Level Obstacles: Lose Weight, Target Fat! (EASY!!)

Angel1066

bump

sing4me4you

bump for setting macros

Dangerkitty79

bump

ventrone

bump

CoderGal

To lose weight, quite simply, all you need to do is eat slightly below TDEE. As the original post said TDEE is your total daily energy expenditure, that includes everything. If you are taking numbers off of that, that is not your TDEE. Examples:

If you are not sedentary, the sedentary number listed is not your TDEE.
If you are lightly active in the day and on top of that you exercise 5 times a week, the lightly active number listed is not your TDEE.
If you take a percentage off of a TDEE, just because you are eating that, does not mean that is your TDEE. Your TDEE is higher.

And since a lot of people make this mistake at first I'll say it once more, TDEE is not your goal, it is your TDEE.

This is all completely true. I'm an English guy, CoderGal is a math girl. It was hard for me to really grok the above stuff when I first started learning, but to put it in a linguistic perspective:

Total Daily Energy Expenditure is the (average) total amount of energy you burn daily. TDEE as a defined term includes every calorie you burn.

I think the reason we're tempted to think of it differently is because MFP is set up to track exercise and eat back exercise calories; we're in a way induced to think of TDEE as "everything other than exercise-associated thermogenesis."

Additionally, if people slack on exercise for whatever reason - sickness, etc - they don't have to engineer a new TDEE - - they just don't eat the exercise calories they didn't earn.

But to say it again, factually, CG is absolutely correct.

Math girl in me:

If you're interested in finding out what your total daily energy expenditure should be:
TDEE = BMR + TEF + NEAT + EAT

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate (calories your organs burn at rest essentially)
TEF = Thermal Effect of Feeding
NEAT = Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis
EAT = Exercise Associated Thermogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_metabolic_rate

Also keep in mind that peoples views on here can be highly skewed from what is 'normal'. 'Normal' intake for a female is easily within the 2000 range, not 1200. 'Normal' for a male is 2500, not 1200.

aceof89

Bumpin'

SairahRose

Math girl in me:

If you're interested in finding out what your total daily energy expenditure should be:
TDEE = BMR + TEF + NEAT + EAT

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate (calories your organs burn at rest essentially)
TEF = Thermal Effect of Feeding
NEAT = Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis
EAT = Exercise Associated Thermogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_metabolic_rate

Also keep in mind that peoples views on here can be highly skewed from what is 'normal'. 'Normal' intake for a female is easily within the 2000 range, not 1200. 'Normal' for a male is 2500, not 1200.

Full of win.

That and the OP, of course.

BurtHuttz

Math girl in me:

If you're interested in finding out what your total daily energy expenditure should be:
TDEE = BMR + TEF + NEAT + EAT

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate (calories your organs burn at rest essentially)
TEF = Thermal Effect of Feeding
NEAT = Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis
EAT = Exercise Associated Thermogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_metabolic_rate

Also keep in mind that peoples views on here can be highly skewed from what is 'normal'. 'Normal' intake for a female is easily within the 2000 range, not 1200. 'Normal' for a male is 2500, not 1200.

Swoon. :-D

fergie918

Thank you I will try some of your ideas

dbed34

@CoderGal - Maybe that is why I am getting yelled at by a nutritionist that I am not eating nearly enough.... lol

The main thing I didn't add was an injury that took me out of commision for almost 3 years and destroyed my metabloism that saw me balloon from 190lbs and a nice 4 pack stomach to 250lbs and a beer gut but I don't drink . I am just getting back to what I used to do but can't lift free weights anymore so I struggle to find a challenging machine work out (just don't feel the burn like I used to).

I was trying to be slick and account for days I didn't work out if my injury acted up and I had to babysit it for a couple of days (usually no more than two or three) so I wanted to make sure I was not exceeding calorie intake on those days without readjusting my TDEE on those days.

My real TDEE is 3473.

I guess my main issue is that I have always been told that my workouts are not the problem but my eating or rather the lack there off and I can see by your math I'm really killing myself in this area. Thank you for the advice and you to Burt Hattz! I'll readjust my TDEE and track for a whole week with the real TDEE and see what I end up with. Thank you both for the quick responses.

CoderGal

@CoderGal - Maybe that is why I am getting yelled at by a nutritionist that I am not eating nearly enough.... lol

:laugh:

I'm glad to hear you see the light at the end of the tunnel. I wish you luck on the machine quest. You may want to scan through one of the free online sites that have inventory of machine workout ideas, it might give you some ideas that you enjoy (I also do not enjoy most of the machine stuff minus the rowing machines). There are also mounds of bodyweight and cable exercises, etc

Also you may want to give it more then a few weeks. Your body has to react somehow after suppressing your metabolism that far down. For more information on that regard check out the glycogen section in this thread:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/637094-cinderella-s-weight-loss-knowledge

deannajf4

bump

NewFitKeri

Bump

purpleleopard76

bumped to read tomorrow and redo my math

Onaughmae

:drinker: :flowerforyou: *applause*

healthymissfit

thank you!! this was short and to the point, love love love

Onederchic

:flowerforyou:

judychicken

bump

ihad

I'm an Obstacle Leveler!

dmb0114

Bumpity bump bump bump...

cmriverside

I'm an Obstacle Leveler!

THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR.

:glasses:

Jimaudit

bump for later awesomeness!!

cmriverside

This is so much easier than the other really long and complicated "how to" threads!!

Thanks.

magerum

Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:

jofjltncb6

Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:

In that case, to make it more complicated, for every number referenced, add a few random numbers after a decimal point.

For example, if you see the number 1500, pretend like it is actually 1500.349. The increased complication, with the illusion of increased accuracy, will certain increase your results.

CoderGal

Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:

BurtHuttz

This can definitely be made more complicated! But the important thing to remember is that it doesn't NEED to be more complicated. There are trillions of variables that could be accounted for, but as Jof notes, we would at that stage be at trillions of decimals. The underlying physics are sound. The folks who say "eat less, move more" are expressing the most simplified distillation of the concept, albeit in a way that becomes less than informative.

LiftAllThePizzas

Bumping so I can come back to read everything and catch up.

BurtHuttz

Bumping so I can come back to read everything and catch up.

Cheers.

3dogsrunning

Too simple. Can't be true. :noway: