New weight loss calculator predicts loss

grassette
grassette Posts: 976 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
New research out published in NYT shows that you can't exercise to eat more if you want to lose weight. You really have to cut those calories.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dieting-vs-exercise-for-weight-loss/?src=me&ref=general

FROM THE ARTICLE: "The problem for those of us hoping to use exercise to slough off fat is that most current calculations about exercise and weight loss assume that metabolism remains unchanged or is revved by exercise.

So Dr. Thomas has helpfully begun to recalibrate weight loss formulas, taking into account the drop in metabolism. Using her new formulas, she’s working with a group of volunteers at Pennington, providing them with improved predictions about how much weight they can expect to lose from exercise.

The predictions are proving accurate, she says, and although her forecast is for less weight loss than that under the old formula, the volunteers are pleased. “It’s better to meet lower expectations,” she says, “than to be disappointed that you’re not losing what you supposedly should.” (You can find a basic version of the revised weight loss calculator here."

+++++++++
I tried out the calculator. It starts at a base calculated according to your gender, age, height, and in order to figure out how many calories you are reducing, you need to take your MFP daily calorie allotment and deduct from that number. This will give you how many calories you are cutting out of that base number. When you slide the scale to show that number, the graph will tell you how much you can expect to lose over that period of time.

http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/

The weight loss predictor is silent about eating back your exercise calories, but if you have a daily average, you could factor that into the calculation as well.

I'm finding that this new weight loss calculator is giving me some real motivation to keep my cals low.

Your thoughts?

Replies

  • korygilliam
    korygilliam Posts: 594 Member
    interesting, bumping to read when I get home later
  • Ribena145
    Ribena145 Posts: 201 Member
    bump. seems to be a problem with the web site right at the moment - heavy traffic maybe?
  • ElleBee66
    ElleBee66 Posts: 128 Member
    The base number is very high - it tells me I am eating 2800 calories a day :noway: lol

    But when I deduct the MFP number like you said it tells me that I will lose about 2.25lb a week - slightly more than I am actually losing! (I rounded the numbers a bit (four weeks in a month etc). It seems acurate enough but i am not sure what it brings to the party, or am I missing something?

    Ok so I read the FAQs and I see why it is so high - to get the current weight loss apparently I am restricting 1375 calories a day!
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    A lot of MFP members really need to read the final question in the FAQ section and understand what it means. As the study [and similar studies with idenitcal results] suggests, people should partition their sum deficit to be mostly from calorie restriction (eating less) and let the diet do most of the work. What this means is, if you establish a 500 calorie a day deficit, eat 300 calories less and engage in 200 calories of total exercise so that calorie restriction>exercise calories. Furthermore, increasing your deficit by upping exercise too much will practically halt weight loss eventually. Finally, to minimize depression of Resting Metabolic Rate, one should, at least one or two days a week, increase calories and or decrease exercise to shrink the deficit. If your deficit maintains stable over the long-term, depression of RMR will occur and do so at a faster rate the larger the deficit.
  • nuttyfamily
    nuttyfamily Posts: 3,394 Member
    Bumping to read later.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,422 Member
    This is the exact same calculation that is used in every other weight loss plan. Nothing new here. But may be helpful to someone.

    Myfitnesspal works just fine if people use the site the way it is intended to be used: Honestly, accurately, and recalculating their goals on a regular basis.

    All these other plans....just confuse people. The tools are here, why make it so complicated?
  • AGoodie
    AGoodie Posts: 3 Member
    bump - sounds interesting
  • GreeneyedMom4
    GreeneyedMom4 Posts: 9 Member
    So what you're saying is that once a week you should up your cals or not exercise to keep your resting metabolic rate high. Easy enough to do I would think. One question, how much should your cals be upped without making you gain but enough to keep your rate high?
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Cmriverside

    Other formulas assume ones Resting Metabolic Rate remains stable during the entire time while undergoing a calorie deficit. For nearly all of us, that isn't the case. Thus, this explains the overestmation of recommended calories that often occur when ones RMR has already been depressed. This formula, on the other hand, recalculates energy expenditure while considering a decline in RMR so it may more accurately estimate caloric intake.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Not a helpful too for me. It's based on expectations for a certain population and won't do a calculation based on my information. The base number of calories is far more than I eat or is calculated to be my BMR or TDEE if that's what the number represents.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,422 Member
    Cmriverside

    Other formulas assume ones Resting Metabolic Rate remains stable during the entire time while undergoing a calorie deficit. For nearly all of us, that isn't the case. Thus, this explains the overestmation of recommended calories that often occur when ones RMR has already been depressed. This formula, on the other hand, recalculates energy expenditure while considering a decline in RMR so it may more accurately estimate caloric intake.

    If you recalculate your Goals here, you will receive an adjusted calorie requirement. The OP's formula assumes you will have a lowered RMR, yes. So does MFP and every other calculator if you use them correctly. Of course you will need less when you weigh less and you are more "fit". The RMR changes a lot for lowered weight. By the same token the depressed metabolism will occur if you under eat, too. So the optimum process is sufficient calories, moderate workload. Most of us are not elite athletes.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Then you just answered by stating exactly how it is different :wink: As you identified, the difference is that with MFP, you have to do the recalculation manually. With the Pennington formula, it's already done. Both can be valid methods assuming users fully comprehend all the variables and factors responsible for the calculations. With that said, there are many factors that can affect ones RMR; so in the end, people will still have to reassess periodically to make the appropriate changes with this formula.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,422 Member
    I love you geekyjock. You are assuming people even know what RMR means. Or net calories, for that matter.

    I'm just saying "Keep it Simple." Because I've been here long enough to know that the more little studies and tools you give people, the more confuzzled they get: exactly because they don't understand the differing methods. They all give you the same results if you use them correctly. No special snowflakes, and that includes "studies and tools."

    MFP is as simple as you can get. People make it hard by trying to use their own spin on it and trying to adapt it to the tools here. They are all the same, essentially. Why not use the one in front of you? Gaah.
  • Nefetete
    Nefetete Posts: 343 Member
    Bump for later read
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    I love you geekyjock. You are assuming people even know what RMR means. Or net calories, for that matter.

    I'm just saying "Keep it Simple." Because I've been here long enough to know that the more little studies and tools you give people, the more confuzzled they get: exactly because they don't understand the differing methods. They all give you the same results if you use them correctly. No special snowflakes, and that includes "studies and tools."

    MFP is as simple as you can get. People make it hard by trying to use their own spin on it and trying to adapt it to the tools here. They are all the same, essentially. Why not use the one in front of you? Gaah.
    I certainly agree with your points and it's quite apparent with the hundreds of threads inquiring about what BMR, TDEE and Net means. Hell, we have lots who unintentionally create excessive deficits because they think the magical 1200 estimate is how many gross dietary calories they should eat and not energy availability (net).

Categories