Fat2Fit radio calculations

thekarens

I've been reading about this a lot on the forums, but would you say eating more calories per Fat2Fit would apply to someone who is morbidly obese as opposed to someone who only needed to lose 20lbs or was maintaining? Seems like the same rules wouldn't apply to everyone, but I really don't know. I'm curious about opinions.

psuLemon

I've been reading about this a lot on the forums, but would you say eating more calories per Fat2Fit would apply to someone who is morbidly obese as opposed to someone who only needed to lose 20lbs or was maintaining? Seems like the same rules wouldn't apply to everyone, but I really don't know. I'm curious about opinions.

Actually you generally have to eat more as morbidly obese people can get more nutritom from their fat stores. This is why 1200 for them isnt as bad as someone with 20 lbs. As you get closer to your weight goal, you have to eat closer to your tdee.

go2grrl

Long before there was an MFP or a Fat2Fit, this was how I was eating. For over ten years I've logged and have averaged around 2300 calories in every day and successfully lost and kept off over 100 pounds. I'm not a fan of dieting and I'd never heard of eating exercise calories until I arrived here about a year ago. But I do know that you have to be consistent with exercise. Very consistent. If I do not get at least five hours in a week (which I feel is still only "moderately active), I will stall and even worse, tiny gains will creep up on me.

I'm ten years older now, menopausal and lost my thyroid gland last summer so I'm just now having to relearn that magic number, but I think it's going to end up being around 2100.

-Cynthia

JayByrd107

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

Birder150

I'm eating 2100 average daily calories. I don't eat exercise calories back at this level.
My loss is 17.2 lbs so far and it has been relatively effortless.

SOOZIE429

How many calories are you burning with this workout?

Between 175-250 calories for a 30ish minute workout. However, I don't eat my exercise calories back because with fat2fit you aren't supposed to eat back exercise calories. So I net between 1600-1700 usually.

What is your BMR? As long as your eating (netting) AT LEAST that number, you should be fine.

Sharonks

Because my exercise level varies and other than that I spend a heck of a lot of time at a desk, I use my BMR on MFP then record my exercise and eat those cals back. My BMR is 1260 and MFP had me at 1200 to lose .4 lb per week. I'm small so I don't burn much (I just use the database) when I exercise but generally end up with a couple hundred or more cals per day of exercise.

According to Fat2Fit I only need to lose about 5.5 lbs (we shall see) so weight loss is very very slow.

MrsRawwwr

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

Very helpful...thanks for the info!

lilsassymom

How many calories are you burning with this workout?

Between 175-250 calories for a 30ish minute workout. However, I don't eat my exercise calories back because with fat2fit you aren't supposed to eat back exercise calories. So I net between 1600-1700 usually.

What is your BMR? As long as your eating (netting) AT LEAST that number, you should be fine.

According to Fat2fit and the Harris Benedict formula it is 1318. However, I notice when I eat that few calories (anything under 1700) I get soooo irritable and cranky. I also have no energy. I think it is my bodys way of telling me I need more food. I don't think anything under 1700 is enough for me. Heck, I think 1800 is still pushing it:noway: .

ImperfektAngel

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

Fat2Fit gives you 5 different levels of calories to eat. You can still do the Sedentary calories given and add in your workout calories after.

gemiwing

I've been reading about this a lot on the forums, but would you say eating more calories per Fat2Fit would apply to someone who is morbidly obese as opposed to someone who only needed to lose 20lbs or was maintaining? Seems like the same rules wouldn't apply to everyone, but I really don't know. I'm curious about opinions.

F2F takes this into account and recommends setting your 'goal' weight at about twenty pounds. Then once you reach that goal- you set yourself up to lose the next twenty pounds. This keeps you from going below your BMR- which yes, even obese people need to stay above. Hope this helps.

hanna6774

According to Fat2fit and the Harris Benedict formula it is 1318. However, I notice when I eat that few calories (anything under 1700) I get soooo irritable and cranky. I also have no energy. I think it is my bodys way of telling me I need more food. I don't think anything under 1700 is enough for me. Heck, I think 1800 is still pushing it:noway: .
[/quote]

Some people on here refer to this condition as "Hangry"! A lot of hungry and a little bit of angry teeheehee! RX: EAT!

Seriously though, go to http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map - lots of great info, will answer a lot of your questions.

sleepytexan

I was searching the forums to find an answer to this exact question so I am bumping it for answers:flowerforyou: .

I am 30 years old and only 5'1. I workout 6 days a week for about 30 minutes each time. So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.
I am scared to eat that and have been eating around 1937 because it says on there "As you get closer to your goal weight, your weight loss will start to slow down. It is OK to eat a few hundred calories less per day (200-300) to speed up your weight loss at this point." So since I am still hoping to lose an additional 5 lbs I subtracted 300 from 2237 and got 1937 calories. I haven't seen many women on MFP eating MORE than 1600-1700 calories. It just seems like 1937 calories to lose weight is a lot.
Also according to that website and the Harris Benedict Formula my BMR is 1318.

These last few lbs are taking f-o-r-e-v-e-r to leave....
Anybody?

hmm, what are you doing for exercise? 30 minutes a day might not be "hard sports/very active".

I am a stay-at-home mom to 3 kids ages 4 and under--so I think that in itself is at least fairly to moderately active. I feel like I am constantly on my feet. As far as exercise goes, currently I am doing Jillian Michaels Body Revolution. Before this I did ChaLean Extreme. So doesn't that sound fairly close to very active (hard exercise 6-7 days a week) right?

I actually don't know those programs; but intensity does make a difference -- your call there.

It's interesting the changes I have experienced since transitioning my workouts to lifitng though; I have found the lifting to be much more strenuous than the all the cardio I used to do.

Until Feb 5, I was doing 8 hours dance a week (I was with a company), 2 hours spin (teaching), 3 hours paddleboarding, and usually a 2.5 hour bike ride on Saturday. On 2/5, however, I had a ski accident and tore the MCL, so in the interim of not being able to dance, road cycle or paddleboard, I started weight training on 3/19. That is when I upped my calories to maintenance and started using TDEE and changed macros to 30% protein, 50 carb, 20 fat. Since I hit 100# on squats and 80# on deadlifts I have been so wiped out Ive had to lower my intensity while teaching spin bc otherwise I would fall off the bike. I am wayyyyy ready for bed too by 830 pm.

My knee is about 95% better (it's been 11 weeks!), so I am about ready to dance again, but at the moment I don't have the energy! I've been paddleboarding, but just 1 hour instead of 3/week. I haven't hit the road cycling yet -- on the one hand I really want to, but I don't see how I will have the stamina until I get to a maintenance point with the lifting and then drop to 2 days.

So anyway, before I started weight lifting, I would have considered myself in the most extremely active category, however, now that I have begun lifting, I find that 3 hours per week lifting plus 3 hours cardio is kicking my *kitten* much more than my old 13.5 hours cardio ever did.

jj3120

Yes I am eating at my fat2fit goal weight maintainence!

I'm into my third week now. My main reason for doing this is to keep my calories at an even level - I would be hungry on non-workout days when I was eating at 1800 cals and eating back exercise calories. Prior to this I was at 1430 cals : (

37yrs
5' 0"
CW 150 lbs
bmr - 1263
Eating - 1958 (moderately active)

2 days cardio (60 mins zumba)
3 days body weight routine (squats, push ups etc)

sleepytexan

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

You're right it is not universal, and people often overestimate their exercise while underestimating their food intake. Thiis is why you could instead choose to eat at BMR plus exercise calories for a loss.

Once you have a consistent activity level you can judge from there. You can spot check by comparing your TDEE number with (BMR + exercise calories) over a week's time and see how it compares. In general, however, MFP estimates are low, and fit2fat calcs are very accurate for people who truly choose their levels honestly.

I'm not sure your multiplier is completely accurate; 1200 6 times a week seems unlikely for most non-professional athletes. Also, you cannot go flat with a burn assumption, bc the lower someone's body fat, the higher their BMR and resting burn will be, compared with another person of identical body weight but higher body fat%. Two people can weigh the same, but one of them has, say 30% body fat, while the other has 21% -- that person with the lower body fat can eat more without gaining.

This is why you can find a 125# girl with low BF% who lifts heavy and can eat 2500 - 3000 cals just to maintain, while another 125# girl who does primarily cardio and has average BF% eats 1600 to maintain. Or take another 125# girl who doesn't work out at all, and regularly starves herself on 1200 cals a day -- if she chronically underfeeds trying to lose, each time she has an extra donut she's going to gain, even if she only ate 1400 that day, AND every bit she gains will be pure fat, increasing her BF% each time.

For me, switching to 3 hours weight training (appx 750 burn) + 3 hours cardio (appx 1500 burn) is proving much more strenuous than the 13.5 hours cardio alone that I used to do (appx 6750 burn). The fact that my body fat percentage is decreasing contributes to my ability AND NEED to eat more (high protein) calories in order to keep training and maintain.

sleepytexan

How many calories are you burning with this workout?

Between 175-250 calories for a 30ish minute workout. However, I don't eat my exercise calories back because with fat2fit you aren't supposed to eat back exercise calories. So I net between 1600-1700 usually.

What is your BMR? As long as your eating (netting) AT LEAST that number, you should be fine.

According to Fat2fit and the Harris Benedict formula it is 1318. However, I notice when I eat that few calories (anything under 1700) I get soooo irritable and cranky. I also have no energy. I think it is my bodys way of telling me I need more food. I don't think anything under 1700 is enough for me. Heck, I think 1800 is still pushing it:noway: .

Anwhere between TDEE (maintenance) and BMR should keep you successfully losing without compromising your metabolism. Yes, 1200 calories is foolish, and leads to failure.

eden2004

So Fit2Fat says that for my goal weight with a sedentary lifestyle, I should be at 1760. Should I eat 1760 daily and then when I exercise, eat those too? I'm at a plateau at 1480 and wondering if I'm not eating enough (I do eat back my exercise calories, but usually not all.)

JayByrd107

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

Fat2Fit gives you 5 different levels of calories to eat. You can still do the Sedentary calories given and add in your workout calories after.

I know that - it gives you 5 rather vague levels of activity but without providing you numbers to base your selection on. That was my issue I stated in my post.

L00py_T0ucan

bump

mmklinemm

bump!

Smuterella

Is there a Fat2Fit group?

I just started at 1800 following kind advice from Psulemon (thanks again!)

Brandicaloriecountess

I was just playing around on this site yesterday. This is what it gave me....

I would say I am moderately active as I do have a desk job, but I workout about an hour a day x 6 days. I am not a high calorie burner though, I average about 300-450 per workout. That tells me to eat about 2124, I am not eating near that much currently.


Activity Level Daily Calories
Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) 1644
Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 1884
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) 2124
Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) 2363
Extremely Active (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.) 2603

Celeigh12

I am! I was losing the same pound over and over when eating between 1200-1400 cals a day and not eating exercise calories. I ran my numbers on Fat2Fit and upped my calories to 1637 plus I eat my exercise calories, so I get about 1700-2100 a day. I upped my calories part of that way in March, gained a few back but waited it out, and went up all the way on 4/1. I've lost 11 pounds so far in April after almost none in March. So I'm a believer! I don't expect to lose that fast for long (and if I did, I think I'd up my cals more), but it was a nice sign that I made a good change for myself.

It is so counter to what I was taught since I started trying to lose weight 25 years ago. I thought it was supposed to be unpleasant with tasteless fat free food and that I was supposed to be hungry - that was how I knew it was working, right? It was punishment for getting fat! But that's bull. You don't have to suffer.

JayByrd107

So according to Fat2fit I am Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) and I should be eating 2237 at my goal weight (114 lbs) for maintenance.

I'm skeptical about programs that set caloric intake based on the number of times a week you exercise and the guage for activity level. I've come across a few of these and I question their accuracy. Based on the number of workouts per week and not taking into account duration or exertion, this could be way off for a lot of people. One person could do 30 minutes a day 6x a week and another could do 120 minutes a day 6x a week and they could both consider themselves very active and they would get the same calculations. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I took the time once to plug one of these "activity level/#of workouts a week" type calculators into a spreadsheet to get the margin for each step. Based on the multiplier, I calculated the number of calories required above BMR at sedentary and each step above that. I also calculated the number of calories required to meet each activity level > than sedentary (which I use as my baseline). What I found is that at the 1.375 multiplier (lightly active) I have to burn 450 calories 5 times a week to meet the lowest level. Extremely active requires 1,200 calories 6 times a week above sedentary. Anyway, putting it into numbers helped me get a more accurate idea of where I'm at. I would consider myself at the very least Moderately active, if not Very active, but apparently I'm only Lightly active. Knowing this has prevented me from going too high and eating too much. Something to think about.

You're right it is not universal, and people often overestimate their exercise while underestimating their food intake. Thiis is why you could instead choose to eat at BMR plus exercise calories for a loss.

Once you have a consistent activity level you can judge from there. You can spot check by comparing your TDEE number with (BMR + exercise calories) over a week's time and see how it compares. In general, however, MFP estimates are low, and fit2fat calcs are very accurate for people who truly choose their levels honestly.

I'm not sure your multiplier is completely accurate; 1200 6 times a week seems unlikely for most non-professional athletes. Also, you cannot go flat with a burn assumption, bc the lower someone's body fat, the higher their BMR and resting burn will be, compared with another person of identical body weight but higher body fat%. Two people can weigh the same, but one of them has, say 30% body fat, while the other has 21% -- that person with the lower body fat can eat more without gaining.

This is why you can find a 125# girl with low BF% who lifts heavy and can eat 2500 - 3000 cals just to maintain, while another 125# girl who does primarily cardio and has average BF% eats 1600 to maintain. Or take another 125# girl who doesn't work out at all, and regularly starves herself on 1200 cals a day -- if she chronically underfeeds trying to lose, each time she has an extra donut she's going to gain, even if she only ate 1400 that day, AND every bit she gains will be pure fat, increasing her BF% each time.

For me, switching to 3 hours weight training (appx 750 burn) + 3 hours cardio (appx 1500 burn) is proving much more strenuous than the 13.5 hours cardio alone that I used to do (appx 6750 burn). The fact that my body fat percentage is decreasing contributes to my ability AND NEED to eat more (high protein) calories in order to keep training and maintain.

The numbers I threw out were ones that I've calculated in a spreadsheet tailored to me and my stats, which include H, W, BF% and some other factors. The Fat2fit levels don't state a multiplier amount like some of the other activity level plans do. The one I based my assumptions off of suggests the following increases above BMR (I think it's from the Insanity plan):
Sedentary: + 20%
Lightly Active: + 37.5%
Moderately Active: + 55%
Very Active: +72.5%
Extremely Active: 90%

So, for me to hit the Extremely Active level and go and eat 190% of my calories I have to exercise to the point that I'm burning an extra 8,550 per week on top of my sedentary burn. That comes out to 1,425 per session if I go 6 days a week. I know I'm not that but I was surprised that even with the hard, but short workouts I do I'm still only "lightly" active. Putting it into numbers took away the ambiguity in the categories for me.

jenschnack

My question is about how long will it take me to get to my goal if I eat my Fat2fit? I want to lose 13 more lbs. Fat2fit says my bmr is 1454 and sedentary is 1676.

Celeigh12

My question is about how long will it take me to get to my goal if I eat my Fat2fit? I want to lose 13 more lbs. Fat2fit says my bmr is 1454 and sedentary is 1676.

Their main point is that you shouldn't focus on how long it should take. As long as you are living and eating like the thinner person you want to be, it will eventually even out.

Ilovedrinkingtea

If you want a flat figure for cals per day then Fat 2 Fit is probably great, but like another poster said you need to be consistent with your exercise. I think adding 200-300 to your katch mc ardle BMR figure and eating back the exercise cals might be a good starting point. This is what I am trying to start on the advice of Helloitsdan.

xx

lilsassymom

Thanks for all the info. I appreciate it:bigsmile: .

amsparky

Bump

sazroy

Just done the calculations. My BF% is 45.1% (chubba chubba) my BMR is 1313. So if I'm on a 1200 cal plan.. this is definitely bad yes? So how many calories should I consume? How do I know if I'm netting below when I don't know how many calories I burn at work etc? Help me out a little please!