Adding back breastfeeding calories- thoughts?
Options
Replies
-
Yes and no.
It makes sense when you explain that you worded it wrong the first time (that you were not actually adding to your current TDEE) but it seems that it would be easier and probably more accurate to figure out what your current TDEE and subtract 20% to get your deficit. If I added 20% to my goal weight TDEE it would be too high. My current TDEE is calculated at about 1688 and my goal weight TDEE is about 1560 (can't remember the exact numbers). So, there is less than a 10% difference between the two. That isn't accounting for breastfeeding calories. 0 -
Yes and no. It makes sense when you explain that you worded it wrong the first time (that you were not actually adding to your current TDEE) but it seems that it would be easier and probably more accurate to figure out what your current TDEE and subtract 20% to get your deficit. If I added 20% to my goal weight TDEE it would be too high. My current TDEE is calculated at about 1688 and my goal weight TDEE is about 1560 (can't remember the exact numbers). So, there is less than a 10% difference between the two. That isn't accounting for breastfeeding calories.
I see what you're saying... Let me work through this... The purpose of finding out your TDEE is to know what not to exceed in order to lose weight, so yes, finding out what your maintenance calories are for your "current weight" and then subtracting a 20-30% deficit sounds like it should work out to be the same... but... it doesn't seem to work out that way. The problem is, which I'm sure you're running into, every "calculator" suggests something different for your maintenance calories - so what do you go by?
Your TDEE's seem very low, but maybe I'm not understanding your stats? I think this is because you're calculating based upon your method instead of the described 20% extra from recommended deficit on F2F. I'm certainly not saying eat at your "current weight" TDEE... that number is just helpful to understand - say for instance you want to have a "cheat day" but don't want to overdo it... then just eat at your TDEE instead of your deficit. It's just helpful so you're not undoing all of your hard work you've put in all week.
From what I can gather, I see that you are 36, 150 lbs, 60 inches tall, goal weight of 115?? I'm not sure of your body fat percentage, so I can't get the proper Katch-McArdle BMR of "what not to eat below" unless that's entered into the equation, but even so... Here's the calculations that I come up with based on this info:
Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) 1522 *this should be your caloric intake before exercise or breastfeeding
Your TDEE based upon this info at your current weight, calculating a 20% increase would be 1826... and your TDEE at your goal weight would be 1522. Now, 1826 is just a helpful number to know what not to exceed in a day so you're eating at a deficit or at least at maintenance levels for your current weight... as you lose weight, this higher TDEE will shrink down to 1522, so it's constantly changing.
So, we're back to right around 2000 calories to consume while breastfeeding, even without exercise... add a 200 calorie workout and you need to then eat 2200... I assume you're calculating your current TDEE based upon the maintenance minus 20% method... is that right?? I'm going by the method that was described in that initial post on the 40/30/30 thread - the road map link.
Have you calculated your body fat with the military calculator on fat2fit? If so, what was that number?
Now, I do see with freedieting.com's calculator the following info:
Entering 150 lbs, 5 ft, 36 yrs, sedentary:
Maintenance 1552 CALORIES/DAY
Fat Loss 1242 CALORIES/DAY
Extreme Fat Loss 1200 CALORIES/DAY
Now, this I do not agree with at all... more because it seems way too low. I may have to stop recommending that website if this is the recommendation that's coming out. :-(
Bottom line, if we're comparing apples to apples for methods of calculation, I'm still coming up with 1500ish plus 500 for breastfeeding for you for around 2000 calories to consume on the F2F website, regardless of what your TDEE is. I'm interested to see your body fat % and enter that to see if it changes anything, but it shouldn't by much. This formula has been incredibly successful for me, so I'm going to stick with it until I see that it's not working. This way of calculating has also worked very well for a friend that is extremely close to her goal weight, down in the 120's, so it's not just because I'm bigger right now that it's working.
I do see what you're saying Kristin - in theory, your way sounds correct, but the numbers are far different than the original poster's recommendation on how to figure all of this out. I suppose if your way is working for you, keep on doing what you're doing, but if it's not, maybe entertain the idea of calculating it as the original poster indicated.
Does this help?? 0 -
Sorry to keep hashing this over and over again....
I haven't seen anywhere on either of those sites that you should add 20%? Fat2fit just says to eat the given calories based on your goal weight maintenance (or a few hundred less). I could see adding 20% if you are working off of your BMR, though.
When I enter my info into the fat2fit calculator with my current weight as my goal weight I get my TDEE as 1688. Fitnessfrog.com says 1681. When I enter my goal weight, TDEE is 1542/1535. So, there is only about 150 calories difference.
Maybe my height has something to do with it? Doesn't give much wiggle room with cals.
.
.0 -
I went back and read the post from helloitsdan and what I understand is that he is adding 20% to your BMR, not to the amount that fat2fit gives as your goal weight TDEE. If I do this the number is closer to what I get when I calculate my TDEE in other ways but is a bit low, even being sedentary. I wrote to him to ask about it. Either way, if it is working I would stick with it! I just want to figure it out. If I could eat more and lose I would, but I don't want to go too high. I gain pretty easily.0
-
Ok. so the way you are calculating is the way he does it. Still doesn't make sense to me. I just calculated my TDEE on about 10 websites and most were 1688. None higher than that. He said that fat2fit already calculates a deficit, which is why he adds the 20%. But, that isn't necessarily true. They give you the TDEE of your goal weight but if you enter in your current weight as your goal then you are getting your current TDEE. I don't agree that adding 20% gets you to your TDEE. But, if it is working I would stick with it.0
-
Ok. so the way you are calculating is the way he does it. Still doesn't make sense to me. I just calculated my TDEE on about 10 websites and most were 1688. None higher than that. He said that fat2fit already calculates a deficit, which is why he adds the 20%. But, that isn't necessarily true. They give you the TDEE of your goal weight but if you enter in your current weight as your goal then you are getting your current TDEE. I don't agree that adding 20% gets you to your TDEE. But, if it is working I would stick with it.
I hear ya - it doesn't make complete sense the way he's saying to do it, however, that's just to arrive at a number not to exceed... not what to eat at.
I guess why it makes sense to me is because the numbers match more readily the "averages" - Typical "healthy deficits" are calculated at either 20 or 30% from maintenance levels (averages is what I'm going by). If I went by what freedieting.com says, it recommends my maintenance calories at around 1820 (30% deficit from this would be 1274) - If I plug my current weight into F2F as my goal to figure out maintenance, it says Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) 1913 (30% deficit from that would be 1339) If I figure out TDEE via the 20% added to suggested deficit (now 1686) to arrive at goal weight method, then it says my maintenance cals / TDEE is: 2023 (30% deficit from this would be 1416). I'd rather error on the side of caution and go with the bigger number out of these 3 methods, not the lesser one.... why, you may ask? Because I want to be able to eat more and still lose weight. I don't want to have to rely on a slow metabolism because I've underfed myself... I don't want my milk supply to suffer in any way shape or form... I don't want to lose weight too fast that I have loose skin... I want proper levels of nutrition entering my body so I don't risk losing weight the unhealthy way. I don't want to be anywhere close to 1200 calories net / day. I also want to have room to experiment if it's not working, up or down in calories.
There's a few reasons why I lean toward his method he described in his thread- here are a couple:
#1: excerpt from article by Tom Venuto on this article: http://www.burnthefat.com/stop_dieting.html
3. Decrease your calorie intake slightly.
Small calorie cuts don't trigger the starvation response as much. Use a conservative calorie deficit - just 20% below your maintenance level at first. For example, a typical female needs about 2150 calories a day to maintain. A 20% deficit is 1720 calories per day. NOTE: if you are very overweight, your body can handle larger calorie deficits without negative side effects (because you have so much reserve energy in storage).
#2: From Livestrong:
Recommendations
The number of calories a woman needs daily varies according to age. Younger women generally need more calories than older women, as they tend to have more muscle mass and be more active. A woman aged 19 to 30 years needs between 2,000 and 2,400 calories daily. A woman aged 31 to 50 years needs 1,800 to 2,200 calories daily. Women over age 51 need 1,600 to 2,200 calories daily.
Activity Level
If you are inactive, you should consume less than the recommended daily calorie consumption. Active women, defined as those that perform physical activity equivalent to 1.5 to 3 miles of brisk walking per day, should aim for the middle of the calorie range. Very active women, those who move the equivalent of 3 miles or more daily, should aim for the highest end of the range.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/360444-daily-recommended-caloric-intake-for-women/#ixzz1sqDMQeLP
My body responded more favorably to more calories... I started out with a goal of 1 lb/week loss per MFP's recommendation (1490)... then I got a little greedy and I tried the low end (1200) and it didn't work well - my weight loss slowed, so I figured I'd go back to what was working better and again tried 1490 as MFP suggested for 1 lb weight loss - I did fairly well, but then started to stagnate a little... so I then upped my goal to 1600, and things started moving again, faster. If I run into another stall, the first thing I'll try is upping my calories, not reducing them as I would have in the past... especially if I start working out more!! F2F suggests around 1700 cals, but 2-300 less is ok to start. My Katch-McArdle BMR is 1489 so I want to avoid going that low.... UGH... so many numbers! But I understand them now. I don't think there's any one "right" way to do this.
Do what works for you... experiment with changes if things aren't moving steadily in a downward direction either on the scale or w/ measurements more-so if you're working out a lot. I remember the following from all of my research so far: 90% of weight loss is via foods you eat (quality and quantity)... and inches are lost by exercise... and heavier weight lifting helps build muscle / retain the ones you've got while you're losing weight to keep your metabolism higher. Exercise fools with the scale numbers greatly, causing large swings due to glycogen stores (repairing muscles). Guess what I'm trying to say here is try changing one thing at a time to really gauge if something is working or not... Keep as many variables constant as you can to properly experiment. Lastly, give each experiment ample time to work - sometimes even up to a month.0 -
I added 300 calories to my caloric intake. I workout 4 days a week usually about 1400 calories burned a week. I don't include breast feeding as an exercise on here. I pump most of the time since I work a full time job.0
