In place of a road map!

Options
1…1920222425…39

Replies

  • jennyfrmthap
    jennyfrmthap Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    bump
  • LeslieMDoyle
    LeslieMDoyle Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    thanks for the info!:flowerforyou:
  • mukamom
    mukamom Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    Yes, folks, this is working for me. I was stuck for a month bouncing between 235-239, so I got my feet wet and bumped it up from 1670 to 1800. Didn't seem to make any difference. I read this post, plugged my #'s in and found out I should be eating 2300!!

    It seemed to be a bit much.

    I wondered about my age of 53....Did I really need that much? Researched a bit and found I should I cut that 2300 by about 300.

    You know, the hormone thingy and such.

    At 2000/day for a week....voila! 3.6 pounds down this week!!
  • twhitmore22
    twhitmore22 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    bump for later
  • Time2LoseWeightNOW
    Time2LoseWeightNOW Posts: 1,730 Member
    Options
  • jenniejengin
    jenniejengin Posts: 785 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I don't have the energy to read all 15 pages of this, but I noticed on the first page that it was suggested that we check our body fat with calipers. I participated in a study many years ago that compared calipers to measuring body fat with water displacement. Calipers lost. It's much more reliable to get your body fat measured somewhere where you can be dunked in a tank of water. It doesn't take long, but nowadays I have no idea where to have it done or what it might cost.

    For the purpose of getting better BMR calc - anything within 5% is decent enough and doesn't change the value much at all.
  • MummyDB
    MummyDB Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    Bumping as I'm going to have to read it over to really absorb it all. Thank you for the info Dan.
  • lucyhoneychurch
    lucyhoneychurch Posts: 576 Member
    Options
    Bump - a great read!
  • Shenzi03
    Shenzi03 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    bump
  • lee1205
    lee1205 Posts: 11
    Options
    bump
  • MummyDB
    MummyDB Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    By George ( or Dan) I think I've got it

    BMR is 1479
    Light activity is 1973

    Was going to start with sedentary but I think light may be more accurate. I'll start with that and see how it does.
    Scary but going to up my cals and see what happens. Scale hasn't moved in a month. Doesn't hurt to try.

    Thanks again Dan for the info.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,404 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Good stuff Dan.
  • carlyholly
    carlyholly Posts: 52
    Options
    Bump.
  • em9371
    em9371 Posts: 1,047 Member
    Options
    Hi dan,

    Great post thanks!

    I already pretty much use this style of working out cals rather than mfps eat back exercise, but wanted to check ive worked it out right!!!
    I just have a quick question:
    My bmr is 1587 / body fat 40.4 which gives me 1715 sedentary, 1965 lightly active, 2215 as mod active.
    I have a desk job and exercise 4-5 times a week. Exercise is light only due to knee injury so I currently eat at lightly active level of around 1950 and net around 1650.

    Maybe I'm just being dumb, but according to the chart the mod active level includes daily activity and workouts, so when you say to add 20% to this number, what is that for?

    Thanks :-)
    20 % added to that number is your TDEE. It is the number you should never eat above or you will gain.

    thanks but im still confused!
    if TDEE means total daily energy expenditure, then surely bmr, daily activity and workouts is all there is to count so TDEE would be the number in the chart? how does the extra 20% of energy get used????
    as i have a desk job but exercise, would i take the sedentary cals of 1715, add 20% and eat 2058, or choose the activity level of lightly active / moderate so my exercise is already included then i dont add anything and eat between 1965-2215, or add 20% to the 1965/2215 and eat 2358 / 2658 - this seems really high, i seem to lose most eating around 1900?
  • rswood62
    rswood62 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    bump
  • EmeriaDewes
    EmeriaDewes Posts: 78
    Options
    Bump
  • AuntieMC
    AuntieMC Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    bump
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    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?
    I completely agree!!

    You can do that too - pick the sedentary activity level and 'eat your calories back'. Note however, that the calories for execises in MFP are rough estimates and can be pretty far off what you actually expend.
    Or I can use a HRM and get an accurate reading for calories burned.
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    Sorry, I'm still confused how to figure any of this out.
    Can someone please explain this in VERY SIMPLE TERMS without 2 paragraphs of explanation?

    My question is, what EXACTLY do we need to do to determine how many calories we should eat on a daily basis?
    (I understand it gives the chart based on activity level, so lets forget about activity level right now). How do we get an accurate chart of exactly how many calories we should eat in order to consistently lose weight?

Categories