WHY AM I NOT LOSING??? :(

devins13

Again, it's simple math.

I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then

Sadly, you're right. The math behind it is very simple. What you seem to fail to realize is that our bodies aren't mathematical formulas, we can't simply plug in a few variables and get the results we need. Please don't misunderstand, im double majoring in math and science and I can say i honestly LOVE math. But the body isn't just simple math, which is why math students arent required to take biology and why as a doctor you don't technically need more than first year calculus.... the body doesnt work as simple math. Its complex and ever changing, and there are far too many variables out there for it to ever be considered simple.

Also, simple math = encouragement of eating disorders. Its simple math, so this way of thinking should be completely fine, right?

It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.

devins13

Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?

I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986

From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.

Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.

Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best

armaretta

It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.

Unless you start removing limbs and internal organs, you can't ever come close to eliminating or "normalizing" all the variables involve in weight loss. Add in water retention, hormones/thyroid or glandular issues, and stress on top of everything else the human body does, it is NEVER going to be that simple. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any overweight people.

jacksonpt

Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?

I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986

From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.

Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.

Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best

So how many should people eat back? If maintenance for me is 2300cal per day, and I want to lose 2lbs per week, that puts my daily goal at 1300. Then I go for a bike ride and burn 1000cal. How many should I eat back?

devins13

It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.

Unless you start removing limbs and internal organs, you can't ever come close to eliminating or "normalizing" all the variables involve in weight loss. Add in water retention, hormones/thyroid or glandular issues, and stress on top of everything else the human body does, it is NEVER going to be that simple. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any overweight people.

Statements like that only help to strengthen my argument. Intentional weight gain is just as simple for most of us - but without all the mental drama.

SarabellPlus3

Nevermind, I don't have time this afternoon, and I think I confused the person I quoted for someone else. I'd delete if I could, but for now "nevermind" will have to suffice.

devins13

Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?

I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986

From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.

Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.

Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best

So how many should people eat back? If maintenance for me is 2300cal per day, and I want to lose 2lbs per week, that puts my daily goal at 1300. Then I go for a bike ride and burn 1000cal. How many should I eat back?

If you're hell bent on maxing out at 2 lbs per week, then by all means, throw down another 1000 calories. I'm not saying that you can't eat some of your calories back. Let your body tell you. The scenario you outlined is basically my average day. Do I stick with my 1300 calorie limit? Not usually. I usually eat around 1500 calories per day and burn an additional 800 through exercise. This is all anecdotal and should be interpreted as such. My point is, find out what works for you - don't let MFP dictate your life. You're not going to slip into a coma if your net calories aren't 1300 each and every damn day. I typically enjoy exercise, and I know I would be disgusted with myself if I ate back the 800 extra calories I burn a day. Talk about defeating...

jacksonpt

Earlier you said that eating back exercise calories was BS. Now you're saying do what works for you? Which is it?

The OP isn't eating back her calories and it isn't working for her, so now what? Are you trying to argue with me/us, or trying to help the OP?

Furthermore, very few people would say a regular diet of 600cal (net) per day is a good idea. While I agree that you should find out what works for you, I'm responsible enough to NOT run around blindly suggesting the things that work for me.

devins13

Earlier you said that eating back exercise calories was BS. Now you're saying do what works for you? Which is it?

The OP isn't eating back her calories and it isn't working for her, so now what? Are you trying to argue with me/us, or trying to help the OP?

Furthermore, very few people would say a regular diet of 600cal (net) per day is a good idea. While I agree that you should find out what works for you, I'm responsible enough to NOT run around blindly suggesting the things that work for me.

I said that eating back ALL your exercise calories was BS. And, just for the record, I think eating back any significant portion of exercise calories is ridiculous if your primary goal is weight loss. You're not going to convince me that an increase in net calories, any way you choose to spin it, is somehow going to lead to an increase in weight loss - not in the reality I live in. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I just don't believe anyone who claims that this is indeed the case. There's no scientific basis for it. We can argue all day about what a healthy deficit is, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm saying is that it's stupid to go and do a bunch of exercise with the goal of losing weight, and then eat it all back just because MFP says you should. Yeah, exercise has many more benefits than just losing weight. But I'd venture to guess that the primary drive of most MFP users is to lose weight. Eating back exercise calories is just plain sabotage to weight loss.

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser on television? Do you think those people are eating back all their exercise calories? Do those deficits qualify as "extreme"? Give me a freaking break. Of course the "experts" don't advocate such aggressive weight loss programs. It's not that the human body can't physically handle the stress. It's just that the average physically lazy and overweight person isn't mentally tough enough to stick with it. Our primitive ancestors survived on a much more limited and less diverse diet than what we have, and they were a lot more active to boot. We've gone soft. Like I said earlier, people just need to harden the *kitten* up and stop obsessing about so-called unhealthy deficits.

Don't waste your time exercising (unless you actually enjoy it) if you're just planning on eating those calories back. I'm out.

Jeff92se

If your calories is already set for 1-2lb loss per week, then I see no reason to eat back your calories? The weight loss is built into the calorie allotment.

I exercise to gain enough to meet my goal. It's really hard to eat only 1600 or so. But if I work out, I can typically have an allotment over 2,000 and still be in my losing range. ie.. eat 1900 or 1800 calories or so.

I work out for many reasons. Calories is just one of the many

ArroganceInStep

Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best

At no point did I state that there's a magic calorie number that you have to stay over no matter what, in fact in other posts I stated quite the opposite. Determining what the certain amount of energy for your body's vital processes is required is the part of this equation that's tricky. That is also not a finite number either. If only netting 200 calories a day will result in death, netting 201 calories a day isn't going to leave you healthy as an ox either. The larger the deficit, the more damage will be done. Finding a deficit that still results in weight loss but doesn't harm you is what's important. And I'm not going to keep talking about the size of the deficit, that's been my stance from the beginning, just because you don't want to emphasize it anymore doesn't change my point.

The entire argument posed here is that you should be eating back your calories to avoid creating too large a deficit. Exercise is useful for more than just burning calories. If you're already eating enough such that the exercise you do does not put you into a dangerously high disparity then by all means, continue not eating. If, however, it does, you should strongly consider increasing calories.

You say you eat 700 calories a day net and feel good. I would bet money on one or more of these three things:
A) You're underestimating your caloric intake
You're overestimating your caloric expenditure
C) You're a very tiny person (in which case I'm pretty sure B would still be a factor)

For Biggest Loser, people with significantly higher body fat percentages can handle larger caloric deficits before experiencing adverse effects. They were also monitored heavily by doctors to ensure safety. So yeah, by all means, toughen up and push yourself harder...when you have a slew of doctors monitoring you to make sure you don't die.

An increase in net calories that still maintains a healthy deficit will result in improved body function and performance. This will better equip the person to continue on with their diet.

You're explanation of primitive peoples doing it totally makes you one of those 'experts', infallible evidence right there. Ancient societies never had ANY problems with malnourished people and widespread starvation.

I love how you assume I'm soft because I'm siding with a more healthy and moderate approach to dieting.

Enjoy your workouts, I'd be interested to see how you're doing in 10 years.

jskaggs1971

OP, I'm no expert, but let me tell you what's been working for me:

I eat when I'm hungry, and I don't when I'm not. I'm not trying to be glib about that. For me, I'm trying to learn to listen to my body's cues, and eat if I'm hungry, while being mindful of not interpreting "I'm bored" as "I'm hungry"

This has played into my workouts (and some of them are fairly intense -- cycling HARD for an hour, for example) in the following way: On workout days, if I'm hungry, I eat. I don't try to force myself to "eat back" all the calories MFP says I'm burning, but if I'm hungry and under my net calorie goals for the day, I eat something.

On non-workout days, I try to do the same thing, although if I'm at or near my net calories, I'll pass on food and stay hungry for a while. Black coffee is my hunger-killer.

What I find is that on days where I work out fairly hard, I'm generally not hungry enough to eat back ALL the calories MFP says I burned, provided I eat when I'm hungry and mindful of what I actually put into me . On rest days, I find things are pretty close, although I may have to stave off a bout of the munchies between dinner and bedtime. The way I see it, I can't rely 100% on the "calories burned" number anyhow, since I'm not wearing a heart rate monitor. I try really hard not to over-think it, but it's tough sometimes.

Oh, and hurray for ruggers (@rtalencar85). I played lock on my college club for a couple of seasons.

ArroganceInStep

Oh, and hurray for ruggers (@rtalencar85). I played lock on my college club for a couple of seasons.

Tight head prop here, you guys made me look a heckuva lot stronger in the scrum than I actually was

jskaggs1971

Tight head prop here, you guys made me look a heckuva lot stronger in the scrum than I actually was

Yeah, but I bet you had a neck like a tree trunk. At 6'5", I was more useful for lineouts than in the scrum, but I sure learned how to push hard.

itontae

Earlier you said that eating back exercise calories was BS. Now you're saying do what works for you? Which is it?

The OP isn't eating back her calories and it isn't working for her, so now what? Are you trying to argue with me/us, or trying to help the OP?

Furthermore, very few people would say a regular diet of 600cal (net) per day is a good idea. While I agree that you should find out what works for you, I'm responsible enough to NOT run around blindly suggesting the things that work for me.

I said that eating back ALL your exercise calories was BS. And, just for the record, I think eating back any significant portion of exercise calories is ridiculous if your primary goal is weight loss. You're not going to convince me that an increase in net calories, any way you choose to spin it, is somehow going to lead to an increase in weight loss - not in the reality I live in. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I just don't believe anyone who claims that this is indeed the case. There's no scientific basis for it. We can argue all day about what a healthy deficit is, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm saying is that it's stupid to go and do a bunch of exercise with the goal of losing weight, and then eat it all back just because MFP says you should. Yeah, exercise has many more benefits than just losing weight. But I'd venture to guess that the primary drive of most MFP users is to lose weight. Eating back exercise calories is just plain sabotage to weight loss.

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser on television? Do you think those people are eating back all their exercise calories? Do those deficits qualify as "extreme"? Give me a freaking break. Of course the "experts" don't advocate such aggressive weight loss programs. It's not that the human body can't physically handle the stress. It's just that the average physically lazy and overweight person isn't mentally tough enough to stick with it. Our primitive ancestors survived on a much more limited and less diverse diet than what we have, and they were a lot more active to boot. We've gone soft. Like I said earlier, people just need to harden the *kitten* up and stop obsessing about so-called unhealthy deficits.

Don't waste your time exercising (unless you actually enjoy it) if you're just planning on eating those calories back. I'm out.

Brilliantly put. Please stick around

oaken

I said that eating back ALL your exercise calories was BS. And, just for the record, I think eating back any significant portion of exercise calories is ridiculous if your primary goal is weight loss. You're not going to convince me that an increase in net calories, any way you choose to spin it, is somehow going to lead to an increase in weight loss - not in the reality I live in. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I just don't believe anyone who claims that this is indeed the case. There's no scientific basis for it. We can argue all day about what a healthy deficit is, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm saying is that it's stupid to go and do a bunch of exercise with the goal of losing weight, and then eat it all back just because MFP says you should. Yeah, exercise has many more benefits than just losing weight. But I'd venture to guess that the primary drive of most MFP users is to lose weight. Eating back exercise calories is just plain sabotage to weight loss.

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser on television? Do you think those people are eating back all their exercise calories? Do those deficits qualify as "extreme"? Give me a freaking break. Of course the "experts" don't advocate such aggressive weight loss programs. It's not that the human body can't physically handle the stress. It's just that the average physically lazy and overweight person isn't mentally tough enough to stick with it. Our primitive ancestors survived on a much more limited and less diverse diet than what we have, and they were a lot more active to boot. We've gone soft. Like I said earlier, people just need to harden the *kitten* up and stop obsessing about so-called unhealthy deficits.

Don't waste your time exercising (unless you actually enjoy it) if you're just planning on eating those calories back. I'm out.

Agreed. With reference to the Biggest Loser, Jillian Michaels is my God. She's the one who I quoted "Calories in, Calories out. Weight loss is simple math. Losing weight is simple, it is not easy." I just listened to her podcast in which she said it again. So it didn't come from me. Anyone wanna call Jillian and tell her she's wrong? Anyone wanna call her and tell her how mathematicians don't have to take biology courses because it isn't simple math? Lame

Also, I've only been on these message boards for a few days, and I can tell you honestly I absolutely HATE the bashing that goes around. Are you people here to help & motivate others or are you simply here to boast your egos around and bash others?

It's SICKENING. Educating others is not about tearing them down in the process. Learn how to get your points across without insulting someone.

devins13

Hey rtalencar85,

I use MFP only to track my calorie intake. MFP is severely flawed when it comes to everything else. I created a spreadsheet that does the real heavy lifting.

First of all, I use the Harris Benedict Equation to calculate my BMR requirements based on TODAY's weight - not my weight six weeks ago. Why can't MFP incorporate this simple concept into their program? I then log my daily calorie intake as calculated by MFP. My exercise calories are calculated using the calculators at healthstatus.com, which seem to be a bit more conservative and more in line with reality. Although, most of MFP's exercise calculations are not that far off. I arrive at my daily deficit by subtracting intake calories from the Harris Benedict basal calculation and then adding calories burned. I apply this deficit (as a ratio to 3500 calories) to today's weight in order to predict my weight tomorrow morning. I take it a step further by incorporating a simple numerical factor into the basal calculation. I tweak this factor once a week in order to make my predicted weight loss match my actual weight loss. In essence, I've customized the Harris Benedict formula to almost exactly match my real world results. The more data I log, the more accurate and precise my predicted weight becomes and any inaccuracies in my calorie intake or exercise calculations are automatically normalized. It works perfectly.

I only took the time to post all that because I wanted to point out that all of your assumptions are wrong. I am very analytical with my calculations - even going so far as to back calculate and adjust for error, as laid out above. Does MFP do that? And I don't consider myself a "tiny" person. I'm a 5'11 male and I weighed in at 179 lbs this morning. Down from 200 lbs on Labor Day. And I feel better than ever at my "dangerously high" caloric deficit. And I certainly couldn't go knock out a 10 mile run at a respectable pace 6 weeks ago. I guess any day now I'm due to collapse into a broken pile of skin and bones? Again, this is all anecdotal so take it for what it's worth - or don't, because it's not relevant to you. Just please stop making assumptions about me.

And you are absolutely right that people with significantly higher body fat percentages can handle larger deficits. That's 95 percent of the people here.

summalovaable

I said that eating back ALL your exercise calories was BS. And, just for the record, I think eating back any significant portion of exercise calories is ridiculous if your primary goal is weight loss. You're not going to convince me that an increase in net calories, any way you choose to spin it, is somehow going to lead to an increase in weight loss - not in the reality I live in. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I just don't believe anyone who claims that this is indeed the case. There's no scientific basis for it. We can argue all day about what a healthy deficit is, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm saying is that it's stupid to go and do a bunch of exercise with the goal of losing weight, and then eat it all back just because MFP says you should. Yeah, exercise has many more benefits than just losing weight. But I'd venture to guess that the primary drive of most MFP users is to lose weight. Eating back exercise calories is just plain sabotage to weight loss.

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser on television? Do you think those people are eating back all their exercise calories? Do those deficits qualify as "extreme"? Give me a freaking break. Of course the "experts" don't advocate such aggressive weight loss programs. It's not that the human body can't physically handle the stress. It's just that the average physically lazy and overweight person isn't mentally tough enough to stick with it. Our primitive ancestors survived on a much more limited and less diverse diet than what we have, and they were a lot more active to boot. We've gone soft. Like I said earlier, people just need to harden the *kitten* up and stop obsessing about so-called unhealthy deficits.

Don't waste your time exercising (unless you actually enjoy it) if you're just planning on eating those calories back. I'm out.

Agreed. With reference to the Biggest Loser, Jillian Michaels is my God. She's the one who I quoted "Calories in, Calories out. Weight loss is simple math. Losing weight is simple, it is not easy." I just listened to her podcast in which she said it again. So it didn't come from me. Anyone wanna call Jillian and tell her she's wrong? Anyone wanna call her and tell her how mathematicians don't have to take biology courses because it isn't simple math? Lame

Also, I've only been on these message boards for a few days, and I can tell you honestly I absolutely HATE the bashing that goes around. Are you people here to help & motivate others or are you simply here to boast your egos around and bash others?

It's SICKENING. Educating others is not about tearing them down in the process. Learn how to get your points across without insulting someone.

I would, but I got lost in the hypocrisy of your post. Perhaps it`s the fact that my points are so 'lame'.But regardless of how lame my points are i do feel the need to clarify: there are biological conditions which inhibit weight loss. You might want to look some of them up, because in that case calories in vs calories out only plays a very small portion of any weight loss/gain. Perhaps what I should have better worded was: why do you think someone with a major in math wont be working as a nutritionist. I shouldnt even have to say it, it should be completely obvious. And I can see that you have lost 7 lbs( congrats, its a wonderful feeling!!) but unfortunately very few people 'plateau' this early in the game (im assuming youve started recently based on your minimal weight loss and lack of time spent in the forums, so correct me if im wrong). Weight loss doesnt have to be COMPLICATED that doesnt mean its SIMPLE math.

And what I've learned in the two or so years I've used this site, the forums are nasty. If you want encouragement you add some friends and compliment them there! Or head over to blog section....


And with alll that , I've completely forgotten the OPs original points...

ArroganceInStep

Hey rtalencar85,

I use MFP only to track my calorie intake. MFP is severely flawed when it comes to everything else. I created a spreadsheet that does the real heavy lifting.

First of all, I use the Harris Benedict Equation to calculate my BMR requirements based on TODAY's weight - not my weight six weeks ago. Why can't MFP incorporate this simple concept into their program? I then log my daily calorie intake as calculated by MFP. My exercise calories are calculated using the calculators at healthstatus.com, which seem to be a bit more conservative and more in line with reality. Although, most of MFP's exercise calculations are not that far off. I arrive at my daily deficit by subtracting intake calories from the Harris Benedict basal calculation and then adding calories burned. I apply this deficit (as a ratio to 3500 calories) to today's weight in order to predict my weight tomorrow morning. I take it a step further by incorporating a simple numerical factor into the basal calculation. I tweak this factor once a week in order to make my predicted weight loss match my actual weight loss. In essence, I've customized the Harris Benedict formula to almost exactly match my real world results. The more data I log, the more accurate and precise my predicted weight becomes and any inaccuracies in my calorie intake or exercise calculations are automatically normalized. It works perfectly.

I only took the time to post all that because I wanted to point out that all of your assumptions are wrong. I am very analytical with my calculations - even going so far as to back calculate and adjust for error, as laid out above. Does MFP do that? And I don't consider myself a "tiny" person. I'm a 5'11 male and I weighed in at 179 lbs this morning. Down from 200 lbs on Labor Day. And I feel better than ever at my "dangerously high" caloric deficit. And I certainly couldn't go knock out a 10 mile run at a respectable pace 6 weeks ago. I guess any day now I'm due to collapse into a broken pile of skin and bones? Again, this is all anecdotal so take it for what it's worth - or don't, because it's not relevant to you. Just please stop making assumptions about me.

And you are absolutely right that people with significantly higher body fat percentages can handle larger deficits. That's 95 percent of the people here.

Apologies, I went home, so only checking this now. First of all, I went to this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

For the formula, I guessed your age to be 30 because I don't know it, but given that you have a BMR of 1878.87. Even assuming you're sedentary, that puts your daily needs according to the method you use at 2255. Your BMR at 200 lbs using the same calculation was 2412. I'm going to cheat a bit and take the mean, so I am assuming constant weight loss. That puts a very rough estimate of your BMR over this period at 2333. According to your previous post, you net approximately 700 calories a day. There's 65 days between September 5th and November 8th. That brings your total deficit to 106145, or 30.33 pounds. You have lost 21 pounds. It's simple math as you say, you shouldn't have to tweak such simple math with a numerical factor to account for results 33% lower than expected (it's actually much worse than that, if you're burning 800 calories a day that puts you at very active, which would change the total deficit to 172,575 or 49.31 pounds). The fact of the matter is, you are likely over estimating your exercise and/or under estimating your caloric intake (people are NOTORIOUSLY bad at accurately logging caloric intake), which puts you closer to a healthier range. Alternatively, you listed one of your more extreme days when your average is much more moderate...that is just as bad. The fact is if you are truly on such an extreme diet and you can bang out a 10k at a respectable pace good for you, if you were eating more moderately and supplying your body with everything it needs your performance would be even better. Your weight loss might not be as drastic, but it would be healthier and you would lose less LBM.

Weight loss is easy...stop eating. My primary point when making suggestions is to promote weight loss that also encourages overall health and is more likely to be permanent loss than just a yo-yo. That is...I don't know...maybe because I have some experience with extreme weight loss.

If your argument had been from the beginning that MFP has a bad method estimating caloric requirements, or that the entries for exercise are a gross overestimate, or that larger deficits are fine for larger people (but at a certain point become dangerous) that would have been fine. I took issue with the blanket statement that eating back your exercise calories was BS. That was why I tried to be careful to note that it was extreme deficits that were unhealthy, not that deficits were unhealthy.

I'll admit, I was making assumptions about you. My general assumption was that 700 calories a day net was unhealthy for all but the most extreme cases (massive obesity or extremely low daily caloric needs, ie being REALLY small). My assumption about you was that you were incorrectly estimating one or more aspects of your diet/fitness routine and/or only listing one of your more extreme days and posing it as the norm. That is a disservice to anyone reading this. I doubt you're going to be able to change my mind about this, just like I imagine you're not going to change your opinion about me being 'soft', but in the event that I am wrong about you I apologize.

The OP, like many people on here, is only looking to lose 20 pounds. That's a very reasonable amount of weight. Saying 95% is just pulling a number out of the air and disingenuous.

stemen2011

That is a great way to look at it! Just what I needed to read this morning. Thank You