Confused about recommended net calorie intake

LauraThirty

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

I manage this on around 1200 cals and 300 cals of cardio or 1300 cals/400cals etc, etc.

But Then everywhere I read that you should not go under 1200 net calories and I'm worried that if I go below for too long I'll mess up my metabolism. It's been a week now and already I've seen a reduction in my (ahem) bowel movements despite the fact that I've been exercising a lot which of course should speed up such things I haven't lost any weight but A, it's only been one week, and B, I've been doing weights and strength training and consuming higher levels of protein so I'm not that interested in the scales. I have lost 4.5 inchs in total though

Can anyone shed light on this? I'm not bothered by cutting down what I eat, or increasing it but if I'm going to do this I want to do it properly and it would be heartbreaking to be working hard and finding out I've been doing it all wrong!

LauraThirty

bumpity bump.

Brent_J

Would you mind posting your height, weight and age? The reason I ask is because 2 lbs per week is generally listed as the max you should lose in a healthy manner, but not every body type should be hitting that max. If you don't have a lot to lose, then 2lbs per week might be too much to expect.

tmtolbert

you wouldn't want to cut that amount from your BMR but from your maintenance calories. your BMR is what your body needs just to keep all of its functions going if you just layed in bed all day. from what i have heard, your BMR is what you would be fed through a tube if you were in a coma just to keep your body functioning. your maintenance calories is what you would eat if you wanted to maintain your current weight. so you need to make a calorie cut based on maintenance calories not BMR.

BioQueen

You will definitely get a lot of different opinions on this question. I aim for 1,200 calories a day, but if I do cardio, I tend to only eat back about half.... therefore I am under 1,200 calorie NET. If I'm hungry, I eat, if I'm not, I don't. If my energy levels are down I make sure to re-evaluate my calorie intake. I try to look more at the quality of my foods. If you want you can check out my food diary.

I think you should listen to your body. I don't lose if I eat 1,500+, but I do between 1,200-1,400. That's only through experimentation.

Raynne413

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

olong

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

LauraThirty

Would you mind posting your height, weight and age? The reason I ask is because 2 lbs per week is generally listed as the max you should lose in a healthy manner, but not every body type should be hitting that max. If you don't have a lot to lose, then 2lbs per week might be too much to expect.

Hi Brent - thanks so much. I'm 28 and 5"11. I weigh 168 currently. I want to get down to around 140 but to be honest it's more about the look than what the scales say. I've been 147 lbs before and liked how I looked then but still had a few bulges hence going for around 140. So maybe I should up the calories and go for 1lb a week?

LauraThirty

you wouldn't want to cut that amount from your BMR but from your maintenance calories. your BMR is what your body needs just to keep all of its functions going if you just layed in bed all day. from what i have heard, your BMR is what you would be fed through a tube if you were in a coma just to keep your body functioning. your maintenance calories is what you would eat if you wanted to maintain your current weight. so you need to make a calorie cut based on maintenance calories not BMR.

Sh!it, okay - how do I know what Maintenance calories are then? (I say the S word as this means I could have had a slice of the pizza my husband just polished off :sad: )

LauraThirty

You will definitely get a lot of different opinions on this question. I aim for 1,200 calories a day, but if I do cardio, I tend to only eat back about half.... therefore I am under 1,200 calorie NET. If I'm hungry, I eat, if I'm not, I don't. If my energy levels are down I make sure to re-evaluate my calorie intake. I try to look more at the quality of my foods. If you want you can check out my food diary.

I think you should listen to your body. I don't lose if I eat 1,500+, but I do between 1,200-1,400. That's only through experimentation.

Thanks - how long would you "experiment" for in order to give it a good go?

LauraThirty

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

Hi there, I am using it. It says 1200 which I do eat but then I exercise so the net reduces to the 896 I thought I was supposed to be doing to lose 2lbs a week. I didn't put the exercise n to the initial calculation (I put sedentary then just add it on a daily basis in to the diary) as my exercise changes daily/ weekly.

LauraThirty

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

Hiya, I'm genuinley sorry to have wasted your time. But I don't think it's that clear really... So if I set up my MFP to include the exercise I do... then it will tell me what calories to eat. But then if I track the exercise it is surely the same as tracking it twice?? Maybe I am very stupid. But I'm really confused. and as the lady said above - there are lots of different opinions about this so I am a bit lost.

veganbaum

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

Hi there, I am using it. It says 1200 which I do eat but then I exercise so the net reduces to the 896 I thought I was supposed to be doing to lose 2lbs a week. I didn't put the exercise n to the initial calculation (I put sedentary then just add it on a daily basis in to the diary) as my exercise changes daily/ weekly.

Under MFP's plan, the 1200 ALREADY gives you a deficit to lose 2lbs/wk. When you exercise you are supposed to eat those calories, and you still have a deficit to lose 2lb/wk (but some people only eat 50-75% of exercise cals to account for inaccuracies). That is how MFP works. Your exercise IS NOT supposed to be included in your initial calculation which is why MFP adds the calories in because if you expend more energy you need to fuel your body properly. You should try MFP's numbers for a while (meaning 3-4 weeks) to see is it works. However, if you are 168 and want to get down to around 145, since that's only about 20 pounds a 1lb/wk loss might work better for you. If you try MFP's 1200 + exercise cals for 3-4 weeks and it's not working, I would suggest changing your goal to 1lb/wk. Later on you can get into BMR and TDEE, but if you're just starting I would just stick with the numbers you're given.

LauraThirty

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

veganbaum

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

Hiya, I'm genuinley sorry to have wasted your time. But I don't think it's that clear really... So if I set up my MFP to include the exercise I do... then it will tell me what calories to eat. But then if I track the exercise it is surely the same as tracking it twice?? Maybe I am very stupid. But I'm really confused. and as the lady said above - there are lots of different opinions about this so I am a bit lost.

You're getting confused between the method MFP uses and the TDEE method. I would really just start with MFP's numbers and see how it works for you. There are so many success stories using MFP's method of eating back exercise calories and getting to goal.

Again, MFP's initial daily caloric goal DOES NOT include exercise, which is why it adds extra cals when you do exercise. If you use TDEE-20% the TDEE DOES include exercise cals so you don't eat extra unless you change your routine and thus change your TDEE (but you're still eating calories for exercise, it's just ALREADY in the formula).

veganbaum

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

No.

Have you just tried MFP's numbers for a while?


If you want to go the other route this lays it out for you:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

LauraThirty

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

Hi there, I am using it. It says 1200 which I do eat but then I exercise so the net reduces to the 896 I thought I was supposed to be doing to lose 2lbs a week. I didn't put the exercise n to the initial calculation (I put sedentary then just add it on a daily basis in to the diary) as my exercise changes daily/ weekly.

Under MFP's plan, the 1200 ALREADY gives you a deficit to lose 2lbs/wk. When you exercise you are supposed to eat those calories, and you still have a deficit to lose 2lb/wk (but some people only eat 50-75% of exercise cals to account for inaccuracies). That is how MFP works. Your exercise IS NOT supposed to be included in your initial calculation which is why MFP adds the calories in because if you expend more energy you need to fuel your body properly. You should try MFP's numbers for a while (meaning 3-4 weeks) to see is it works. However, if you are 168 and want to get down to around 145, since that's only about 20 pounds a 1lb/wk loss might work better for you. If you try MFP's 1200 + exercise cals for 3-4 weeks and it's not working, I would suggest changing your goal to 1lb/wk. Later on you can get into BMR and TDEE, but if you're just starting I would just stick with the numbers you're given.

Thank you, that's kind. When I filled out the details for MFP though they asked what my activity level was - so if I said I was very active, wouldn't it up my calories to cover that exercise?

veganbaum

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

TDEE is what your body expends in a day - these are your maintenance calories. You would eat this amount to stay the same weight. Some people figure out this number and then cut 10-20% to lose weight (depending on how much you have to lose).

BMR is what your body needs if you're in a coma, just to keep you alive. If you ate this amount you should lose weight because it is below your TDEE. A lot of people think you shouldn't ever eat below BMR because your body needs that amount of nutrition just to keep organs and things functioning. You can read more about that and decide for yourself.

So if you eat between BMR and TDEE you should lose weight.


Or you could just try MFP's numbers for a bit and see how it works for you.

LauraThirty

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

No.

Have you just tried MFP's numbers for a while?


If you want to go the other route this lays it out for you:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Thanks will check out the link now. I haven't tried the 1200. I'd read about needing to cut out 7000 a week and the MFP just seemed scarily high based on that. Although i always eat over 1200 calories, just not NET.

veganbaum

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

Hi there, I am using it. It says 1200 which I do eat but then I exercise so the net reduces to the 896 I thought I was supposed to be doing to lose 2lbs a week. I didn't put the exercise n to the initial calculation (I put sedentary then just add it on a daily basis in to the diary) as my exercise changes daily/ weekly.

Under MFP's plan, the 1200 ALREADY gives you a deficit to lose 2lbs/wk. When you exercise you are supposed to eat those calories, and you still have a deficit to lose 2lb/wk (but some people only eat 50-75% of exercise cals to account for inaccuracies). That is how MFP works. Your exercise IS NOT supposed to be included in your initial calculation which is why MFP adds the calories in because if you expend more energy you need to fuel your body properly. You should try MFP's numbers for a while (meaning 3-4 weeks) to see is it works. However, if you are 168 and want to get down to around 145, since that's only about 20 pounds a 1lb/wk loss might work better for you. If you try MFP's 1200 + exercise cals for 3-4 weeks and it's not working, I would suggest changing your goal to 1lb/wk. Later on you can get into BMR and TDEE, but if you're just starting I would just stick with the numbers you're given.

Thank you, that's kind. When I filled out the details for MFP though they asked what my activity level was - so if I said I was very active, wouldn't it up my calories to cover that exercise?

No. When MFP asks for your activity level it is talking about your day-to-day life WITHOUT exercise. So what kind of job do you have? It gives examples, such as if you're a nurse I think it says that would be "lightly active." So you place that in - NO exercise accounted for. MFP is smart - a lot of people trying to lose weight struggle with regular exercise. So MFP does not work on the premise that you WILL work out 3x a week. You have to separately put in your exercise and then MFP says "okay, you exercised, now you have to give your body some more fuel."

LauraThirty

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

Hiya, I'm genuinley sorry to have wasted your time. But I don't think it's that clear really... So if I set up my MFP to include the exercise I do... then it will tell me what calories to eat. But then if I track the exercise it is surely the same as tracking it twice?? Maybe I am very stupid. But I'm really confused. and as the lady said above - there are lots of different opinions about this so I am a bit lost.

You're getting confused between the method MFP uses and the TDEE method. I would really just start with MFP's numbers and see how it works for you. There are so many success stories using MFP's method of eating back exercise calories and getting to goal.

Again, MFP's initial daily caloric goal DOES NOT include exercise, which is why it adds extra cals when you do exercise. If you use TDEE-20% the TDEE DOES include exercise cals so you don't eat extra unless you change your routine and thus change your TDEE (but you're still eating calories for exercise, it's just ALREADY in the formula).

I must have mis-remembered what I filled in when I started this - I could have sworn that I had to out my exercise in and didn't. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go back in and enter all my info to make sure I've done it right. Then stick to the MFP guidelines. If it really works then it seems a very very simple way to do things rather than adjusting your TDEE every day according to your activity levels. (and this will probably mena I could have had that extra slice of pizza :sad:

LauraThirty

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

TDEE is what your body expends in a day - these are your maintenance calories. You would eat this amount to stay the same weight. Some people figure out this number and then cut 10-20% to lose weight (depending on how much you have to lose).

BMR is what your body needs if you're in a coma, just to keep you alive. If you ate this amount you should lose weight because it is below your TDEE. A lot of people think you shouldn't ever eat below BMR because your body needs that amount of nutrition just to keep organs and things functioning. You can read more about that and decide for yourself.

So if you eat between BMR and TDEE you should lose weight.


Or you could just try MFP's numbers for a bit and see how it works for you.

The latter certainly seems the least likely to give me a headache!

veganbaum

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

Hiya, I'm genuinley sorry to have wasted your time. But I don't think it's that clear really... So if I set up my MFP to include the exercise I do... then it will tell me what calories to eat. But then if I track the exercise it is surely the same as tracking it twice?? Maybe I am very stupid. But I'm really confused. and as the lady said above - there are lots of different opinions about this so I am a bit lost.

You're getting confused between the method MFP uses and the TDEE method. I would really just start with MFP's numbers and see how it works for you. There are so many success stories using MFP's method of eating back exercise calories and getting to goal.

Again, MFP's initial daily caloric goal DOES NOT include exercise, which is why it adds extra cals when you do exercise. If you use TDEE-20% the TDEE DOES include exercise cals so you don't eat extra unless you change your routine and thus change your TDEE (but you're still eating calories for exercise, it's just ALREADY in the formula).

I must have mis-remembered what I filled in when I started this - I could have sworn that I had to out my exercise in and didn't. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go back in and enter all my info to make sure I've done it right. Then stick to the MFP guidelines. If it really works then it seems a very very simple way to do things rather than adjusting your TDEE every day according to your activity levels. (and this will probably mena I could have had that extra slice of pizza :sad:

Yes, you probably could eat more (and I would suggest putting in only 1lb/wk). But, just to try and clarify - TDEE doesn't change every day. When you calculate TDEE you include how much you exercise (so 3x/wk, 5x/wk) - then based on that it gives you the same number of calories to eat every day. But you then have to make sure you exercise that much, at least most of the time.

LauraThirty

Also, are you using MyFitnessPal's weight loss plan? If so, they have already taken into consideration your exercise.
Definitely never go below 1200 calories. At 900 calories, you won't be able to support your body properly.

Hi there, I am using it. It says 1200 which I do eat but then I exercise so the net reduces to the 896 I thought I was supposed to be doing to lose 2lbs a week. I didn't put the exercise n to the initial calculation (I put sedentary then just add it on a daily basis in to the diary) as my exercise changes daily/ weekly.

Under MFP's plan, the 1200 ALREADY gives you a deficit to lose 2lbs/wk. When you exercise you are supposed to eat those calories, and you still have a deficit to lose 2lb/wk (but some people only eat 50-75% of exercise cals to account for inaccuracies). That is how MFP works. Your exercise IS NOT supposed to be included in your initial calculation which is why MFP adds the calories in because if you expend more energy you need to fuel your body properly. You should try MFP's numbers for a while (meaning 3-4 weeks) to see is it works. However, if you are 168 and want to get down to around 145, since that's only about 20 pounds a 1lb/wk loss might work better for you. If you try MFP's 1200 + exercise cals for 3-4 weeks and it's not working, I would suggest changing your goal to 1lb/wk. Later on you can get into BMR and TDEE, but if you're just starting I would just stick with the numbers you're given.

Thank you, that's kind. When I filled out the details for MFP though they asked what my activity level was - so if I said I was very active, wouldn't it up my calories to cover that exercise?

No. When MFP asks for your activity level it is talking about your day-to-day life WITHOUT exercise. So what kind of job do you have? It gives examples, such as if you're a nurse I think it says that would be "lightly active." So you place that in - NO exercise accounted for. MFP is smart - a lot of people trying to lose weight struggle with regular exercise. So MFP does not work on the premise that you WILL work out 3x a week. You have to separately put in your exercise and then MFP says "okay, you exercised, now you have to give your body some more fuel."

Ah, now this makes things a lot more clear! Usually when you calculate stuff like this the brackets are described as (eg): Sedentary - little or no exercise, Lightly Active - Exercise twice a week etc. But when MFP asks it's just asking about your lifestyle? Righteo - that makes more sense. I have a desk job but also a small child and i have a lot of nervous energy (stand up when on the phone etc) So what do you think?

veganbaum

Okay - I must be really stupid, please humour a confused old lady :smooched:

So, my BMR is what I need to stay alive - what my body needs to be completly sedentary. So I have that figure as 1896. Then I've taken away 1000 calories a day (to equal the 7000 a week I need to cut back 2lbs of fat - although as Brent says maybe this should be halfed) But then every time I excercise or do anything I add those calories to the 896 and eat them. So surely that is right, no?

I'll try to find a TDEE calculator.

TDEE is what your body expends in a day - these are your maintenance calories. You would eat this amount to stay the same weight. Some people figure out this number and then cut 10-20% to lose weight (depending on how much you have to lose).

BMR is what your body needs if you're in a coma, just to keep you alive. If you ate this amount you should lose weight because it is below your TDEE. A lot of people think you shouldn't ever eat below BMR because your body needs that amount of nutrition just to keep organs and things functioning. You can read more about that and decide for yourself.

So if you eat between BMR and TDEE you should lose weight.


Or you could just try MFP's numbers for a bit and see how it works for you.

The latter certainly seems the least likely to give me a headache!

That's why I suggested just trying it for a while. And if 2lb/wk doesn't work, dropping to 1lb/wk. Once you learn more about TDEE and BMR it's not that difficult, but at the beginning it can be really confusing. And remember everything's an estimate, so at some point you might have to play with the numbers more. Good luck.

LauraThirty

Hi there, So as I understand it:1 lb of fat = 3500 calories so if I want to lose 2lbs a week I need to cut 7000 calories from my BMR which is around 1896 a day. So by my calculation I need to be having 896 NET calories a day.

No, no, no, no. You do not eat below BMR, you eat below TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is BMR plus your normal activity level.....

I know that you are asking an honest question, but please, take time to read the 100s of posts and information MFP has about BMR, TDEE and net calories. It's all here, and doesn't need to be retyped. All you need to do is look and read!

Hiya, I'm genuinley sorry to have wasted your time. But I don't think it's that clear really... So if I set up my MFP to include the exercise I do... then it will tell me what calories to eat. But then if I track the exercise it is surely the same as tracking it twice?? Maybe I am very stupid. But I'm really confused. and as the lady said above - there are lots of different opinions about this so I am a bit lost.

You're getting confused between the method MFP uses and the TDEE method. I would really just start with MFP's numbers and see how it works for you. There are so many success stories using MFP's method of eating back exercise calories and getting to goal.

Again, MFP's initial daily caloric goal DOES NOT include exercise, which is why it adds extra cals when you do exercise. If you use TDEE-20% the TDEE DOES include exercise cals so you don't eat extra unless you change your routine and thus change your TDEE (but you're still eating calories for exercise, it's just ALREADY in the formula).

I must have mis-remembered what I filled in when I started this - I could have sworn that I had to out my exercise in and didn't. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go back in and enter all my info to make sure I've done it right. Then stick to the MFP guidelines. If it really works then it seems a very very simple way to do things rather than adjusting your TDEE every day according to your activity levels. (and this will probably mena I could have had that extra slice of pizza :sad:

Yes, you probably could eat more (and I would suggest putting in only 1lb/wk). But, just to try and clarify - TDEE doesn't change every day. When you calculate TDEE you include how much you exercise (so 3x/wk, 5x/wk) - then based on that it gives you the same number of calories to eat every day. But you then have to make sure you exercise that much, at least most of the time.

Thanks so much - and looking at your ticker I should really listen to you!! Well done on the loss, how long did that take?

veganbaum

I don't know about your activity level. Some people say you should never choose sedentary unless you really hardly move around at all. So you maybe could try lightly active. You just have to be prepared to give each change time, at least 3-4 weeks to see if it's working, then change things if it's not.

I lost 30 pounds in probably about 6 months by eating very low calorie (not intentionally and not a good idea for long term sustainability). I lost the next 20 pounds in about 4-5 months. It's getting harder because I'm closer to goal. I haven't lost in about a month, but I maintained - mostly because I was working away from home and stuff. I had to dramatically up my calories to start losing again after that 30 pounds, which is why I say that 2lb/wk might not work for you (but it might, it just tends to work better for those who have more to lose). But I also had to spike to get my weight loss going again, which is a whole other thing (and doesn't exactly follow MFP's plan)! But that's why I say start simple, follow MFP, give each change time, but then don't be afraid to try something else if what you're doing isn't working.

LauraThirty

I don't know about your activity level. Some people say you should never choose sedentary unless you really hardly move around at all. So you maybe could try lightly active. You just have to be prepared to give each change time, at least 3-4 weeks to see if it's working, then change things if it's not.

I lost 30 pounds in probably about 6 months by eating very low calorie (not intentionally and not a good idea for long term sustainability). I lost the next 20 pounds in about 4-5 months. It's getting harder because I'm closer to goal. I haven't lost in about a month, but I maintained - mostly because I was working away from home and stuff. I had to dramatically up my calories to start losing again after that 30 pounds, which is why I say that 2lb/wk might not work for you (but it might, it just tends to work better for those who have more to lose). But I also had to spike to get my weight loss going again, which is a whole other thing (and doesn't exactly follow MFP's plan)! But that's why I say start simple, follow MFP, give each change time, but then don't be afraid to try something else if what you're doing isn't working.

So you lost 30, then plateaued, then upped your intake and started losing again? So If I do 2lbs until i plateau (assuming it works at all) then switch to 1lb that would work in your expereince? I've just re-input all my details using lightly active (or whatever the second one is called) and it's worked out a deficit of 945 which is close to the 1000 I've been aiming for anyway. I just havent been eating to replenish the exercise calories. Which I will start doing now... like right now, where's the biscuit tin? :laugh:

veganbaum

I don't know about your activity level. Some people say you should never choose sedentary unless you really hardly move around at all. So you maybe could try lightly active. You just have to be prepared to give each change time, at least 3-4 weeks to see if it's working, then change things if it's not.

I lost 30 pounds in probably about 6 months by eating very low calorie (not intentionally and not a good idea for long term sustainability). I lost the next 20 pounds in about 4-5 months. It's getting harder because I'm closer to goal. I haven't lost in about a month, but I maintained - mostly because I was working away from home and stuff. I had to dramatically up my calories to start losing again after that 30 pounds, which is why I say that 2lb/wk might not work for you (but it might, it just tends to work better for those who have more to lose). But I also had to spike to get my weight loss going again, which is a whole other thing (and doesn't exactly follow MFP's plan)! But that's why I say start simple, follow MFP, give each change time, but then don't be afraid to try something else if what you're doing isn't working.

So you lost 30, then plateaued, then upped your intake and started losing again? So If I do 2lbs until i plateau (assuming it works at all) then switch to 1lb that would work in your expereince? I've just re-input all my details using lightly active (or whatever the second one is called) and it's worked out a deficit of 945 which is close to the 1000 I've been aiming for anyway. I just havent been eating to replenish the exercise calories. Which I will start doing now... like right now, where's the biscuit tin? :laugh:

I really don't know about the sedentary thing, that's just what I've seen some people say. You can change it later if you think you need to.

But that's where I would start. I am hardly the know-all, either, lol. I've just read A LOT and learned who the reliable posters on MFP are. But MFP's plan has worked for loads of people, by following it the way it's intended with eating back cals (but while there are some people who eat all their exercise cals, a lot of people eat only 50-75% because they say the numbers MFP gives for exercise are too high). And as you drop weight you want to drop your goals, so 2lb/1.5/1/.5. This helps with weight loss but also helps with a transition to maintenance calories. With only 20-30 pounds to lose, you might find 2lb/wk just doesn't work for you. You might try looking at the numbers for 1.5/wk. The deficit might be only slightly smaller than your 945 while upping your calories.

I have just read a lot, learned how to separate what makes sense from what clearly doesn't, and I have learned not to get discouraged. It took me a long, long time to start losing again. I was at 1200 calories and not losing. I now eat what averages out to around 1600/day a week, but will be readjusting my numbers since I have lost 20 pounds as a result of spiking and since I am going to start weight training. I just learned what all the numbers mean and to not be afraid of them and learned how to adjust to try and get the results I want.

This woman always gives me inspiration, and some of her posts discuss how eating low calorie was not the best thing for her.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/494091-i-just-don-t-care-anymore
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/694265-when-just-three-pounds-is-more-than-just-three-pounds