.

No one has slammed you. Disagreeing with your post, in a very respectful manner, is hardly slamming you.

The way it was worded came off as snooty and offensive to me, i.e. "slamming". Sorry if I took it the wrong way.

ladyhawk00

The math is NOT correct. You are not understanding the meaning of BMR, or how MFP calculates cal goals. BMR is the amount of calories you burn each day to stay alive - as if in a coma. MFP then adds your daily activity level - chores around the house, what you do for work, etc - this does NOT include purposeful exercise. These two numbers together give you your maintenance cals (this number can be seen under Goals).

MFP then subtracts the amount you chose for your loss goal.

The numbers look like this (me as an example):

BMR 1559
Daily Activity Level: Sedentary adds 391

Maintenance cals = 1950

MFP deficit = 500

My daily cal goal = 1460

I typically exercise 300-400 cals per day, 6 days per week. On those days, I gain another 300-400 cals, because I have burned over and above my BMR + Daily Activity Level. If I don't replace them, I make my deficit larger than 500.

If I am 500 under my daily cal goal, I have just made my deficit 1000 per day, which would mean I would be attempting 2 lb loss per week (not gonna happen).

It IS simple math - and because MFP creates a built in deficit, there are usually very simple explanations for weight gain when eating exercise cals (if there is not an underlying medical issue).
1. Intake is not accurate
2. Burns are not accurate
3. Settings (daily activity level or loss per week goal) are incorrect
4. The person was in starvation mode and the body is adapting, and once the metabolism increases again, you will begin to lose again.

Most often, it's one of the first 3. But starvation mode happens.

For some VERY small people, the 1200 rule does not apply, and they may do fine on a slightly lower intake. 1200 is the number determined by WHO as a minimum for the average woman to receive adequate nutrition (it's 1500 for men). If you aren't average, it isn't necessarily appropriate for you. There are a few people outside the curve. But the vast majority cannot receive adequate nutrition (macros and micros) on less than 1200.

Because of the lower limit of 1200 on MFP, a small percentage of very small women can have trouble with the numbers. With a very low BMR, you may not be able to get to an appropriate deficit, because of the 1200 limit. In those cases, it may be necessary to eat slightly under goal to reach the deficit needed for weight loss. But this is very rare. If you're one of those cases, then by all means, do what you need to do. But please don't post inaccurate information regarding how MFP calculations work.

If the part about the BMR/calorie goal were true, MFP would have set my goal to around 1000. The site set my calorie goal to MATCH my BMR, currently 1350. I had to go in and edit it to 1200, because it wouldn't let me set it any lower. IMO, eating back the exercise calories is pointless if you want to lose weight. Why spend all that time and effort exercising if you're just going to eat it back? Eating the exercise calories is only maintaining, NOT losing. And if you're getting good nutrition, & NOT hungry, why eat?

Also, it IS safe to lose 2-3 pounds per week, so the deficit could be up to 1000-1500 per day.

No, MFP will NOT set it to 1000 - that was my point. MFP will never allow a daily cal goal below 1200 - it is the lower limit they have set to match the recommendation from the medical community. So if you try for a loss per week goal that would take it below that, MFP will automatically adjust it. It sounds as though your numbers would be like this:

BMR 1350
Daily Activity Level: +500? (I'm guessing Active?)

Maintenance cals = 1850

1 lb loss per week = Daily cal goal of 1350

Eating back exercise calories simply maintains the deficit YOU chose (or MFP allowed you.) As I said, if you have a very low BMR, you may not get the deficit you want.

For someone with a lot to lose (75 lbs +), yes, 2-3 lbs can be safe. However, for someone with very little to lose, attempting a 2-3 lb loss per week simply won't happen in a healthy manner. The ratio of muscle lost will be high. This typically leads to "skinny fat" - someone within a healthy weight range, but with little muscle mass and therefore no tone or definition. (And to address your PP, it is nearly impossible to build muscle at a caloric deficit. You may lose fat on top of the muscle, allowing for more definition of the muscle, thus making muscles appear "bigger", but actually increasing muscle mass requires a caloric surplus.)

To reiterate, my intention is not to attack you at all. I just don't agree with you, based on my own research here on MFP, my own nutritional education, and a lot of research in scientific journals.

tessjordan88

No, MFP will NOT set it to 1000 - that was my point. MFP will never allow a daily cal goal below 1200 - it is the lower limit they have set to match the recommendation from the medical community. So if you try for a loss per week goal that would take it below that, MFP will automatically adjust it. It sounds as though your numbers would be like this:

BMR 1350
Daily Activity Level: +500? (I'm guessing Active?)

Maintenance cals = 1850

1 lb loss per week = Daily cal goal of 1350

Eating back exercise calories simply maintains the deficit YOU chose (or MFP allowed you.) As I said, if you have a very low BMR, you may not get the deficit you want.

For someone with a lot to lose (75 lbs +), yes, 2-3 lbs can be safe. However, for someone with very little to lose, attempting a 2-3 lb loss per week simply won't happen in a healthy manner. The ratio of muscle lost will be high. This typically leads to "skinny fat" - someone within a healthy weight range, but with little muscle mass and therefore no tone or definition. (And to address your PP, it is nearly impossible to build muscle at a caloric deficit. You may lose fat on top of the muscle, allowing for more definition of the muscle, thus making muscles appear "bigger", but actually increasing muscle mass requires a caloric surplus.)

To reiterate, my intention is not to attack you at all. I just don't agree with you, based on my own research here on MFP, my own nutritional education, and a lot of research in scientific journals.

My activity level may be about 500 calories now, but when I set up my account, I was "extremely" sedentary. I have not changed it in my account. I can't go back and find the exact numbers now, but I know it was a LOT lower than that, like around 200. I also log every activity, whether it's "normal daily activity" or extra exercise. I have tried eating 1350 calories per day, and felt bloated and too full all the time. I often went over on iron, which gave me headaches too. I won't torture myself anymore for something that doesn't even work for me. I am still "overweight" according to my BMI, but steadily approaching the healthy range now since I'm eating less & dropped my goal back down.

I disagree with your statement about "increasing muscle mass requires a caloric surplus". I have been taught that increasing muscle mass requires a PROTEIN surplus.
I also don't think every word in scientific journals is Gospel truth for everybody, especially since everybody is different.

Oh, wow! It's after 3:00am here! I have to get up in a few hours! Off to bed for me!

NoAdditives

Also, if you are eating protein and doing strength training as well as cardio, you can actually BUILD muscle while you are losing fat.

It's difficult to build muscle period and next to impossible while you're eating at a calorie deficit. It takes an excess of calories plus a significant amount of protein to build muscle. When you have a calorie deficit all you will do is gain strength, not actual muscle tissue.

NoAdditives

MFP already figures out a calorie deficit based on your BMR and your average daily activity. For this reason you should be meeting your calorie goal and eating at least half of your exercise calories. If you don't, your calorie deficit will be too large, your body won't get enough nutrition and you really do risk sending your body into starvation mode.

Please do not spread information like this. It isn't correct and if people follow these instructions they will not achieve healthy weight loss.

The math is correct. As far as the rest of your comments, I have to say this... Every body is different. I have tried, after listening to advice from friends, to eat half my exercise calories back. This doesn't work for ME. I keep a careful watch on my nutrition. I AM getting adequate intake on all my nutrients, and I don't feel hungry at the end of the day. Also, "starvation mode" is not common at all. Only a very small percentage of people experience it, and usually just those who only eat around 600 calories a day. People who preach it to me are wasting their breath. I have done my research, and I know what's best for my body. Thank you for your comments.

I know that everyone's body is different. That's great that you have figured out what works for you, but this system won't work for everyone. For a lot of people this caloric deficit will be too big and will result in a slow down of the metabolism and fat storage. Starvation mode isn't uncommon, people can go into it if they are eating more than 1000 calories if their body needs a higher amount of calories. It's not just for people eating 600 calories or less.

And hunger is not always an accurate indicator of what your body needs. Your body adjusts hunger signals based on how much you eat on average. A person can eat 400 net calories a day for months and feel like they're eating enough because they don't feel hunger. And conversely, a person eating 4000 calories a day will feel hungry all the time if they start eating less. Until your body is used to eating the proper amount of food, hunger signals, or a lack thereof, mean nothing.

It's wonderful that you've done enough experimenting to figure out what works best for you, but the advice you have given in this post is neither accurate nor healthy for most people and should be given as anything but anecdotal evidence of what works for you. You have essentially told people that they less they eat the more they'll lose and that simply isn't true.

tessjordan88

Also, if you are eating protein and doing strength training as well as cardio, you can actually BUILD muscle while you are losing fat.

It's difficult to build muscle period and next to impossible while you're eating at a calorie deficit. It takes an excess of calories plus a significant amount of protein to build muscle. When you have a calorie deficit all you will do is gain strength, not actual muscle tissue.

I don't really need to build any more muscle tissue, I just mentioned that for general purposes. I have plenty of muscle mass as it is. I DON'T want to look like a body builder. The muscle I have now is fine, just working on toning it. Gaining strength isn't exactly what I'm after either, although it wouldn't hurt for me to be a LITTLE stronger. All I really want is to take weight and gravitational pressure off my knees and ankle joints.

NoAdditives

Also, if you are eating protein and doing strength training as well as cardio, you can actually BUILD muscle while you are losing fat.

It's difficult to build muscle period and next to impossible while you're eating at a calorie deficit. It takes an excess of calories plus a significant amount of protein to build muscle. When you have a calorie deficit all you will do is gain strength, not actual muscle tissue.

I don't really need to build any more muscle tissue, I just mentioned that for general purposes. I have plenty of muscle mass as it is. I DON'T want to look like a body builder. The muscle I have now is fine, just working on toning it. Gaining strength isn't exactly what I'm after either, although it wouldn't hurt for me to be a LITTLE stronger. All I really want is to take weight and gravitational pressure off my knees and ankle joints.

And I was simply pointing out that your assertion was, for the most part, untrue. I wasn't offering a course of action for you.

Just so you know, women really don't become body builders without the help of serious supplements, legal or otherwise.

MsMouseMouse

I am totally confused. I have only been here doing this for two weeks. In my understanding of things from reading lots of views and opinions of people this is how I see it.. right or wrong. For me to just maintain my present body weight of 185lbs I am to X"s that by 16 (2960) and that is the number of calories I would have to consume each day to stay at that number...If over the week I consume more than 3500 calories I will gain a pound.. If I consume 3500 calories a week I will lose a pound. So for me to go from 2960 to 1200 calories a day that is 1760 calories a day less than it takes to maintain 185, and 1760X7=12,320 so I should lose a little over 2 lbs a week. So if I ate less than the 1200 by not eating my exercise calories, I think I would somewhere along the line get into trouble either by not being able to function very well or starvation mode