Setting Your Calorie and Macro Targets
Options
Replies
-
ugh i am so confused lol.
i used the website you said to get my TDEE and then took 20% off that for my daily calorie intake and i'm left with 1735 and that's without ANY exercise. that's just my general (very light/light) day to day stuff. surely i can't eat that much without ANY exercise and lose weight? sorry if i'm being thick just so confused.
Why confused, what has been your experience with calorie levels to you know that you have an informed opinion?
Ever log some common days when you used to eat without exercise, before you began a diet, and were even aware of calorie levels?
If the only calorie level you've ever seen was 1200 minimum for sedentary woman, then sure 1700 sounds high.
But if you logged what you use to eat and found you were eating 2500 or more on regular basis, than 1700 is nothing. And exercising now compared to perhaps none then.
to be fair my idea of calorie intake is probably a bit squif(? how do you even spell that word lol)
like i've just mentioned i have a history of EDs so yes 1700 sounds very high to me. especially for someone who doesn't move a lot (i don't work, i do look after my little girl but she is only 11months so doesn't require a great amount of moving around) and i don't do any exercise as of yet. so it seems really steep to me.0 -
ugh i am so confused lol.
i used the website you said to get my TDEE and then took 20% off that for my daily calorie intake and i'm left with 1735 and that's without ANY exercise. that's just my general (very light/light) day to day stuff. surely i can't eat that much without ANY exercise and lose weight? sorry if i'm being thick just so confused.
What are your stats? Age, height, weight, amount you are looking to lose? How many weeks do you have of consistent logging data?
i'm 21, 5ft1, 165lb and would like to be around 110lb-115lb. i don't have any weeks of consistent logging yet. i've been just eating healthy without counting for the past couple weeks due to a previous ED where i obsessed over calories. but i've realised if i want to lose the weight properly i will have to count.
Are you still breast feeding?
If you have a history of ED, counting may not be the best thing for you tbh. What has your weight done over the last few weeks?0 -
ugh i am so confused lol.
i used the website you said to get my TDEE and then took 20% off that for my daily calorie intake and i'm left with 1735 and that's without ANY exercise. that's just my general (very light/light) day to day stuff. surely i can't eat that much without ANY exercise and lose weight? sorry if i'm being thick just so confused.
What are your stats? Age, height, weight, amount you are looking to lose? How many weeks do you have of consistent logging data?
i'm 21, 5ft1, 165lb and would like to be around 110lb-115lb. i don't have any weeks of consistent logging yet. i've been just eating healthy without counting for the past couple weeks due to a previous ED where i obsessed over calories. but i've realised if i want to lose the weight properly i will have to count.
Are you still breast feeding?
If you have a history of ED, counting may not be the best thing for you tbh. What has your weight done over the last few weeks?
no, not breasfeeding. and it's pretty much stayed the same but like i say i haven't been counting. i just stress if i don't count i won't lose the weight at all like i haven't been. so idk what to do.0 -
Note however, these are all estimates of averages. The best determination of what your TDEE are your results. If you have been tracking for a while, you should be able to look back over a period of time and calculate what YOUR actual TDEE is.
Nobody appears to have mentioned it yet, but I found the MyFitnessPal Reports Bookmarklet super-helpful for calculating my TDEE this way. The bookmarklet, which improves the site's reports in numerous ways, reports your average daily calorie intake over a given period -- much easier than having to calculate your intake manually using the daily food diaries.
Here's the link to the thread on this site about the bookmarklet:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/879517-myfitnesspal-reports-with-iiteractive-graphs
(Also, it turns out that my TDEE is 3100 calories! After playing with a few online TDEE calculators for comparison, I realized that I'm much more active than I thought, which speaks to Sarauk2sf's point about activity estimates in her original post.)0 -
Bump0
-
Bump to save0
-
New to the group so saving for reading at a later time0
-
Okay, I am 5'8", 226 pounds (I've lost a bit over 20 since mid-july) and MFP is setting my calorie goal at 1400...by your calculations that is WAY too low, it looks like I should be at about 1700 (30% off of TDEE). I'm a teacher (art), mother of three (4yo, 5 yo and 7yo) and do a lot of housework...I've signed up as lightly active as "teacher" is listed next to it. Should I go with the 1700 calorie goal, even though I am having great success at 1400? Should I just change my activity level up from lightly active and see where that sets me? I've got some pretty poor cholesterol and triglyceride levels so losing 2 lbs a week until I'm at 199 is important to me (trying to avoid meds). After that I plan on slowly the loss to 1 lb a week until I hit 175 at which point I will assess things with my dr.0
-
Okay, I am 5'8", 226 pounds (I've lost a bit over 20 since mid-july) and MFP is setting my calorie goal at 1400...by your calculations that is WAY too low, it looks like I should be at about 1700 (30% off of TDEE). I'm a teacher (art), mother of three (4yo, 5 yo and 7yo) and do a lot of housework...I've signed up as lightly active as "teacher" is listed next to it. Should I go with the 1700 calorie goal, even though I am having great success at 1400? Should I just change my activity level up from lightly active and see where that sets me? I've got some pretty poor cholesterol and triglyceride levels so losing 2 lbs a week until I'm at 199 is important to me (trying to avoid meds). After that I plan on slowly the loss to 1 lb a week until I hit 175 at which point I will assess things with my dr.
How much have you lost in the last 4 weeks?0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).0
-
Okay, I am 5'8", 226 pounds (I've lost a bit over 20 since mid-july) and MFP is setting my calorie goal at 1400...by your calculations that is WAY too low, it looks like I should be at about 1700 (30% off of TDEE). I'm a teacher (art), mother of three (4yo, 5 yo and 7yo) and do a lot of housework...I've signed up as lightly active as "teacher" is listed next to it. Should I go with the 1700 calorie goal, even though I am having great success at 1400? Should I just change my activity level up from lightly active and see where that sets me? I've got some pretty poor cholesterol and triglyceride levels so losing 2 lbs a week until I'm at 199 is important to me (trying to avoid meds). After that I plan on slowly the loss to 1 lb a week until I hit 175 at which point I will assess things with my dr.
How much have you lost in the last 4 weeks?0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).
Suggest you do the math to confirm it's only fat. You can eat and exercise badly and cause muscle mass loss.
The 3500 cal per lb is only if it's fat loss.
But muscle when used to supply energy is only about 600 cal per lb. Actually easier to lose a lb of muscle than a lb of fat.0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).
Are you weighing your food where possible and logging accurately? Is the 1,400 net or gross?0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).
Are you weighing your food where possible and logging accurately? Is the 1,400 net or gross?
The 1400 is the combination of food (plus) and exercise (minus). I am making healthy food choices (lean meats, lots of veggies, some fruits, trying to reduce carbs and sugar). I feel good, not weak and I usually feel content, not hungry. I am not weighing, but measuring food and using labels to cross check measurements on things as well as research online. I need to get a scale, but I am fairly certain I am more accurate than not.0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).
Are you weighing your food where possible and logging accurately? Is the 1,400 net or gross?
The 1400 is the combination of food (plus) and exercise (minus). I am making healthy food choices (lean meats, lots of veggies, some fruits, trying to reduce carbs and sugar). I feel good, not weak and I usually feel content, not hungry. I am not weighing, but measuring food and using labels to cross check measurements on things as well as research online. I need to get a scale, but I am fairly certain I am more accurate than not.
Oh, you gotta borrow a scale then.
Even if you are measuring volume correctly, that's not where the problem is.
Look at any food label, for non-liquids the basing of serving size is on ....... weight, grams. The volume measurement is there merely for ease of use, and it's rough, sometimes very much so.
People are shocked how badly their measured tablespoon of peanut butter is 2x the actual weight serving size, 200 cal instead of 100 cal.
As to the servings per package, ever taken the total stated weight of the package, and divided by the weight per serving?
The claimed "about 2 servings per package" could be as high as 2.25 to 2.45 actually, from ones I've seen. Have a bunch of those in one day, you are well over what you think you are eating. Even liquids do that part, soup notably.
Oh, 1400 gross means in total, is that what the food diary says you ate total for the day. That's what is needed.
Net is when you actually ate 1900, but logged 500 calorie burn and MFP shows net as 1400 still.
So saying 1400 food (plus) and exercise (minus) kind of makes it sound like you are saying net, but that could also mean you ate total 1400 and that was raised higher because of exercise. Without exercise you might have eaten 1200 perhaps.0 -
I've lost about 2 pounds each of the last four weeks, a little over or a little under depending on the week. Prior to that it was closer to about 1.5 pounds, the losses have sped up recently (which feel quite nice, but I don't understand way, I've always stayed close the calorie goal).
Are you weighing your food where possible and logging accurately? Is the 1,400 net or gross?
The 1400 is the combination of food (plus) and exercise (minus). I am making healthy food choices (lean meats, lots of veggies, some fruits, trying to reduce carbs and sugar). I feel good, not weak and I usually feel content, not hungry. I am not weighing, but measuring food and using labels to cross check measurements on things as well as research online. I need to get a scale, but I am fairly certain I am more accurate than not.
Oh, you gotta borrow a scale then.
Even if you are measuring volume correctly, that's not where the problem is.
Look at any food label, for non-liquids the basing of serving size is on ....... weight, grams. The volume measurement is there merely for ease of use, and it's rough, sometimes very much so.
People are shocked how badly their measured tablespoon of peanut butter is 2x the actual weight serving size, 200 cal instead of 100 cal.
As to the servings per package, ever taken the total stated weight of the package, and divided by the weight per serving?
The claimed "about 2 servings per package" could be as high as 2.25 to 2.45 actually, from ones I've seen. Have a bunch of those in one day, you are well over what you think you are eating. Even liquids do that part, soup notably.
Oh, 1400 gross means in total, is that what the food diary says you ate total for the day. That's what is needed.
Net is when you actually ate 1900, but logged 500 calorie burn and MFP shows net as 1400 still.
So saying 1400 food (plus) and exercise (minus) kind of makes it sound like you are saying net, but that could also mean you ate total 1400 and that was raised higher because of exercise. Without exercise you might have eaten 1200 perhaps.
Yes, the net total of calories is at 1400. I will get a scale and try that out too. Thanks! So far I've been really pleased with how the tool of MFP has helped me to lose weight. I've not been able to steadily do this before. I like the clear target, the help with logging calories and exercise. I feel very successful and very happy about the results. 20 pounds in 2.5 months, looking forward to losing more. I'm sure I'll hit a plateau at some point, but so far so good! I'm enjoying being more active and as I've gotten used to being more careful about food choices there are days I struggle to hit my calorie goal (but I do!), and I mean by not eating enough calories.0 -
bump for reference in the future.0
-
bump to read later0
-
Bump to read later! thanks!
0 -
I'm sure I'm making this harder then it has to be, but I'm confused!
I don't know what my LBM is.
I'll try googling it. lol0
