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

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

KaySera

bump! been fighting with my last 5lbs for the past 2months

mocorbin

Bump

slimmerchick

I've started eating more (had lovely beans on toast for lunch with an egg on top) at least 200 calories more than my usual lunch of salad and now at 5.30 pm my tummy is rumbling - is that normal?

Pkiddy

bump... need to be able to read when i can understand it all.

jsokolow3

Bump

jutymo

bump

concealedpearl

Interesting, will definitely give it a try.

MacMadame

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

I've never seen any proof of that. What studies have you read that show this?

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.

This is completely not true. All dieting will cause your metabolism to slow down eventually. There is no magic number of calories you can stay under and not see this effect. The longer you diet and the greater your calorie deficit, the bigger the slow down but everyone experiences a slow down especially once they lose around 10-20 pounds and have been dieting for more than a few weeks.

That said, I agree that people with 30 pounds or less to lose should just eat the way they plan to eat for the rest of their life at the weight they want to be. It's the most sustainable way to lose weight because it teaches you how to eat and doesn't have you doing special things that you aren't willing to do forever -- like eating very low calorie and never having treats.

However, people who are obese generally need to lose weight faster both for health reasons and because losing weight faster is more motivating (according to a recent study). They are also less likely to burn muscles instead of fat when eating at large deficits.

korygilliam

Bump to read later--thanks

beancurdie

bump

cptkerowyn

bump

Venus2011

bump

thanks

becjerami

I've started eating more (had lovely beans on toast for lunch with an egg on top) at least 200 calories more than my usual lunch of salad and now at 5.30 pm my tummy is rumbling - is that normal?

I'm not an expert but I'd guess that is completely normal. I suppose because you are eating more you've increased your metabolism and therefore more likely to feel hungry. I am doing the same thing with the same result - hungrier! But I think it's a good sign and hopefully will settle down after a few days. I've often noticed that if I go out for dinner and eat more than normal I find myself really hungry at breakfast, whereas when I'm not eating much I feel hungry for the first few days and then it settles down, I suppose because my metabolism drops. I think the eating more method is a good thing in so many ways - the trick is not to let the new hunger encourage you to completely stuff your face over your new calorie limit!

slimmerchick

Thank you becjerami - I'm trying to be diligent with my diary and keep to my new calories so I can really test this out - it was just so weird how hungry I felt after such a substantial lunch! I'm pleased it's not just me. I remember that feeling in the morning following a big meal the night before but I always put that down to having stretched my stomach!

DiyyahBloom

Im so excited to try something new, i haven't lost wait in a couple months. At this point i will try anything!!!

NewTeena

i'm another bumper, need to read this several times to fully understand it

heybales

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.

Taking this in reverse order. Oh, excellent job already on loss!

Correct on the exercise calories. I thought I tested that out, you have to enter the big 1 calorie for it to record.

So that you can still use the loss tracker, always keep track of your current weight. In fact, when you Check-in you can manually add other items to check, like the hrs you put at the different activity levels.
But you can forget MFP's other automatic calculations now - they will be off.
Because even if you set a high activity level so maintenance calories is the same, and set to maintain weight, they will be subtracting your daily calorie goal, which now contains activity in it already. So those calcs should come close to 0.
I also think when you mess with that area, it resets your Daily Goals, I only tried once and it pissed me off after already changing a bunch of stuff. Maybe it was using their BMR calc that did it.

This method is exactly because 4 broad levels seems to scare most folks from using anything but sedentary, and then you must record your exercise calories, hopefully accurately. Well, that is the way it suggests actually. But how close is just 4 levels, as you proved to yourself was scary.
Plus, MFP is more than willing to take your too aggressive goal and push you a little or a lot under your BMR it calculated. Which is not good for long term weight loss.

You didn't mention height, but I backed into 5'7" it appears, and you did a very honest evaluation, and got the math right too for weekly hrs divided by 7. You have a very nice regular probably sustainable routine.

Using this method, you got the correct future maintenance calories of 1951, to record as your MFP manually entered Goal calories.
Which you are probably thinking looks scary high, and not far below current maintenance estimate.
True.
But that site underestimates calorie burned for activities, plus you put in true Rest time, not BMR x 1.2 for everything.
So I wouldn't be surprised if those runs burn 600-800 calories easy in reality.
So on those days, net is now 1351 on low side, plus take out all the other activity you really do. You are likely under your future and current BMR by just a small amount, hopefully small if you were honest with levels and times.
But a couple other days you'll safely be above it for recovery.

So you are never riding the line below your hopeful healthy BMR, allowing it to burn as much as it can.
And this calorie cycling, above and below BMR keeps it from settling way down for many people. So much so I've seen the calorie cycling goals. Not sure how that works easily on MFP.

Now the only thing you have to change is your Current weight whenever.
Your goal calories stay the same.
You don't record exercise calories (well, 1), just time and activity, to confirm you are hitting your exercise goals you used.
And you don't have to change the goal calories until such time as the routine really changes.
Any little sessions of exercise thrown in every few weeks won't be bad effect.

And when you get closer to goal weight, you'll find out if the estimated BMR figure was below or above your real healthy BMR figure. If estimate is above real, you'll stall a few lbs out. If below, you'll keep losing. Since a healthy BMR then, you can adjust safely to finish it off.

heybales

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.

This is completely not true. All dieting will cause your metabolism to slow down eventually. There is no magic number of calories you can stay under and not see this effect. The longer you diet and the greater your calorie deficit, the bigger the slow down but everyone experiences a slow down especially once they lose around 10-20 pounds and have been dieting for more than a few weeks.

Which part not true, that your BMR will not slow down, or you can't get that energy for BMR from the body itself, or if you provide less than the BMR? I'm thinking the last by your comments.

At the start of dieting your metabolism will slow down a tad, as you comment the amount depends on the level of constant deficit, it takes a bit to respond, so for awhile your BMR is high, you are eating lower than maintenance calorie and BMR by a little or lot. What comes next sets the stage for how it's going to keep going.
As you verify, the BMR does lower, because it cannot get the energy needs from itself. Part of the BMR is actually feeding the muscle and fat, and moving water around through all the cells.

There is a magic number you can stay under to not cause the BMR to lower permanently. Allowing it to pop back up to where it was once it recovers from constant shock. The amount you undercut it, as you state, determines the amount of drop. Not seen any study that nailed how long it takes. That seems to be genetic, or perhaps depending on how screwed up your metabolism is already, the observed yo-yo dieting syndrome.

What is the magic number - Your normal daily non-exercise activity calories.

Those type of activities that are mainly fat burning. If you don't feed that activity, it was already pulling from fat energy probably 60% of the calories needed. At that slow level, 39% glucose, rest muscle.
You next meal just slightly over BMR will easily top off the glucose stores for the next stretch, provide some protein for repair, and some fat for immediate energy use along with excess carbs/protein.
So not feeding that activity is not that bad.

Sadly most people only have 300-500 of that type of activity.

But not feeding your BMR is bad. So if it drops 200 calories worth of daily burning. Is that good or bad when your non-exercise daily activity only had 300-500? About 50%.
And lets say you exercise on avg 500 calories a day. That 200 is almost half of your exercise, free burning all day long, every day.

Now lets really throw a monkey wrench in and not feed that exercise. If diet alone dropped you 200 below, and now exercise unfed drops you another 500, the BMR is now making out with 700 less calories than what it could be burning. And if you keep that routine up long enough, you will lose some at first for a while, but how long until the BMR drops again for what you are constantly feeding it?

700 calories a day lost compared to what it was burning at a healthy level. 4900 calories a week not being burned. 1.4 lbs a week.
And since your exercise is just taking away from your body the calories for life, you aren't really burning that weight off after the BMR lowers.

So you can keep jack-knifing that routine. Lower, lose, lower, lose, lower, lose, stall, motivation failed, eat a tad normal, big gain, aggravation, disappointment, failure, try again.

Ugh.

Sorry about the spiel in return to your post, it was definitely not about your post. Just read a bunch of other topics where all these misconstrued ideas just don't cause some to wake up. One poster said she was now eating 1000 daily and burned 200-300 and no eat-back, and had stopped losing about 3 weeks ago. Several follow up posters said you need to exercise more or cut a tad more out.

Why not accomplish the same thing with as healthy a BMR as possible for as long as possible.

heybales

I have to put a correction in.

I thought the MFP site used the same Harris-Benedict calculation most other sites and http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html uses, but I was wrong.

Perhaps it was from the start, perhaps the changed, but I was curious in many posts where the BMR value was just slightly off by a few calories. I thought mistype was all.

MFP uses the Mifflin calculation, which has been figured to be about 5% more accurate than the Harris method.

So I'd suggest that when you get close to goal weight, if you seem to stall, use the MFP calculation for BMR, and ExRx for daily activity, and adjust the goal.

Another item for figuring out those times to go in the activity levels.

Really is easiest to add up the weeks activity and then divide by 7.
Hours of course can be decimals for better accuracy, but when figuring it out, decimal days is valid too.
I've been doing a few of these and wanted to throw out I thought easy method to calculate it.
Hrs for the activity x days done, add in others of the same level. Divide by 7.

Say you literally exercise every other day for a 90 min walk at 4mph, so the days change every other week. But that is 3.5 days a week.
Moderate = 1.5 hrs x 3.5 days = 5.25 weekly / 7 = 0.75 daily.

Same goes if you always do 2 long endurance cardio's a month. But that is 0.5 days a week.
Heavy = 3 hrs x 0.5 days = 1.5 / 7 = 0.2 daily.

Just wanted to show it's pretty easy to get pretty accurate. And if one of those long cardio's is cut to an hour. No big deal spread over 2 weeks.

I'd suggest starting with placing the easy items first, throwing any remaining time under Very Light. This order seems easiest to me.
The site already mentions some job types that fall in levels.

Resting - sleeping, watching TV and movies, reading. And have to add in the weekend difference. CSI marathon junkie on Sat?

Heavy - specific workout classes, DVD's, spin bike, treadmill, elliptical, biking, running, things harder than walking 4mph.

Moderate - Weight training (circuit is fast paced for Heavy probably), walking fast for exercise.

Light - walking to/from parking to work, perhaps regular time during lunch, with kids, some jobs. House chores, stores.

Very Light - Work and commute. Doing MFP, games, poker night, and any unused hours end up here. So basically the rest first.

SteveTries

Interesting reading and the way you expain your hypothesis does seem logical. I would like to throw out a couple of challenges and see how they fare if I may.

I'd particularly like to focus on the assertion that your body can not recover stored calories to use for BMR functions of maintaining your organs etc.

Lets use some round numbers to make it easy.

My maintenance level caloric need is 2500 and my BMR is 2200 and I embark on a caloric intake of 1800 over the course of say, 1 month.

Following your theory the maximum fatloss I can expect per day is 300 calories worth (the difference between maintenance and BMR). By going 600 below maintenance I am depriving my BMR by 400 and my body is now under resourced for maintaining my internal organs by c. 20% since it cannot recover that defecit from my fat stores.

So when I dilligently record my progress over that 1 month I should expect to see a total fat loss equivalent to 300 cals multiplied by the number of days. So 300cals X 30 days is 9000 cals total. There are 3500 cals in a pound of fat so 2.6 pounds is the maximum I can expect.

As I would have been depriving my BMR of 20% of it's fuel for a month I should probably also expect to be feeling a little under the weather I imagine.


So I have actually been doing the above and those figures I used aren't far off my own. The only variations are that I take one day off dieting where I eat maintenance level or above and I'm actually exercising a bit more and not eating back those calories. However my observed weight loss is 11.5 pounds. I follow a low-moderate carb regime and I know from my off-diet days (and past experience) that this type of diet causes me to drop up to 4 pounds of water. But that still leaves me with 7.5 pounds of genuine weight loss. Almost 3 times the amount I would expect following your hypothesis (if I have understood you correctly).

I also feel very healthy, haven't been unwell during that period, have plenty of energy and are sleeping well.

Clearly one persons experiences do not make scientific fact, but I'd be interested in your thoughts of how my observations challenge your hypothesis, or not.

Thanks.