Just a general state of confusion!!

Utahgirl12

Hi,
I was just playing around with my profile settings. My weight/height etc is in correctly. I've put I am lightly active, which I believe I am on a day to day basis. I put that I exercise times a week for 60 minutes each time. My projected weight loss is showing as 1.4 pounds per week.

Whilst I have no problems with that, obviously the sooner the weight comes off the better, so I played around with the exercise figures to see how many times a week would have to exercise to get up to a projected loss of 2 pounds a week.

I can't seem to make the figure budge from 1.4 pounds.

I'm not really too clear on all this TDEE stuff. My daly cals show as 1200. I just log my food, add any exercise I do, such as 60 minute walk, 30 minutes aerobics etc and then try and eat roughly half way between my 1200 plus calories earned from exercise.

Should I just carry on as I am?

Any suggestions or advice please??

Lucy

BurtHuttz

Cutting back to 1200 may not be optimal for you. That's MFP's 'floor', a safety value that it cannot recommend you eat less than.

Think of it this way - to lose one pound a week, you eat a 500 calorie daily deficit. This is because there are 3500 calories in a pound of fat, and 7 * 500 = 3500. In a week, you would've cut 3500 calories.

But the math is oversimplified. If you say you want to lose 2 pounds a week, MFP would say eat a 1000 calorie deficit. What if you want to lose 4 pounds a week? 2000 calorie deficit. You would get to the point of having to somehow eat negative food and starve yourself to lose weight at a rate of 4 pounds per week.

So don't think in terms of speed, think in terms of health. A much simpler explanation is here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/952996-level-obstacles-lose-weight-target-fat-easy

UsedToBeHusky

The projected weight loss is based on your calorie goal and not your exercise goals. If you are at 1200 calories, MFP will not go any lower which is why it won't budge from 1.4 lbs a week. MFP isn't really good at predicting projected weight loss. Burt is right. You probably are going to need to eat more than 1200 calories. It will work at first, but unless you are very short and small-framed, that calorie goal will inevitably cause some problems in the long-term that could lead to a plateau for the following potential reasons:

1. It will cause you to lose muscle which is the driving factor of your metabolism. The more muscle you have, the more calories you will burn. The less muscle you have, the less calories you will burn.
2. You could develop a nutrient deficiency which can cause your body to produce hormones that will hinder your weight loss by causing you to burn calories more efficiently or by making you feel perpetually hungry even after you've eaten.

Follow Burt's link. His thread offers the best explanation for beginners on how to use the program. I would have posted the link if he hadn't done it already. Best of luck!

Utahgirl12

Thank you both. I read your thread with interest Burt and a fair bit of panic! I guess I'm conditioned to the less is more thinking, but that has never worked for me in the past. The only time I've ever lost 30 odd pounds is when I did an old weight Watchers programme which was very much back to basics; as much fruit, veg, meat, fish, rice, pasta, potatoes you need to feel satisfied (key word!) at each mealtime, 3 times a day. No bread, no processed food. It worked for me!
Now, I'm trying to stay under 1200 cals on the days I don't exercise so i can get the "reward" of MFP telling me I am under my calorie goal and the lovely projected 5 weeks figures.

My TDEE is 2371 with 3-5 days moderate exercise. With my maths that give a cal goal of around 1900 cals per day.

My question to you is should I eat at that level every day?

For instance, I ran today and burned 277 calories. On Monday I will do 2 exercise calories and burn a lot more. Should I eat at 1900 both days?

Also, whilst appreciating you have no crystal ball, how much am I likely to lose?? I'm going on a major holiday in 100 days. If I lose a pound a week it will only be about 15 pounds. Not to be sniffed at I agree, and I'm not looking to lose anything daft like 50 pounds in 100 days by going into starvation mode. Just what do you see as realistic and is there any way i can increase that slightlyI

Sorry if i sound like an idiot! i do appreciate your help.

Lucy

UsedToBeHusky

Another great resource here is this group. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/10118-eat-train-progress

I would say if you are eating at a percentage below your TDEE you don't have to eat back exercise calories unless you want to. I don't eat back exercise calories unless I just need some extra calories for a big meal.

As far as what you could lose in 100 days, it really depends on you. Extra cardio will make the weight come off faster, but it will create a further deficit which will lead to muscle loss unless you are working a sufficient lifting program. The catch 22 is that if you do a lot of cardio and lift, you might not have enough energy left over to give to your lifting routine, and since muscle is what keeps your metabolism buzzing along, you want to be sure that you are properly fueling your lifting workout.

I eat an extra 300 calories, usually by way of a protein shake, on the days that I lift.

BurtHuttz

+10 to UsedToBeHusky on "Eat, Train, Progress". Awesome resource by people who know about 100x more than I do about all this stuff. I'm clearer on the diet side of the equation than I am on the exercise side.

If you calculated your TDEE including exercise, then don't eat back your exercise calories - - they're already in there.
If you calculated your TDEE and didn't include exercise or understated it - then eat about half your exercise calories back.

Yes, eat at 1900 each day. What you're effectively doing is eating: 1900 + 1900 in two days instead of 1700 + 2100. It's the same total energy intake, just performed differently.

As far as how much or how fast you're likely to lose, we can approximate that you'll lose a pound a week based on the deficit. But it's not always linear; we can't set our clocks by calories. We're grossly oversimplifying an incredibly complex machine and set of interrelated processes.

I would say to first get your caloric intake in check. When you and your body are comfortable with your level of intake and your metabolism is running a little more optimally, you can start to research things like macronutrient ratios, etc, and really teach yourself the art of fitness. There are lots of little rules and guidelines and things, but what trick works wonders for one might not be that helpful for you.