1200 cal and 1640 cal?

kmhamilton6

From my goal at one pound per week and excer. 1 hour each say M-F, it tells me that my NET is 1640. But I keep reading on post that people are doing 1200 regardless of what thier NET cals are...

what is the best?

I am having trouble eating at my NET carbs and 1200 would be better for me to eat. At the end of the day, I am fishing for things to eat to meet my NET cal and I am not even hungry!

someone?

oh yeah, i weight 192= GW: 145

Rae6503

People are dumb. Do what MFP tells you (but it's kind of dumb too). I aim for 1750 net.

jacksonpt

Agreed.

People are dumb, and generally only hear what they want to hear. MFP bases it's number a little to average for my liking, but it's a good estimate most of the time... listen to it. I'm at 1650 net.

Babrao

Why don't you change it to 2 pounds per week? or 1.5? Are you eating back all of your exercise calories? Unless you are close to goal weight, I only recommend eating back up to 1/3.

Ironbeak88

I eat 100 calories under my goal so I have a deficit, but I don't make my metabolism slow down...You could probably cut a little more if you want, just keep your metabolism hot

Rae6503

Oh and add more food earlier in the day so you aren't stuffing yourself in the evening.

AggieCass09

go with the higher number...i've been eating far too little for too long and it has caused my metabolism to hault meaning no weight loss

stephyy4632

like the person above I try to eat most of my exercise cals but I do leave 100-200 sometimes alittle more if I exercised alot. I eat prob 75-80% of them back though
some people don`t eat any of them others eat every single one its just what works for you and your body

jacksonpt

for those of you who are not eating back all of your exercise calories in order to have a calorie deficit... do you realize that, assuming you told MFP that you wanted to lose weight, the site calculates your calorie goal BASED on an intended deficit? So by not eating back those calories you are INCREASING your daily deficit, not CREATING one? In most cases it's probably not a huge deal, but if you are "creating" a big deficit on a regular basis you could be doing more harm than good.

mistylovesmusic

Eating to few calories to start will leave you no place to cut when you get closer to goal. What I did was set myself a 1400 calorie goal at 170, then dropped it to 1400 at 160, then to 1300 at 150. I will never go below 1200 but at least it gives me some place to cut if/when I plateau. I don't eat up my exercise calories but do tap into them when I want to splurge. If I'm planning a night out, I exercise to save up some calories.

Good luck!

cjheath

I am confused by this also. My BMR calories to maintain my current weight is around 1,900 calories. As of right now I am sedentary (hopefully can change that soon!) and for a 2lb a week weight loss it suggests that I eat around 1,400 calories a day. This is week one and it has been way easier then I thought it would be. I am having no trouble meeting the 1,400 calorie goal and I guess it just seems to easy?

I did lose around 6lbs very quickly but I was assuming that is water weight. Can I really expect to lose 2lbs a week if I stick to MFP suggested or should I eat under?

nokittyno

I found this great article about calories and such, helped me out. it goes against MFP's but is very accurate, IMO.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981

I found my formula to be something around(I don't know my BF% so it is a guesstimate)

My ex is:
2/Mifflin-St Jeor: Developed in the 1990s and more realistic in todays settings. It still doesn't take into consideration the differences as a consequence of high BF%. Thus, once again, it OVERESTIMATES NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERWEIGHT.

WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161 (FORMULA)
9.99 x 66.22(145lb) = 661 + 6.25 x 170.68(5.6’’)=1,066.75-4.92 x 23(113.16)-161 = 1,454(.12) (MY FORMULA RESULTS)

(You then multiply these by an 'activity variable' to give TEE. This Activity Factor[/u] is the cost of living and it is BASED ON MORE THAN JUST YOUR TRAINING. It also includes work/lifestyle, sport & a TEF of ~15% (an average mixed diet). Average activity variables are:
1.2 = Sedentary (Little or no exercise + desk job)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Little daily activity & light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately active daily life & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
etcetcetc

SO,
#2MiffinStJeorxActivity Factor=
1,452 x 1.2 = 1,744.95

To ADD weight: ADD 10-20% calories to the total above
- To LOSE weight: SUBTRACT 10-20% calories from the total above
Then monitor your results and adjust as required.

#2MiffinStJeorxActivity Factor=
1,452 x 1.2 = 1,744.95
1,744 x 10% =(174.495) 1,570(.455)


Now it looks retarded confusing,Seriously, but it isn't, ..lol. I'm a Math failure and I managed to figure it out. I just had to use google to convert kg=lbs and feet-cm, as I'm Canadian.. lol. But you can use that as a basis and cater it to your needs, and make it right and accurate for you.

BUT, READ the link and give it a go.

graysmom2005

for those of you who are not eating back all of your exercise calories in order to have a calorie deficit... do you realize that, assuming you told MFP that you wanted to lose weight, the site calculates your calorie goal BASED on an intended deficit? So by not eating back those calories you are INCREASING your daily deficit, not CREATING one? In most cases it's probably not a huge deal, but if you are "creating" a big deficit on a regular basis you could be doing more harm than good.

Jacksonpt, LOL at your "goals". Hahahaha!

dubbz22

I am not an expert. Would changing your exercise intensity create the hunger to eat more? Burning 400 calories in 30 mins vs 1 hour tends to increase my hunger