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

heybales

Hi, your system seems sensible to me, it's basically what my Mum and Dad always told me - the best way to lose weight is eat sensibly (i.e. a bit less but not too little) and move more. MFP tells me to reach my goal I can only consume 1200 calories a day, but I aways felt that was too low and usually eat at least 1400, occassionally more and very occassionally I eat at maintenance for my current weight. Would you say that was also a good way to keep the metabolism up by not constantly eating low?

Since reading your post I've rejigged my calorie limit. My stats are:
Age: 31
Current Weight: 161 lbs
Goal Weight: 136 lbs (maybe not that low but I'll see how I look/feel when I get closer)
Height: 172cm

The ExRx system tells me that my BMR at goal weight would be 1413 with calories at 2178. I have a desk job but I do walk to work most days which is about 4mph for 1.5hours. Then I often walk a bit after work which is another 35 minutes. I might play tennis or go for a jog weekends, but lately this has been sporadic so I haven't included it and I don't walk as much on the weekends. The rest of my day is made up of resting and very light activity.

I'm not really comfortable eating 2178 a day as to be honest this makes me feel I am overeating. So.... I changed my calorie goal to around 1700 a day which is still over my BMR even at current weight, and I use my exercise to create most of the calorie defecit. I actually had to hunt out extra things to eat today to reach 1700 which was novel!

Does that seem sensible or should I still be eating more than that?

Keep in mind that this method is exactly to prevent what MFP is willing to do, allow you to set a goal weight loss too aggressive for your BMR. They'll stop you at 1200 for safety reasons, but not your BMR for equal valid aggravation reasons (when weight loss stalls). And so your intentions were right on, and may need to go higher. You don't mention currently eating exercise calories back.

With your excellent level of daily activity, I would not be surprised if that 1700 with the actual exercise taken off ended up well below your BMR not only then, but especially now.

If you lower your BMR by underfeeding it now, you are just missing out on free calorie burn every day, which will stall or take longer to get to then.

So of course you are right on the BMR, but I have a feeling your estimate of activity could just use a tad more work.
Easiest perhaps to add up a typical week of activity and divide by 7.
Rest - 10 hr - Sleep probably consistent. Didn't mention it. But reading/watching TV counts.
Very Light - 5.75 hr - Work 5 days 8 hrs? This would be the balance of time too probably, computer, cooking, ect.
Light - 0.5 hr - few hours house cleaning a week perhaps?
Moderate - 1.15 hr - Walk to work at least 4 days always with extra 30 min? 5th day is spotty? Then don't include it.
Heavy - Jogging is spotting, so leave it out.

I'm hoping others see how this math on daily activity is done.

And I come up with 2092, pretty close to what you have. You may need to adjust what really happens on the weekends/7.

And for that level of activity, I'd bet in actual calorie burn right now, that would easily avg 700 a day on the active days, well below your current BMR, and just touching your future BMR. But your less active days take care of it. Plus the fact this is very nice fat-burning activities, shouldn't be too bad, near your BMR when exercise is included.

So do I think you should really eat at this level? Yes, I think the math bears out you probably are currently eating under your healthy BMR, and missing out on free calorie burn every day.

You can get up to there with just a few snacks a day. If you have been at a lower level for awhile, just add 150-200 cal a day for a week, and the week after add another 150-200, until you are up there at safer level.

Hope this helps.

heybales

me too i dont feel comfortable eating 1900 cal.. just seems too high i put in very liitle activity at mine, but it still came up as high?! thought i exercise at least 3 times per week...

Did you take that 3 times a week divided by 7.
If 3hrs a week, that is only 0.5 hrs a day.
Honest about sleep and watching TV time? Total 8 hrs on the weekend easily adds 1 hr to Rest daily.

That could be why it seems high. And you have perhaps the wrong idea of how little you should eat. Look through my posts on this topic regarding what lowered BMR is causing you to miss out on. If that happens.

deksgrl

My current calorie goal is 1,600 and I burn about 225 a day in exercise. I tend to not eat back the exercise calories. By your method, I should be eating a little over 1,800, which would be the same as I am doing now but also eating back my exercise calories. If the scale is still stuck next week, I will start eating my exercise cals and see if that makes the difference.

Erika_Ecka

Bump

heybales

Can someone help me?
age 53
cw 170
goal weight 140
5'4"
9 resting
13 very light
2 light

You already got it all figured out.
Just to confirm, you are like walking the dog or going out for a walk 2 hrs every single day?

I show 1829 maintenance at future you.

Now, I'm betting you did enter that, not only current, but also future body, and wondering how 180 cal difference will do much.
Remember, if you are accurate with activity levels and times, it already underestimates calories burned.

So to make you feel more comfortable with that 1829 daily eating, that 2hr light exercise, if indeed a dog walk at 3mph, would probably burn more than 500 for you at current weight. So in essence, that leaves your net at 1329, which is right around your current BMR also. And if you miss a day, or go longer a day, or slightly slower than 3mph - no problem.

But no exercise credits to deal with. If you have a slightly bigger workout day, no more food to eat, just looking at 1 daily value.

But that also means if you are not honest with your real exercise level and time, you will be pushing below your current BMR, and most likely lose that free calorie burn if done consistently.

luvmybaby333

Saving....

heybales

I am terrified of doing this!! I want to, but Im scared its goin to set me way way back:frown:

Read through all the posts on this topic, and the topic about "Another way to setup MFP" and you'll see comment after comment of folks toeing the line as correctly as they thought they shoudl be, that have stalled.
You'll also find a very decent sized group that purposely eat below their BMR and exercise and don't eat calories back that also stall eventually. Or they chase the declining BMR always trying to undercut it for a few more weeks of weight loss before needing to do it again.

Or you can follow the advice of many that have seen that happen and increased calories, and it works. Opposite of thinking.

This method is encouragement to NOT get in that boat in the first place. You cannot win overall. Oh, in theory and in some practice, you could lose all the weight if not much to lose, but you can never seem to ever eat more again, because your body is ready to just pack the weight on.

So question is, if you have underfed your BMR and it is now lower, do you want to chase that spiraling down BMR, and most likely have eventual weight gain down the road and blame your motivation for not sticking to a very restricted diet?
Or are you willing to MAYBE have an increase now, and then continue to tackle it correctly and soar to new heights of strong BMR and muscle building and eating properly and well?

How was that imagery - spiraling down, soaring? I should figure out a way to include eagles and vultures in the description!

heybales

My current calorie goal is 1,600 and I burn about 225 a day in exercise. I tend to not eat back the exercise calories. By your method, I should be eating a little over 1,800, which would be the same as I am doing now but also eating back my exercise calories. If the scale is still stuck next week, I will start eating my exercise cals and see if that makes the difference.

You probably aren't that far off your net being around your BMR perhaps then, so it's working for you, probably be on the safer side if you did eat back all accurately calculated exercise calories.

This method just makes it easier on daily basis for what to eat, no exercise credits, nor exact exercise calculations.

And your scale may not be stuck next week. You may indeed lose unless it's stopped already.

If your goal loss was too aggressive and MFP took away not only all the maintenance calories but just past the BMR a little bit, you likely won't have a problem unless your real BMR is much higher than estimated. Than you'll be lowering it.

But if regular exercise causes you to constantly net below by a decent 200-400 calories, it'll slow down to compensate.
Now, it'll take a few weeks, plus or minus depending on how quick your metabolism is at adjusting. So during that time you will indeed lose. It's what comes next is the problem. Keep cutting and exercising more?

You can check your suggested activity level calories that MFP thinks right now, and if the goal you selected (all on the same page) is 200 or more than those activity calories, that means you are dipping below your BMR very much, add in exercise, you are just compounding the problem.

heybales

Can someone confirm mine ?
LOL I just wrapped my mind around MFP, and now trying to figure this out...seems like a lot of calories to me.
MFP says I should eat 1200,(at sedentary), but I feel that is too low and I'm starving!! So I bumped it up to 1400 which is better, although I usually go over 1400 each day anyways.

Female,
33 years old, (CW 169)
GW 145
5'7" (67 in.)
8 resting, 14 very light, 2 light
1439 BMR 600 Activity = 2039 calories per day ??? This is what I should eat now as if I am at my future goal weight of 145 lbs?

So see what happened there, your current daily goal is under even your future BMR, let alone your BMR now. include exercise calories you may or may not be currently eating back, you should be hungry.

This also probably means your metabolism has not lowered. If your body was getting by with less energy needs, you wouldn't be hungry. And then you would shortly stall most likely.

So good for you, caught in time.

And you are dead on for the calculation - provided:

Really 2 hrs every day of Light exercise? Walking dog? OK.
Did you include TV/book reading time under Resting? Include those extra hours on the days off, avg throughout the week.

Do you actually having a few real exercise days in there, gym class, DVD, treadmill, elliptical, StairMaster, etc?
If you do it at intense level and make yourself sweat, that should be Heavy or Moderate if like walking speed is known.

If you are still surprised by perhaps the even higher maintenance calories, read the last few posts from me, and I comment on the fact the exercise calories is already slightly underestimated on there, and if you did a quick spot check with known exercise calories, you'd see you are most likely down near your current BMR, hopefully slightly above.

slimmerchick

If your metabolism has been underfed for awhile, it will be lower than it's potential.
You will likely see a gain if you just jump into a healthy range.
Try adding a snack of 150-200 cal per day for about a week (Zone or Balance bar before exercise). Then do that again the next week (or increase the size of a couple of meals). Take exercise down to just decent walking for the first two weeks, many days as you like. The the third week add in the last bit of calories, and normal exercise routine again.

Anorexic is a self-image problem first usually, with desired weight loss the solution. Some may never have actually been overweight. But they desire weight loss or thin look, eventually get to the point they don't eat, but it usually starts out lack of required calories, BMR slows down, they still feel they look fat and weight loss stopped, eat less, BMR goes down, muscle is catabolized for energy, weight loss stops again, constant spiral down until it feels like since weight loss stopped and only eating very few calories, last solution must be to stop.

This exact situation can be obtained by eating below BMR, and exercising so much to burn up all calories you eat, not eating your exercise calories in essence. The BMR will slow down, and same possible effects if kept up.
When you hear comments of ones barely able to eat 1000 calories a day, and they exercise 6 days a week for an hour, they have most likely killed their metabolism, and it won't take long to see the sad consequences.
Your body needs fuel, just to be in a coma or sleeping (that is BMR), and if not provided, down it goes.

Plateau's are coming up to the same phenomena usually, at least by those honestly not over eating, but rather undereating, for their current weight and level of activity. You can easily go the same direction, starving yourself when you have 50 lbs to lose, and not losing anymore. Anything eaten over the limit is weight gain because system is so unhealthy.

The other plateau effect is when near the goal weight, and can't drop the last 5 lbs, and you've been eating at a healthy level based on the estimates. At that point, the estimates are probably off, and you decide if food or exercise was too much, and which way to go. Or you find out you've got more muscle than ever imagined, and decide 5 lbs of lean muscle is great!

Thanks heybales, you're great :-)

Cait_Sidhe

Everytime someone posts a new way to figure out your calories I get confused. There are so many conflicting numbers!
My stats:
4'10 1/2" (~59")
~135 lb currently
Goal= ~117 lb. maybe less

BMR for goal weight according to the provided link= 1253

Currently I'm exercising 1.5-3 hours 5 days/week. According to my Polar HRM, I burn 600-1200 calories (usually 800-900) through exercise. The rest of the day I'm pretty sedentary. My job is normally active (ER vet tech), but it's the slow season right now so I mostly play on the computer for most of my 12 hour shift.

I put in 12 hours of rest, 9 hours of very light activity, 1 hour of light activity (walking dog, etc), and 2 hours of moderate activity.

It gave me 1984 calories. Just to clarify, this is what I should eat everyday, including days I don't exercise? Does this seem right for someone as small as me?

Edit to add: I do eat my exercise calories currently. So, basically only 2 days a week I eat the 1350 MFP recommends to lose 0.5 lb/wk. I've been on a plateau since August. A month ago I changed up my exercise and I'm waiting to see any results (haven't yet).

becjerami

Dear Heybales, many thanks for taking the time to respond to so many queries from so many people! It's great to see some truly supportive and sensible advice on here.

I ate around 1750 calories yesterday (up from the usual 1300-1600) and woke up ravenous, so it seems my metabolism is already responding! I also feel generally better, stronger and happier this morning.

I am going to follow your advice and have increased my calorie goal to 2000 per day. I will probably increase this as the Spring arrives and I become even more active.

I am going to fill in my extra calorie requirements with fruit, nuts/seeds, oily fish and the occassional piece of cake. Hooray! At the end of the day, who cares if reaching my goal weight takes a little longer, it's worth it not to have to live a life of deprivation. I am a total foodie so that just wouldn't suit me at all.

Thanks again

heybales

My stats:
4'10 1/2" (~59")
~135 lb currently
Goal= ~117 lb. maybe less

BMR for goal weight according to the provided link= 1253

Currently I'm exercising 1.5-3 hours 5 days/week. According to my Polar HRM, I burn 600-1200 calories (usually 800-900) through exercise. The rest of the day I'm pretty sedentary. My job is normally active (ER vet tech), but it's the slow season right now so I mostly play on the computer for most of my 12 hour shift.

I put in 12 hours of rest, 9 hours of very light activity, 1 hour of light activity (walking dog, etc), and 2 hours of moderate activity.

It gave me 1984 calories. Just to clarify, this is what I should eat everyday, including days I don't exercise? Does this seem right for someone as small as me?

Edit to add: I do eat my exercise calories currently. So, basically only 2 days a week I eat the 1350 MFP recommends to lose 0.5 lb/wk. I've been on a plateau since August. A month ago I changed up my exercise and I'm waiting to see any results (haven't yet).

That is correct, if not actually giving the 2 hr Moderate for that hard workout to Heavy, which is probably more accurate.

So with a Polar HRM you can spot check semi-accurately. 1984 minus the 800 is under your future BMR by only 69, but that may be bad for current weight BMR, which is really what you don't want to go under by much at all.
Hence my suggestion that those hard workouts be put under Heavy. May still be under current BMR, but the non-exercise days will adjust for the balance. And your normal daily activity helps too.

And for those non-exercise days, be honest with TV, movie, or reading time. That is resting basically. Which will take the figure back down, but that's OK.

So you really are eating almost at the same level you were, just everyday now.

I noticed you can save the notes in your Diary Notes, for the day the routine changes enough to warrant updating the levels and times.
But other than that potential, no touchy anything, only entering exercise time/type, calories go down in Notes if desired to record.

SinCity2003

Just marking my spot to come back later.

joclougherty

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.

Can you just check my figures please?

I'm 41 but 42 in April so used 42 for calc. Female
I'm 158lbs and want to be 138lbs (Started at 190 on MFP but have got complacent since before Xmas and stayed the same weight)
I sleep for 8 hours but watch tv for about 2-3 hours
I work 5 days in an office
I have 3 children under 8 years
I run about 20-25 miles per week at approx 11 min miles (4 hours approximately per week)
I do about 2 hours housework per week
I am always active at the weekend, probably walk for an hour/housework for an hour/cooking/playing with kids etc. rarely sit down except when the kids go to bed.

I used:
Rest 10 hours
Very light 13 hours
Light .5
Heavy .5

This gave me at my current weight BMR 1453, exc cals 621 and total cals 2074. At my goal weight of 138 it gave me BMR 1367, exc cals 584 and total cals 1951.

Compared to MFP - if I put in my current weight and click maintain weight, it gives me 2050 cals so very similar, but I have to be on ACTIVE setting to get that much. From my description above would I really be active? I would never have set myself to that on MFP, I was on sedentary at first then changed it to lightly active because I was starving!

My new weight on MFP - gives me 1920 cals to maintain with activity level set at active.

Is this just because MFP activity calculator isn't accurate? What cals per day do you suggest I use? Thanks a lot!!

purplerain011

bump for later reading.

deksgrl

My current calorie goal is 1,600 and I burn about 225 a day in exercise. I tend to not eat back the exercise calories. By your method, I should be eating a little over 1,800, which would be the same as I am doing now but also eating back my exercise calories. If the scale is still stuck next week, I will start eating my exercise cals and see if that makes the difference.

You probably aren't that far off your net being around your BMR perhaps then, so it's working for you, probably be on the safer side if you did eat back all accurately calculated exercise calories.

This method just makes it easier on daily basis for what to eat, no exercise credits, nor exact exercise calculations.

And your scale may not be stuck next week. You may indeed lose unless it's stopped already.

If your goal loss was too aggressive and MFP took away not only all the maintenance calories but just past the BMR a little bit, you likely won't have a problem unless your real BMR is much higher than estimated. Than you'll be lowering it.

But if regular exercise causes you to constantly net below by a decent 200-400 calories, it'll slow down to compensate.
Now, it'll take a few weeks, plus or minus depending on how quick your metabolism is at adjusting. So during that time you will indeed lose. It's what comes next is the problem. Keep cutting and exercising more?

You can check your suggested activity level calories that MFP thinks right now, and if the goal you selected (all on the same page) is 200 or more than those activity calories, that means you are dipping below your BMR very much, add in exercise, you are just compounding the problem.

My BMR (Harris Benedict) is 1427. I have been targeting 1,600 for the past 3 weeks or so. Maybe I just need a little more time there.

joclougherty

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.

Can you just check my figures please?

I'm 41 but 42 in April so used 42 for calc. Female
I'm 158lbs and want to be 138lbs (Started at 190 on MFP but have got complacent since before Xmas and stayed the same weight)
I sleep for 8 hours but watch tv for about 2-3 hours
I work 5 days in an office
I have 3 children under 8 years
I run about 20-25 miles per week at approx 11 min miles (4 hours approximately per week)
I do about 2 hours housework per week
I am always active at the weekend, probably walk for an hour/housework for an hour/cooking/playing with kids etc. rarely sit down except when the kids go to bed.

I used:
Rest 10 hours
Very light 13 hours
Light .5
Heavy .5

This gave me at my current weight BMR 1453, exc cals 621 and total cals 2074. At my goal weight of 138 it gave me BMR 1367, exc cals 584 and total cals 1951.

Compared to MFP - if I put in my current weight and click maintain weight, it gives me 2050 cals so very similar, but I have to be on ACTIVE setting to get that much. From my description above would I really be active? I would never have set myself to that on MFP, I was on sedentary at first then changed it to lightly active because I was starving!

My new weight on MFP - gives me 1920 cals to maintain with activity level set at active.

Is this just because MFP activity calculator isn't accurate? What cals per day do you suggest I use? Thanks a lot!!

Also, when setting up MFP do I put my weight at what it is now or what I want it to be? If I put 158 current and 138 goal weight and set up at maintenance and cals at 1951 (as per the other website) and exercise sedentary it says I will lose minus 0.4 per week, so gain........ do I change activity level to active? If I do that then it says a loss of 0.2 lbs per week.

joclougherty

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.

Can you just check my figures please?

I'm 41 but 42 in April so used 42 for calc. Female
I'm 158lbs and want to be 138lbs (Started at 190 on MFP but have got complacent since before Xmas and stayed the same weight)
I sleep for 8 hours but watch tv for about 2-3 hours
I work 5 days in an office
I have 3 children under 8 years
I run about 20-25 miles per week at approx 11 min miles (4 hours approximately per week)
I do about 2 hours housework per week
I am always active at the weekend, probably walk for an hour/housework for an hour/cooking/playing with kids etc. rarely sit down except when the kids go to bed.

I used:
Rest 10 hours
Very light 13 hours
Light .5
Heavy .5

This gave me at my current weight BMR 1453, exc cals 621 and total cals 2074. At my goal weight of 138 it gave me BMR 1367, exc cals 584 and total cals 1951.

Compared to MFP - if I put in my current weight and click maintain weight, it gives me 2050 cals so very similar, but I have to be on ACTIVE setting to get that much. From my description above would I really be active? I would never have set myself to that on MFP, I was on sedentary at first then changed it to lightly active because I was starving!

My new weight on MFP - gives me 1920 cals to maintain with activity level set at active.

Is this just because MFP activity calculator isn't accurate? What cals per day do you suggest I use? Thanks a lot!!

Also, when setting up MFP do I put my weight at what it is now or what I want it to be? If I put 158 current and 138 goal weight and set up at maintenance and cals at 1951 (as per the other website) and exercise sedentary it says I will lose minus 0.4 per week, so gain........ do I change activity level to active? If I do that then it says a loss of 0.2 lbs per week.

Sorry, another thing! I can't seem to add exercise without adding calories on MFP it just won't do it.

slimmerchick

I just found that, so put 1 against each thing