An easier way to setup goal calories - eating for who you wi

heybales

This is long because of extra explanation, the actual method is simple, but please read and understand too. This can get you over the dreaded plateau effect too.

So many different methods of setting up goal calories.
MFP suggestions, which may not always be the safest or smartest. (ie net calories below your BMR)
Bringing in outside calculations and just manually adjusting goals.
Eating back exercise calories, or some, or none.
Selecting activity level.
Another method.

Why not just tell MFP the weight you want to end up at, select the activity level you are really at, select weight loss goal of maintenance or no loss, and just eat at the recommended, and don't enter exercise calories?

You would be eating at the level for the person you want to be. Isn't that what you will do eventually?

Because then there would be no tracking available that would show current level and how much to go, or how much lost, ect.

Can you manually adjust the goal calories to accomplish the same thing?

You bet.

Couple of interesting points, in case not known.
BMR, why so many recommend not eating below it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.
If you provide less than BMR in net calories, your body can NOT get this from itself, it will slow it down to require less.

And considering a healthy BMR probably burns more calories than your exercise, perhaps your exercise and normal daily activity, do you really want it slower?

The Harris calculation (gender, age, weight, height) for BMR is pretty accurate for those already in the healthy average range - meaning when you get to goal weight. When you are outside of it, it loses accuracy.
The Katch calculation (weight, bodyfat %) for BMR is more accurate during all times, and doesn't need exact BF% to be within 50 calories of BMR.

So the MFP BMR calc is probably as accurate as you need it - when you are at your goal weight. But probably not right now.

The activity level decision is 4 broad categories which can make it difficult to get right.
But using sedentary and entering all exercise calories could be very off too.
Having a big amount of calories on some days to make up is difficult to eat.

So here is a much simplier method.
1. Calculate your BMR for the weight you want to be.
2. Calculate your activity level with better accuracy and include exercise in that estimate, spread the extra exercise calories across the week, no big surprises each day.
3. Arrive at maintenance calories for the person you will be.
4. Set MFP Goal calories to that level (you can disregard all weight loss goals, ect MFP suggests).
5. Don't worry about entering exercise calories, just type and time for tracking if desired, zero out calories.

1. Use this site for calculating BMR for your goal weight.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

Use the gender, age, height, and goal weight.

2. Enter in your normal sleep, normal desk job, normal walking, normal weight lifting, normal intense exercise time, avg hours per day. This method WILL underestimate the calories you probably actually do, if you work out intensely.

3. There is the maintenance calories you would probably be eating at your goal weight doing that level of activity on avg each day.

4. Now in MFP, My Home - Goals - Change Goals - Custom - Continue - change Net Calories Consumed to that value.
Change your Workouts / Week and Minutes / Workout to what you estimated in your activity level calculation (good to see that goal), change Calories Burned / Week to 0, and click Change Goals.

5. Now when you enter Exercise, just enter activity and time for tracking if desired, but 0 out calories burned. Put in the notes if really desired to know calories. Might be good for spot checks.

You may want to review your Exercise Diary a month down the road to confirm the hours spent match the estimate you gave for activity level, and if it should be updated up or down.

And now your Food Diary Daily Goal Calories will always reflect the same number, no credits for exercise, no big makeups to eat, ect.

And you are eating for the person you will become.

BTW, I tested a bunch of different body types, and only infrequently did the maintenance calories for the person you will become, end up lower than the current BMR, so safe. Only in obese situations, and that is exactly when that is safer.

Otherwise, do you really want to lose 20-30% of your daily calorie burn by lowering your BMR because of under eating?

Hope this helps with simplicity.

annalistic

bump

Looks good - need to read it all. I haven't really lost any weight for 7 months (up/down the same couple of pounds - I'm about ready to swith to maintenance for a bit to give it a break anyway!

loombeav

I do this, minus taking in my actual activity level, I'd rather count my exercise when I do it. I read an article by a women that did this and has successfully kept the weight off, so I figured I'd give it a try. it's been a bit less then a month and I'm still consistently losing.

bevskiwolf

Incredible. I just did this. I was talking to my hubby and I said "in order to maintain 1400 cals when I am at goal, why not eat that now" just last week. And that is exactly what I'm doing. LOL. Great post. Long to explain, but the concept is easy. Eat the numbers you want to be. ♥ Thanks!

xtravisfx

bump to look at later.

rockerbabyy

ive been considering doing this - im just not sure if id be able to eat that much right now. not because im never hungry, but because we dont have that much food in the house >.>
according to that, my BMR would be 1527 at my lowest goal weight (im shooting for 180 for now, maybe as low as 160 depending on how i feel) with 1177 calories from activity, and eating 2704. that would have me netting my goal-weight-bmr, which is about what im doing right now. my MFP set goal is 1520/day +exercise. i never rarely more than 2200 calories a day though..and usually eat around 1700. i AM set to 2lbs a week loss for now, was going to drop it when i had lost a few more pounds.
so now i dunno what i wanna do

shawnuv4

I don't know if I'm just slow or what here. but the calculations here are showing I should eat 2200 cals to maintain at my goal weight and my current activity level but shows me losing only .4 pounds per week if I put in 1800 cals. So am I supposed to consume the BMR cals for my goal weight to consume? Or am I including my activity level as well and just don't worry about what mfp says about it? Thanks

futiledevices

Wouldn't it take a lot longer to lose the weight, though? I tried calculating this for myself on fat2fit radio, and it gave me 1621 calories and that seems like A LOT to me. I couldn't bring myself to eat that much without worrying too much about it. I like this concept, I just wish I knew whether or not it would work for me.

heybales

Incredible. I just did this. I was talking to my hubby and I said "in order to maintain 1400 cals when I am at goal, why not eat that now" just last week. And that is exactly what I'm doing. LOL. Great post. Long to explain, but the concept is easy. Eat the numbers you want to be. ♥ Thanks!

150 lbs maintained with 1400 calories?
That's almost the BMR level, not what you would eat to maintain it probably. Careful dipping too low for BMR slowdown. Especially as you keep making excellent progress.

loombeav

I don't know if I'm just slow or what here. but the calculations here are showing I should eat 2200 cals to maintain at my goal weight and my current activity level but shows me losing only .4 pounds per week if I put in 1800 cals. So am I supposed to consume the BMR cals for my goal weight to consume? Or am I including my activity level as well and just don't worry about what mfp says about it? Thanks

I have my calorie goal set at 1620cals, MFP says that I will lose .2lbs a week and I have lost well over that in the last month I've lost over 4 pounds. But I have my activity level set on sedentary, since I have an office job and I do not count my exercise as "activity level" I generally do eat back most if not all of my exercise calories.

loombeav

Wouldn't it take a lot longer to lose the weight, though? I tried calculating this for myself on fat2fit radio, and it gave me 1621 calories and that seems like A LOT to me. I couldn't bring myself to eat that much without worrying too much about it. I like this concept, I just wish I knew whether or not it would work for me.

It has been proven that the slower you lose the weight the more likely you are to keep it off.

heybales

I don't know if I'm just slow or what here. but the calculations here are showing I should eat 2200 cals to maintain at my goal weight and my current activity level but shows me losing only .4 pounds per week if I put in 1800 cals. So am I supposed to consume the BMR cals for my goal weight to consume? Or am I including my activity level as well and just don't worry about what mfp says about it? Thanks

Eat at your future self maintenance calories, (which is BMR plus total activity), and forget MFP calc.

You have to leave MFP's BMR calc and maintenance calc out of the equation, because they don't know about any exercise calories until you do it.
Whereas the method above is spreading that through the whole week, and not all on the day you do it.

Plus that BMR calc is much more inaccurate if you are not an avg healthy weight already.

funkycamper

Bump

heybales

For those curious about the comment the Harris-Benedict calc for BMR is off, here is quick reference, and you can also read through the 200 page study if desired, very interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation

The equation does not take into account calories burned by existing large amounts of muscle mass, nor does it account for the additional calories provided by excess body fat—so the equation is more effective for individuals at an ideal body weight or close to it.[2]

---

So the calculation is just fine for the future you most likely (unless you are going to be really muscling it up!), but more inaccurate at current you.

annalistic

So, once I do the calculations, I want to put the total calories (BMR +activity) as my calories in MFP? So, in my case, for 133 lbs, (I'm 144 right now) it's bmr 1322 and activity 716 (kind of low, I think), for a total of 2028. 2038 is what I would enter into MFP?

candie33

ok so if I want to be 160....I should plug that into my weight as of current and see what it tells me to log for my calories. My current weight is 194

heybales

So, once I do the calculations, I want to put the total calories (BMR +activity) as my calories in MFP? So, in my case, for 133 lbs, (I'm 144 right now) it's bmr 1322 and activity 716 (kind of low, I think), for a total of 2028. 2038 is what I would enter into MFP?

If you really are not exercising much, that is an honest activity level then. Better to be honest.

And that is correct method.

If you end up exercising more, you can always go adjust those activity level times. Or perhaps you exercise more and need more sleep for recovery. Correct it, and the goal calories.

And ignore MFP's estimate of weight loss, because they are still calculating off their maintenance calorie estimate, and no inclusion of exercise.

AbsolutelyAnnie

This is completely on target with my thinking. Thanks for the tips and instructions for calculating.

keiraev

I have just switched things around in this way- I changed my activity levels to "active" which gives me 1800 calories. I still log my exercise but I just eat the 1800 whether I exercise or not.

I am maintaining and trying to build muscle so I have slightly different goals to weightloss- but I initially thought I would gain a bit from doing it but I have actually made a small loss since I started doing it. My body seems to love more food!

firesoforion

I like this a lot. Bumping to finish reading and figuring out later.

Has anyone tried this method and had success?

KellyBurton1

Bump:drinker: