Calculate your "correct" calorie defecit

Options
MissJenova
MissJenova Posts: 258
in Health and Weight Loss
Hey guys!

I was procrastinating at work and found this webpage that was helpful and interesting to me:
http://www.shape.com/weight-loss/weight-loss-strategies/ask-diet-doctor-how-many-calories-should-i-eat-lose-weight

It basically explains the how and why on calculating how many calories you should be eating to lose weight.

The writer is "Dr. Mike Roussell, PhD, nutritional consultant" so I think he may have some merit :wink:

It says to calculate and then try it out for two weeks and monitor your weight to see how your plan working for you.

I think we all have 2 weeks we can spare to try something different. Give it a shot! I hope it helps some of you out! Don't be afraid to try what you calculate for yourself. 2 weeks is nothing in the grand sceme of things.

It calculated about 200 additional calories for me to eat than I have right now, so I think I'll try it .

Good luck! :flowerforyou:
«1

Replies

  • sharonsjones
    sharonsjones Posts: 574 Member
    Options
    Wow! I used the formula and it says I should be eating 2006 calories a day! Thats 500 more calories a day for me. I just cant bring myself to eat that many calories.
  • GuybrushThreepw00d
    GuybrushThreepw00d Posts: 784 Member
    Options
    So basically as i'm "Lightly Active".

    BMR (1850) * 1.5 - Defecit(1000) = 1775 calories/day (NET)

    Thats pretty much what i'm doing....
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    Wow! I used the formula and it says I should be eating 2006 calories a day! Thats 500 more calories a day for me. I just cant bring myself to eat that many calories.

    I know, it seems strange! Did you reduce 500 calories or 250 from your "maintainence" calories? I subtracted 500 to put me at 1726 a day.
    But eating more does help you lose weight (depending on certain factors, of course), so I'm certainly not afraid to try it out for the full 2 weeks. It can't hurt!
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    Uses a basic multiplier for calculating TDEE. That is insufficient for fine tuning.

    If you do not engage in the SAME exact activities per day, then your TDEE changes each day. This is why some, such as myself, argue for using MFP's guidelines to go by sedentary activity level and then log your activities in via exercise to more accurately get the count for that day.
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    So basically as i'm "Lightly Active".

    BMR (1850) * 1.5 - Defecit(1000) = 1775 calories/day (NET)

    Thats pretty much what i'm doing....

    Good! That's easy then lol

    The calculations from that site were pretty different from what I had on MFP, so it was interesting to me. Plus it was nice to read through the explanation for it all.
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    Uses a basic multiplier for calculating TDEE. That is insufficient for fine tuning.

    If you do not engage in the SAME exact activities per day, then your TDEE changes each day. This is why some, such as myself, argue for using MFP's guidelines to go by sedentary activity level and then log your activities in via exercise to more accurately get the count for that day.


    That makes sense..
  • mulderpf
    mulderpf Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    This is exactly the same thing as MFP uses, so how is it different? I don't understand how this is so significantly different for anyone? And then it's 500 calories less per day for each pound you want to lose, which is exactly the same as it says in the article...
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    This is exactly the same thing as MFP uses, so how is it different? I don't understand how this is so significantly different for anyone? And then it's 500 calories less per day for each pound you want to lose, which is exactly the same as it says in the article...

    I think it made a difference for me because of the "lifestyle" option. In MFP I am Sedentary according to the discription that MFP provides, but with this website's explanation I calculated as "Lightly Active". It just worded things in a way that helped me calculate a bit more specifically.
  • mulderpf
    mulderpf Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    I see what you're saying - well, this also differs depending on who is describing it to you, but it doesn't change the formula.

    Search for Harris Benedict equation and you will see how many different definitions there are of the difference between sedentary and lightly active. Many sites describe lightly active as "light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week" instead. Which to me means, that if I choose sedentary and log all my exercise instead of relying on the fact that I'll get a bit of exercise in during the week, I can fine tune things a lot more. That said, I am going to have to move up to lightly active soon, because I run up and down the stairs at work now every day (because I CAN!!) and make a point of walking on escalators instead of standing etc.

    Either way, it's the same formula, just the "description" of what it means differs. Doesn't mean the guy is right though...
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    I see what you're saying - well, this also differs depending on who is describing it to you, but it doesn't change the formula.

    Search for Harris Benedict equation and you will see how many different definitions there are of the difference between sedentary and lightly active. Many sites describe lightly active as "light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week" instead. Which to me means, that if I choose sedentary and log all my exercise instead of relying on the fact that I'll get a bit of exercise in during the week, I can fine tune things a lot more. That said, I am going to have to move up to lightly active soon, because I run up and down the stairs at work now every day (because I CAN!!) and make a point of walking on escalators instead of standing etc.

    Either way, it's the same formula, just the "description" of what it means differs. Doesn't mean the guy is right though...

    No no you're totally correct. Like I said originally, it was just nice to read through the description of the formula and blah blah blah.
    You're right, the definition of active is different everywhere but the provided formula is still the same, so it does depend on what your personal goals and/or regular activities are to find what fine tuning you need to calculate :smile:
  • MissJenova
    MissJenova Posts: 258
    Options
    That said, I am going to have to move up to lightly active soon, because I run up and down the stairs at work now every day (because I CAN!!) and make a point of walking on escalators instead of standing etc.

    And congrats on this btw!!
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    Options
    I ran the numbers and got pretty much what I'm working with now. I'm doing TDEE minus a 15 to 20 percent deficit. But it's great to have it re-affirmed:)))
  • mulderpf
    mulderpf Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    No no you're totally correct.
    No no, YOU'RE totally correct :)

    But you have a point. Two weeks is nothing to try a different setting in the bigger scheme of things. Doing this isn't a quick fix and if you end up not losing anything for two weeks, at least you know that your activity is closer to sedentary... :)

    I am going to have to start tweaking soon...but it is scary every time I do!! (I do not change goals or settings on any day other than a Monday when I also weigh in...).

    In the end though, a two weeks change of settings could mean that you understand your body better, which is probably worth more than losing a few pounds (and hopefully you'll still lose some too).
  • soulfulsally
    soulfulsally Posts: 326
    Options
    I've been logging here for 20 days, averaging 1700-ish calories a day, and no weight loss yet. That Shape article calculated me at a little over 2,100 to lose a lb a week. I don't want to risk gaining any more weight, so I'll pass on that.

    Hope it works out for you!
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Interesting. It came out to pretty much what I'm doing now.
    BMR = 1678.35
    w/activity level = 2517.525 (-1000 =)
    Calorie Goal = 1518 (which is only 198 more than MFP gives me)

    However I don't lose anywhere near 1-2 lbs a week - so likely to actually lose according to this I should try subtracting another 250 from my goal which would be 1268 as my actual calorie goal (which is only 52 less than MFP gives me).

    Okay this was too much math and it seems to me like no miracles are going to happen if I eat 52 calories less a day - so moving on.... I'm going to print it for later though so I can do the math again later - right now I'm having a hard enough time staying in the green on calories and am really frustrated and tired and hungry but I know I'll have to make a serious cut to calories soon if I ever want to reach my goals.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Options
    I chose 1.4 (sedentary since I only work out three days a week and would add that separately). It says I need 2,259 to maintain. That seems awfully high.

    ETA: My BMR was 1613...
  • kathendo1984
    kathendo1984 Posts: 111
    Options
    um i just worked mine out using this and it seems very low, it tells me for my body to maintain i should eat 1677.69 and to loose subtract 500 which means id only be eating 1177.69 per day, i cant survive on that. but if this is correct i need to lower my cals as ive been equally around 1400 - 1600 a day........
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    This is exactly the same thing as MFP uses, so how is it different? I don't understand how this is so significantly different for anyone? And then it's 500 calories less per day for each pound you want to lose, which is exactly the same as it says in the article...

    Mine comes out the same too, just 150 calories different.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    I see what you're saying - well, this also differs depending on who is describing it to you, but it doesn't change the formula.

    Search for Harris Benedict equation and you will see how many different definitions there are of the difference between sedentary and lightly active. Many sites describe lightly active as "light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week" instead. Which to me means, that if I choose sedentary and log all my exercise instead of relying on the fact that I'll get a bit of exercise in during the week, I can fine tune things a lot more. That said, I am going to have to move up to lightly active soon, because I run up and down the stairs at work now every day (because I CAN!!) and make a point of walking on escalators instead of standing etc.

    Either way, it's the same formula, just the "description" of what it means differs. Doesn't mean the guy is right though...

    YES! I run up and down stairs now too, just like a kid! (I used to always run stairs as a kid because it took WAY to long to walk. I also used to run home from school for the same reason, just impatience.)
  • jesz124
    jesz124 Posts: 1,004 Member
    Options
    um i just worked mine out using this and it seems very low, it tells me for my body to maintain i should eat 1677.69 and to loose subtract 500 which means id only be eating 1177.69 per day, i cant survive on that. but if this is correct i need to lower my cals as ive been equally around 1400 - 1600 a day........

    Yup. I got a very similar amount when I did it. Funny cos I'm losing fat but not s ale weight on between 1700 and 2000 a day. Maybe I'm a freak? I don't know, but according to that I should be gaining!

Categories