Recalculating the MFP Goals - A Personal Experience

cmuggridge
cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
For the past 100+ days I have been working with the recommendations given by MFP and I have come to the realization that this may not be the ideal process. I did lose consistent weight for a while but lately I am starting to see myself plateau and I just get hungrier and hungrier.

1. My initial approach using MFP only

Statistics
- Lifestyle: Sedentary*
- Current Weight (lbs): 223
- Current Body Fat (%): 32.9 (as calculated by MFP)
- Goal Weight (lbs): 170
- Calories Burned From Normal Daily Activity: 2,380
- Target Weight Loss/Week (lbs): 2

Results
- Daily Calories Deficit: 1000
- Target Net Calories Consumed/Day: 1,380

*I left this setting this low with the understanding that when I did exercise I would have more to eat on those days. I believe
this is technically correct but as everything else seems to work out from week to week it made me wonder about those days
I didn't exercise and how the lower calories impacted me over the course of the week overall.

When I first started the program at 255 lbs my Target Net Calories Consumed/Day was over 1,500 but since then MFP has
moved me down twice to reach my current 1,380. I have been getting hungrier and hungrier and feeling a bit more sluggish.
I also find myself passing up "real" food for anything with less calories so that I can eat more of it or opting for "treats"
instead to make up for the fact that I can't eat enough anyway.

Today I started to do some more research and like many others, I discovered the great post by Helloitsdan at
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12 . I decided I would follow his
recommendations and see if I could confirm my suspicions that I might be doing this wrong.

2. First up, calculating Body Fat Percentage.
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/

Statistics
- Sex: male
- Height (inches): 69.5
- Weight (lbs): 223
- Neck (inches): 17
- Waist (inches): 41.5
- Hip (inches): 41.25

Results
- Lean Body Mass (lbs): 162.3
- Current Fat (lbs): 60.7
- Body Fat (%): 27.2

Already we can see a significant discrepancy between the MFP Body Fat calculation (32.9%) and the Military Body Fat
calculation (27.2%). As the Military Body Fat calculator uses a US Department of Defense formula and is widely used (in the
absence of actual calipers), I am inclined to go with it (the fact that it comes out as less is just a bonus).

3. Next I calculated my Goal Body Weight.
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/ibw/

Statistics
- Current Weight (lbs): 223
- Current Body Fat (%): 27.2*
- Goal Body Fat (%): 11**

Results
- Goal Body Weight (lbs): 182

*Using the more accurate Body Fat calculation

**This is where I discovered that the healthy body fat range for my age is between 11% and 22%. Based on this fact
became apparent that my original weight goal of 170lbs was just not practical or healthy. That's a major 12lb difference that
challenges the notion of what I am trying to achieve.

Some people have already said it but I would just like to reiterate - weight goals are fine but only if they are inline WITH
YOUR HEALTHY BODY FAT PERCENTAGES.

4. Using more accurate data I then moved on to calculating my Calories and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR).
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

Statistics
- Calculator: Harris-Benedict Formula - I opted to use this one as it was the most recommended for its accuracy.
- Age: 41
- Sex: Male
- Height (inches): 69.5
- Current Weight (lbs): 223
- Goal Weight (lbs): 223*
- Current Body Fat (%): 27.2

Results
- Current BMR (Calories): 2059

*Usually you would enter your target weight here but Helloitsdan recommended putting in my current weight and I believe
the reasoning is that this is the maximum calories I can eat in a day (without exercising) to just maintain my current weight.
This gives me a clear anchor point to base my other calculations. If anyone believes I have gotten this wrong then please, by
all means, let me know.

5. On to calculating my actual Daily Calorie Intake
Here is where I reevaluated my activity level. I had been using Sedentary and then adding my exercises as I did them. This
time I would try and determine a more accurate activity level based on my actual activities throughout the week. My primary
confusion came from trying to identify what level my activities should be classified as.

Statistics
- Primary Type of Exercise: Stationary Recumbent Bike
- Average Length (minutes): 60
- Average Calories Burned: 500
- Average Days per Week: 4

Results
Activity Level: Moderate

6. New MFP Settings
Statistics
- Base Net Daily Calories Consumed/Day: 3,191
- Target Weight Loss/Week (lbs): 1.5
- Adjustment factor (%): 51.7*
- Target Net Daily Calories/Day: 1,655
- Daily Calorie Deficit: 725

*I did a lazy cheat calculating this one. I just entered numbers into Net Calories Consumed/Day field until the Target Weight
Loss/Week field equaled 1.5 lbs.

Results
Old Daily Calorie Intake: 1,380
Old Daily Calorie Deficit: 1,000
New Daily Calorie Intake: 1,655
New Daily Calorie Deficit: 725

CONCLUSION
I am only implementing this new regimen today so I don't have any substantiating data to share yet but I will post my results as I go, if anyone is interested. One thing that obviously should be kept in mind for anyone trying this method for the first time, you will need to repeat the process from time to time to account for the weight you have lost, otherwise you will be working with incorrect goals and may hinder your progress.

If anyone has anything to add or believes anything needs to be corrected please post your input. I am only an amateur trying to get a better handle on things and I am open to feedback and suggestions.

Replies

  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    Okay, already I am finding new conflicting information via MFP.

    By:
    - changing my goal weight to 182 instead of 170
    - dropping my weight loss per week to 1.5lbs from 2lbs
    - Leaving my activity as Sedentary

    I get a result of 1,630 net calories consumed as opposed to the 1,655 I arrived at doing it manually. The big difference being that I included the activity (Moderate) in my custom calculations with the intention that I would not be adding any exercise calories on to specific days. Based on the guided MFP process it would appear that my net calories is only slightly lower but I still have the potential to add exercise calories on top of that (on the days I do exercise).

    Seems I am back to square one in terms of knowing for sure what I should be doing to get the most benificial results.
  • cedarghost
    cedarghost Posts: 621 Member
    I just set my MFP to my max and make sure I eat between that and my bmr. Your max appears to be 3100'ish? That's probably fairly close.
    We are similar size. I am 6'5" and 222 pounds my bmr (doctor tested is 2050) so that was pretty damned close to every calculator I used online. My suggested TDEE is around 2900 and my actual TDEE is 2700ish (learned through eating and adjusting until I found my maintenance).
    I would suggest eating somewhere your BMR (2059) and your TDEE (3100). A 20% cut from your TDEE would be a deficit of 620 cals a day. That should result in a little over a pound of loss a week. Even a cut of 30% would put you at 2100ish per day, and 30% can be a little extreme and less easy to sustain, depending on your obesity level.
    With your body fat%, I would concentrate more on worrying about bf% lost than actual weight. I'd get off that bike and start a heavy lifting program like 5x5's, but that is just my preference and I am in no way knocking your exercise. If that's what makes you happy go for it.
    I am confused by your MFP settings in #6. The way I am reading it You show your TDEE is 3191 and your goal loss is 1.5 pounds a week. That should be a daily deficit of 750 calories, yet MFP says your target calories is 1655??? That's a deficit of 1500ish daily (or 3 pounds a week.
    Again, I don't use MFP to calculate my daily allowance. I set it at my max and then try to stay under that if I am cutting and slightly over it if I am bulking. that's just easier for me.
  • cedarghost
    cedarghost Posts: 621 Member
    By the way, If I use a calculator setting of "lightly active" it works out pretty close for me.
    I would bet just about anything you want that if you eat at around 2100 a day, you will lose pretty consistently. You are definitely not eating enough for a guy your size.
    Oh, also occasionally I will plateau, and when I do, I just eat at maintenance for a a couple weeks and that kicks me off again.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    That military BF% calculator put me at 14.8%. There's no way in hell I'm at 14.8 - more like the low 20's. Just so you realize that that calculator isn't necessarily accurate.
  • MMB5222
    MMB5222 Posts: 19 Member
    :smile:
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    Thanks cedarghost for your feedback.

    Just to clarify, that height is in inches only (69.5) so I am really 5' 9 1/2" and currently at 223 lbs. I'm not sure how that would affect the numbers you were quoting. Truth be told I am not sure if I could follow it properly.

    I am starting with weights as well. What do you mean by 5x5s?

    When you set yourself to lightly active do you still count your exercise calories on top of that?

    I'm not sure what I did there on #6. Obviously typo'd somehow.
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    Thanks for the info on the Body Fat Calculator TR0berts. As depressing as it may be. :)
  • geregam
    geregam Posts: 17 Member
    If you are basing everything on BF%, then you have to get an accurate measurement. The handheld units that the gym trainers use (or the ones built into fitness scales) may not be 100% accurate, but are close enough for the calculations you are doing.

    I made the mistake once of thinking i could get my weight down to 200lbs... I current sit at 264 and 26% body fat. That means I'm carrying around about 68.5 lbs of fat, and my LEAN BODY WEIGHT is around 193.5. If i were 200 lbs and lost NO lean muscle mass, i'd be at 3.5% body fat.... That's pretty unrealistic.

    If i keep my lean mass at 193, a body weight of 225 would put me at about 16% BF. However, I have a goal to build some muscle mass, as this helps with daily calorie burning, so my weight goal is 235, but my BF% goal is 15%.

    As to caloric intake, 2lbs a week is not attainable long term. Keeping yourself active and shooting for 1 to 1.5 a week is your best bet. That said, 1700-1800 calories is probably correct.

    I'm sure similar math would be helpful for you, so i'd try to get a good measurement of BF%.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    I am starting with weights as well. What do you mean by 5x5s?


    www.stronglifts.com is a 5x5 program.
    www.startingstrength.com is a 3x5 program - actually, there's a number of variations. I'm doing the Practical Programming version.
    www.strstd.com links to Jim Wendler's 5/3/1 program.

    Any of those would be good to start out at. Personally, I like Starting Strength or Wendler's 5/3/1 - as those don't necessarily start you out with an empty bar. Not too high, but they give you a good starting point so that you're not wasting your time. However, if you've never done *ANY* lifting before, you can always start with the empty bar, just to be on the safe side.
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    TR0berts,

    I have the book "The New Rules of Lifting" and I have previously lifted weights but they were machines, it was about 5 - 7 years ago and I doubt if I was even doing them right.

    I will look into your recommendations.
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    If you are basing everything on BF%, then you have to get an accurate measurement. The handheld units that the gym trainers use (or the ones built into fitness scales) may not be 100% accurate, but are close enough for the calculations you are doing.

    I made the mistake once of thinking i could get my weight down to 200lbs... I current sit at 264 and 26% body fat. That means I'm carrying around about 68.5 lbs of fat, and my LEAN BODY WEIGHT is around 193.5. If i were 200 lbs and lost NO lean muscle mass, i'd be at 3.5% body fat.... That's pretty unrealistic.

    If i keep my lean mass at 193, a body weight of 225 would put me at about 16% BF. However, I have a goal to build some muscle mass, as this helps with daily calorie burning, so my weight goal is 235, but my BF% goal is 15%.

    As to caloric intake, 2lbs a week is not attainable long term. Keeping yourself active and shooting for 1 to 1.5 a week is your best bet. That said, 1700-1800 calories is probably correct.

    I'm sure similar math would be helpful for you, so i'd try to get a good measurement of BF%.

    I am thinking about picking up some calipers. Would these be close enough to guide me do you think?
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    Sometimes it seems like the more I learn, the more confused I get. :noway:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    There are lots of conflicting ways to figure your calories. This site does a good job if you use it honestly and don't try to be too aggressive when setting your weight-loss Goal here. Keep this in mind when using the tools to set up your goals:

    If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
    If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
    If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
    If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
    If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.


    This site is only as good as the info you enter. If you have any type of job, or care for children, you are not Sedentary. Adjust accordingy.

    If you use the site as it is intended to be used (honest input, accurate food logging, and eating your exercise calories) you will be fine.
  • NCchar130
    NCchar130 Posts: 955 Member
    Netting 1380 a day definitely sounds too low.

    I don't have any answers for you but I will share my personal experience - I am a 5',6" female with a sedentary job. I'm 33 years old. I started at 217 lbs and set MFP to 1 lb a week and 'lightly active' based since I think of sedentary as how I lived post-back surgery for a few weeks. On top of that, I eat back exercise calories. My net calorie goal started around 1800 and is now at 1600. With exercise calories, most days I end up eating between 1800 - 2200, consistently since July. I work out, at most, 30-40 minutes per day, 4-6 days per week. I've lost, on average, 1.7 pounds per week instead of the 1 lb per week in my settings. So I conclude my TDEE is likely higher.

    You may want to add some calories back in slowly and see how your body reacts to it. The calulators and whatnot will only take you so far. All online calculations give me fairly low numbers for that 1 lb/wk loss but I now know I can eat a little more and continue to lose. I've read a lot of personal stories on here of people busting right through a plateau as soon as they upped their calories.

    Good luck to you!
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    Okay, so as of right now I have my MFP settings at:

    Age: 41
    Height: 5' 9.5"
    Current Weight: 223

    Goal Weight: 180lbs
    Activity: Light
    Pounds/Week: 1.5

    Daily Calorie Intake: 1820

    Does this sound closer to anybody?
  • Stephy2469
    Stephy2469 Posts: 35 Member
    Okay, so as of right now I have my MFP settings at:

    Age: 41
    Height: 5' 9.5"
    Current Weight: 223

    Goal Weight: 180lbs
    Activity: Light
    Pounds/Week: 1.5

    Daily Calorie Intake: 1820

    Does this sound closer to anybody?

    That sounds more like it!
  • cedarghost
    cedarghost Posts: 621 Member
    Okay, so as of right now I have my MFP settings at:

    Age: 41
    Height: 5' 9.5"
    Current Weight: 223

    Goal Weight: 180lbs
    Activity: Light
    Pounds/Week: 1.5

    Daily Calorie Intake: 1820

    Does this sound closer to anybody?
    When I plug in your numbers, I get 2077 bmr, and 3220 TDEE based on a moderate activity level. If you are using the TDEE method, you don't add your exercise calories back in. They are already figured in. The 1800 is still too low. I still stand by my previous statement. I bet you can eat at 2100 per day and lose pretty consistently. Probably more like 2300. Remember this TDEE is figured by a calculator, but they are usually pretty close. If you want to find your true TDEE eat 3200 calories for a couple weeks and see if you gain, lose or maintain then adjust if needed.
    If you start eating 2100 or more, you may gain at first but you will lose it pretty quickly.. If you have been eating at ower calories for a pretty good while, I recommend doing a metabolism reset, where you would eat at maintenance for a few weeks, then start your cut.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    Okay, so as of right now I have my MFP settings at:

    Age: 41
    Height: 5' 9.5"
    Current Weight: 223

    Goal Weight: 180lbs
    Activity: Light
    Pounds/Week: 1.5

    Daily Calorie Intake: 1820

    Does this sound closer to anybody?

    Closer. You are right on that cusp of "Lose 1.5 pounds" or "Lose 1 pound" per week. I'm glad you changed your Activity level. No one is Sedentary. Try it at this level for one month. If you are losing 1 - 1.5 pounds per week, great. Don't change anything else for a month. You could probably eat a couple hundred more a day easily and still lose, but this is a good start. You MAY have a temporary gain of a pound or two in the first week...stick with it!! You've been undereating for a while, that's why you were so hungry. Always always listen when you are hungry - actual hunger is a signal to eat! Most recommendations say to not eat under 1800 for a man, ever.

    Make sure you eat more on exercise days.

    Good luck.
  • fresh_start59
    fresh_start59 Posts: 590 Member
    You might try using this calculator and inputing your information manually. At least that is what I am doing: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator

    Do not go above your TDEE and never eat below your BMR
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    When I plug in your numbers, I get 2077 bmr, and 3220 TDEE based on a moderate activity level. If you are using the TDEE method, you don't add your exercise calories back in. They are already figured in. The 1800 is still too low. I still stand by my previous statement. I bet you can eat at 2100 per day and lose pretty consistently. Probably more like 2300. Remember this TDEE is figured by a calculator, but they are usually pretty close. If you want to find your true TDEE eat 3200 calories for a couple weeks and see if you gain, lose or maintain then adjust if needed.
    If you start eating 2100 or more, you may gain at first but you will lose it pretty quickly.. If you have been eating at ower calories for a pretty good while, I recommend doing a metabolism reset, where you would eat at maintenance for a few weeks, then start your cut.

    So if I am following this right, if I leave the total at 1800 as per the guided MFP result, then those days I do my 500 calorie workout I will have 2300 calories for eating. That would seem to be right where you are estimating it, correct? And if I do happen to go over my 1800 calorie limit by 1 or 2 hundred on those other days, I shouldn't really need to worry.

    Wow, I can't believe how long I have gone under-eating based on some simple, incorrect selections.
  • cmuggridge
    cmuggridge Posts: 58 Member
    You might try using this calculator and inputing your information manually. At least that is what I am doing: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator

    Do not go above your TDEE and never eat below your BMR

    Thanks. It looks like this one is only a couple hundred off the totals cedarghost was supplying so I would view that as a fairly solid confirmation.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member

    So if I am following this right, if I leave the total at 1800 as per the guided MFP result, then those days I do my 500 calorie workout I will have 2300 calories for eating. That would seem to be right where you are estimating it, correct? And if I do happen to go over my 1800 calorie limit by 1 or 2 hundred on those other days, I shouldn't really need to worry.

    Wow, I can't believe how long I have gone under-eating based on some simple, incorrect selections.

    You've got it. There are two ways to figure it, TDEE (his way) and MFP's way. If you use correct calculations, they both get you to the same place.

    Don't feel bad, most people do that. It's human nature to want to lose fast. So, "Lose 2 pounds a week" and
    "Sedentary" sounds great!

    It does work if you are extremely over weight. But as you have learned, it doesn't work for long without consequences.
  • xRedHeaterx
    xRedHeaterx Posts: 37 Member
    Interesting, thoughtful thread. I just thought it was worth querying your waist measurement, as for your other stats it seems very close to the hip measurement. It should be measured at the widest part, often an inch above the navel. For me it's like 5 inches more than my jeans size. Best would be to get an official measurement of the stats, especially body fat. A nurse I know told me they sometimes measure it by passing electricity through certain parts. There are other methods of course, some already mentioned.

    Good luck

Categories