In place of a road map!
Options
Replies
-
This is soooooo confusing. I can accept the confusion though because I am usually one to overthink things instead of just reading what the boxes say at the bottom. I also tend to get caught up in other posts and then my brain starts to hurt O_O
I have to keep looking at the top of the page of my Fat 2 Fit Radio Custom BMR Calculation to remind myself that the tool IS taking into account that I eventually want to weigh 135 lbs. I'm just going to throw it out there....it DOES NOT feel comfortable to know that with the calculations telling me that on the 4-5 days a week i'm moderately active (crossfit, jogging and weight training) I will need to eat 2065 calories, and 1598 on the days I have little or no exercise. I'm only saying this so I can get it out into the open so maybe my fear will dispel a little.
I'm eating 1300-1400 a day now. I train in the AM. By the time I get to work I AM TIRED. I don't want to do much and get a little irritated when asked to get up and participate in moving stuff, or carrying equipment (i'm in IT so it's usually computers, monitors, etc). I have also been one to stick to a super strict clean low calorie, high protein, lose a few pounds, then blow it all, carb it up and abandon the eating/workout plan for 3-4-5-6 months, come back and go through the entire cycle. AGAIN.
I'm going to try this way and trust the process. I'm tired of yo-yo'ing and stopping/starting over and over again. I really want a lifestyle change, something that I can stick with and not feel like i am just waiting for the next "blowout" lol
thanks for this post, and i'm so glad i found this site!
Melissa0 -
This is soooooo confusing. I can accept the confusion though because I am usually one to overthink things instead of just reading what the boxes say at the bottom. I also tend to get caught up in other posts and then my brain starts to hurt O_O
I have to keep looking at the top of the page of my Fat 2 Fit Radio Custom BMR Calculation to remind myself that the tool IS taking into account that I eventually want to weigh 135 lbs. I'm just going to throw it out there....it DOES NOT feel comfortable to know that with the calculations telling me that on the 4-5 days a week i'm moderately active (crossfit, jogging and weight training) I will need to eat 2065 calories, and 1598 on the days I have little or no exercise. I'm only saying this so I can get it out into the open so maybe my fear will dispel a little.
I'm eating 1300-1400 a day now. I train in the AM. By the time I get to work I AM TIRED. I don't want to do much and get a little irritated when asked to get up and participate in moving stuff, or carrying equipment (i'm in IT so it's usually computers, monitors, etc). I have also been one to stick to a super strict clean low calorie, high protein, lose a few pounds, then blow it all, carb it up and abandon the eating/workout plan for 3-4-5-6 months, come back and go through the entire cycle. AGAIN.
I'm going to try this way and trust the process. I'm tired of yo-yo'ing and stopping/starting over and over again. I really want a lifestyle change, something that I can stick with and not feel like i am just waiting for the next "blowout" lol
thanks for this post, and i'm so glad i found this site!
Melissa
Not wanting to confuse your more - but the table gives you what you should eat every day (it averages out your activity level). So just pick the activity that most suits you and the calories next to that is what you should be eating on average.0 -
bump0
-
This isn't in place of a road map - it IS my road map.
I am not trying to get to my destination by taking the fast lane and all the risks associated with trying to get there too quickly, I am happy to take the safer scenic road, and arrive at my destination happy and healthy.
youve lost what....3% body fat eating about 1600 daily with 1 or 2 spike days of 3k in 5 weeks?
Amirite?
Yep - you are correct.
I'm a very happy bunny.
This is a typical loss in my group BTW.
For those who are in the higher body fat% you can lose even more if you are smart about what you eat and how you rest. Working out is a secondary thing.
Its all about eating and getting the proper sleep.
People who successfully diet down quickly are those who are working out 305 times a week with 2 full rest days and get 6-9 hours sleep.
Calories are high and carbs are premium fuel.
I'm not sure if I measured wrong the first time, but I've just been working out my fat% and rather than just look at the fat, I also worked out the lbm too.
When I started my BF% was approx 49% which gave me 92.61lb of fat, 96.31lb of Lbm
When I measured last Friday, my BF was 43.6% which gave me 75.8lb of fat , and 98.02lb of lbm.
I know it's only 1.71lb, but is it possible for my lbm to have increased?
I haven't been doing any heavy lifting, just bodyweight exercises. Squats, lunges, crunches burpees,planks, pushups ( I could just about manage a single push up when I started, I can knock out 15+ with no problem now) etc.
if it is really a lbm gain, my total weight loss is 15.2lb, but my total fat loss is 16.83lb.0 -
Great info!!0
-
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?0 -
bump0
-
This isn't in place of a road map - it IS my road map.
I am not trying to get to my destination by taking the fast lane and all the risks associated with trying to get there too quickly, I am happy to take the safer scenic road, and arrive at my destination happy and healthy.
youve lost what....3% body fat eating about 1600 daily with 1 or 2 spike days of 3k in 5 weeks?
Amirite?
Yep - you are correct.
I'm a very happy bunny.
This is a typical loss in my group BTW.
For those who are in the higher body fat% you can lose even more if you are smart about what you eat and how you rest. Working out is a secondary thing.
Its all about eating and getting the proper sleep.
People who successfully diet down quickly are those who are working out 305 times a week with 2 full rest days and get 6-9 hours sleep.
Calories are high and carbs are premium fuel.
I wanted to comment on the "rest/sleep" part of this post. I've always heard if you want to lose weight you better make sure you are getting enough sleep. This is so true! Your body has to have some kind of energy store to keep it awake...it's either going to be rest or food. So if you want to eat right and lose weight, make sure you are getting enough sleep! I didn't get enough sleep last night (5 hours) and I've been hungry all day (like I can't eat enough to keep my body going hungry). Sorry if this didn't make sense...I'm really tired/hungry and I can't think straight when I don't get enough sleep
0 -
bump0
-
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
It really depends on your preference. I do it the way you suggested, but some people really do not like to log their calories - they like to eat a consistent amount each day.
Not sure if there is some 'biology/science' reason for doing it that way either - I am sure others will weigh in if there are.0 -
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.0 -
bump0
-
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.
I'm a little confused by your response. All I was saying was go to the link in the original post, find your BMR, and instead of going by the chart for how much you exercise, just use the number they give for sedentary, and then log your exercise as extra because on MFP if you put in the number next to "moderate exercise," and then log your exercise, it's adding more calories than you need.
Again, not quite sure what the connection is between my post and your response, maybe just a misunderstanding/miscommunication?0 -
bump0
-
Bump0
-
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.
I'm a little confused by your response. All I was saying was go to the link in the original post, find your BMR, and instead of going by the chart for how much you exercise, just use the number they give for sedentary, and then log your exercise as extra because on MFP if you put in the number next to "moderate exercise," and then log your exercise, it's adding more calories than you need.
Again, not quite sure what the connection is between my post and your response, maybe just a misunderstanding/miscommunication?
This is what I've always done. I know I'm by no means sedentary but I wanted to make sure I wasn't "double counting" the calories I eat back. I'm not sure if its correct or not. If someone has insight?
I guess I still NET the sedentary number (1400-1450)... but on workout days I can easily be eating 2050 cals or so...?0 -
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.
I'm a little confused by your response. All I was saying was go to the link in the original post, find your BMR, and instead of going by the chart for how much you exercise, just use the number they give for sedentary, and then log your exercise as extra because on MFP if you put in the number next to "moderate exercise," and then log your exercise, it's adding more calories than you need.
Again, not quite sure what the connection is between my post and your response, maybe just a misunderstanding/miscommunication?
Sorry, I thought you meant to use MFP sedentary numbers and log exercise cals, rather than the BMR number from the link.
What you suggested is what I'm currently doing. I think that works for people with a HRM, but if they don't then it might be easier to go the other way.0 -
Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.
Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.
I'm a little confused by your response. All I was saying was go to the link in the original post, find your BMR, and instead of going by the chart for how much you exercise, just use the number they give for sedentary, and then log your exercise as extra because on MFP if you put in the number next to "moderate exercise," and then log your exercise, it's adding more calories than you need.
Again, not quite sure what the connection is between my post and your response, maybe just a misunderstanding/miscommunication?
This is what I've always done. I know I'm by no means sedentary but I wanted to make sure I wasn't "double counting" the calories I eat back. I'm not sure if its correct or not. If someone has insight?
I guess I still NET the sedentary number (1400-1450)... but on workout days I can easily be eating 2050 cals or so...?
zig zagging is a viable way of losing fat and maintaining lean mass.
Just be sure you are eating the number given by F2F for that day then on heavy lifting or heavy cardio days you hit carbs hard and go up to TDEE or above. Ad long as you are working out hard and you only have 3 high spike days youll still lose weight and the nutrients will partition to muscle rather than fat.
Its like being in a surplus 40% of the week and a deficit 60% of the week.
See my diary for tips on this.0 -
This is soooooo confusing. I can accept the confusion though because I am usually one to overthink things instead of just reading what the boxes say at the bottom. I also tend to get caught up in other posts and then my brain starts to hurt O_O
I have to keep looking at the top of the page of my Fat 2 Fit Radio Custom BMR Calculation to remind myself that the tool IS taking into account that I eventually want to weigh 135 lbs. I'm just going to throw it out there....it DOES NOT feel comfortable to know that with the calculations telling me that on the 4-5 days a week i'm moderately active (crossfit, jogging and weight training) I will need to eat 2065 calories, and 1598 on the days I have little or no exercise. I'm only saying this so I can get it out into the open so maybe my fear will dispel a little.
I'm eating 1300-1400 a day now. I train in the AM. By the time I get to work I AM TIRED. I don't want to do much and get a little irritated when asked to get up and participate in moving stuff, or carrying equipment (i'm in IT so it's usually computers, monitors, etc). I have also been one to stick to a super strict clean low calorie, high protein, lose a few pounds, then blow it all, carb it up and abandon the eating/workout plan for 3-4-5-6 months, come back and go through the entire cycle. AGAIN.
I'm going to try this way and trust the process. I'm tired of yo-yo'ing and stopping/starting over and over again. I really want a lifestyle change, something that I can stick with and not feel like i am just waiting for the next "blowout" lol
thanks for this post, and i'm so glad i found this site!
Melissa
Wrap your brain around this.
Most 6-10 year olds eat 1600-2200 cals a day and they grow.
As long as they are active they wont get fat.
This is the same with you!
you stay active and have your body partition the food correctly....
You too can eat 2k a day and live a healthy lifestyle.
Another thing to consider.
Look on each package of food in your grocery store.
See any that suggest 1200 cals?
Nope!
All numbers are based off a 2000-2500 calorie diet.
This isnt coincidence!
People can eat in the 2k and lose weight!0 -
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions