Which is right?
MadameMC
Posts: 63 Member
I am SO freaking confused, and exhausted and my brain hurts from research and reading and more reading, and more reading, and conflicting information! I could really use someone to sit down with a "For Dummies" book and talk to me in laymens terms, before I explode from over-information.
When I started my weight loss journey in January, my boyfriend had done some research and decided (I'm not even sure how) that a good goal for us to eat at was 1800 calories a day. (Lets not forget to mention that he weighs much less than I do, and of course his needs are going to be different!)
So I ate at that for awhile. Then I found the forums and the "In place of a road map" post. I tried to decipher everything there, THOUGHT I had it, and raised my daily calories to 2200, I think it was? Maybe I had it at 2300. I don't even remember. Then later on down the road came IPOARM 3.0 and I recalculated - but I really wasn't sure I was measuring the right places, and my bodyfat % was wildly different depending on which calculator I used... I went with the average number.
Still confused and wanting to make sure that I was calculating everything right, I wrote up a lengthy email to Dan, the IPOARM man, with all my calculations and figures, with a picture showing the spots I measured that I wasn't sure if that was the right spot or not, with my calculation results and asking for some confirmation on whether or not I was calculating right, measuring right, etc. I got back an extremely brief response of approximately 8 words saying at my weight I should be eating between (If I recall correctly) 1600-2000 calories a day. (Which really didn't help me know if I was doing anything right or not.)
I decided to go with 1900 calories, but it seems as though my weight loss has almost stalled. Rather than the "around a pound" a week I'd lost previously, I only lost 0.6lbs in 2 weeks. Wanting to find something more accurate I wound up finding this group, and heybales post with the spreadsheet Weight Loss Calculator.
So tonight I plunked my numbers into that, and it's telling me I should be eating 2088 calories a day. I also tried Scooby's calculator which is recommended in one of the sticky posts in this forum, and it said I should be eating 2094.
So with answers of 1600-2000, 2094, 2088, setting my own goal of 1900, my boyfriend's goal of 1800... I just don't know what to go with! I read on one site that you shouldn't eat at more than a 20% deficit from your TDEE... I read in one of the forums here on MFP that if you have over 100lbs to lose that 30% was okay for awhile...that's quite a big difference!
I also noticed that (not every day) but many days.. maybe 5 out of 7, I'm often eating only 1400 - 1600 calories, even though I -try- to eat closer to my goal I find I'm often falling short and not eating enough. How I can go from way overeating for so long, to "undereating" now that I'm counting calories, I don't even know!
All I know is, I want the right calorie goal - I want there to be no questions in my mind of how to get the new number when my weight has changed enough, I want to be certain I'm measuring my stomach and hips in the right places, and then I can focus on how to make sure I'm getting *enough* food to meet that goal.
If anyone would be willing to message me privately, someone who has a really good grasp on this, and can walk me through getting the right calculation and clearing up the confusion, I could so use it right now. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm whining.. I'm just so fed up and banging my head on a wall.
When I started my weight loss journey in January, my boyfriend had done some research and decided (I'm not even sure how) that a good goal for us to eat at was 1800 calories a day. (Lets not forget to mention that he weighs much less than I do, and of course his needs are going to be different!)
So I ate at that for awhile. Then I found the forums and the "In place of a road map" post. I tried to decipher everything there, THOUGHT I had it, and raised my daily calories to 2200, I think it was? Maybe I had it at 2300. I don't even remember. Then later on down the road came IPOARM 3.0 and I recalculated - but I really wasn't sure I was measuring the right places, and my bodyfat % was wildly different depending on which calculator I used... I went with the average number.
Still confused and wanting to make sure that I was calculating everything right, I wrote up a lengthy email to Dan, the IPOARM man, with all my calculations and figures, with a picture showing the spots I measured that I wasn't sure if that was the right spot or not, with my calculation results and asking for some confirmation on whether or not I was calculating right, measuring right, etc. I got back an extremely brief response of approximately 8 words saying at my weight I should be eating between (If I recall correctly) 1600-2000 calories a day. (Which really didn't help me know if I was doing anything right or not.)
I decided to go with 1900 calories, but it seems as though my weight loss has almost stalled. Rather than the "around a pound" a week I'd lost previously, I only lost 0.6lbs in 2 weeks. Wanting to find something more accurate I wound up finding this group, and heybales post with the spreadsheet Weight Loss Calculator.
So tonight I plunked my numbers into that, and it's telling me I should be eating 2088 calories a day. I also tried Scooby's calculator which is recommended in one of the sticky posts in this forum, and it said I should be eating 2094.
So with answers of 1600-2000, 2094, 2088, setting my own goal of 1900, my boyfriend's goal of 1800... I just don't know what to go with! I read on one site that you shouldn't eat at more than a 20% deficit from your TDEE... I read in one of the forums here on MFP that if you have over 100lbs to lose that 30% was okay for awhile...that's quite a big difference!
I also noticed that (not every day) but many days.. maybe 5 out of 7, I'm often eating only 1400 - 1600 calories, even though I -try- to eat closer to my goal I find I'm often falling short and not eating enough. How I can go from way overeating for so long, to "undereating" now that I'm counting calories, I don't even know!
All I know is, I want the right calorie goal - I want there to be no questions in my mind of how to get the new number when my weight has changed enough, I want to be certain I'm measuring my stomach and hips in the right places, and then I can focus on how to make sure I'm getting *enough* food to meet that goal.
If anyone would be willing to message me privately, someone who has a really good grasp on this, and can walk me through getting the right calculation and clearing up the confusion, I could so use it right now. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm whining.. I'm just so fed up and banging my head on a wall.
0
Replies
-
It is true people with 100+ lbs or more to lose can afford a larger deficit but not forever or a long period of time.
15% cut is most preferred. If the spreadsheet says eat 20xx amt to lose weight then try that out for 4 weeks and see what happens. It will be inaccurate if you dont use the correct activity level or activity level changes etc. when you have a large amount of calories to eat it doesnt ALL have to be 'healthy' i eat about 80% healthy 20% whatever. So that 20% includes some pretzels, peanuts, trail mix, ice cream, even poptarts. With this i hit my macros, calorie goal, and sodium and potassium levels are great. As far as measurements just google how to measure your body. Dont measure too tight or slack and try to measure the same spot and way everytime.0 -
I'll comment on the spreadsheet calcs, since you may not want to look at the engine under the hood.
Bodyfat% is based on 2 calcs usually recommended as best chance for accuracy - many measurements, and using mainly different body parts, so avg is best estimate.
BMR is based on that BF%, not inflated like fat2fit uses the Harris BMR.
TDEE Activity Calculator is based on actual time and type of activity, not 5 broad levels that really get unclear if daily activity outside exercise is more than sedentary desk job. You can still use avg time in the levels though, no need to be totally exact though that obviously helps if you are consistent. So 3 or 4 days of 60 min running becomes 3.5 x 60 = 210 min high cardio. Lifting 3 x 45 min = 135 min lifting. Your job is on your feet for minimum 4 hrs daily, 5 x 4 hr = 20 hrs service trades.
Easy.
The goal is based on amount to lose (less is smaller %) and how much real lifting you are doing to maintain muscle mass (more is bigger %). But it never goes below the line in the sand - BMR.
Macro goals is based on common real recommendations for during weight loss, with protein and fat being most important.
So the spreadsheet emphasises 2 of the 3 aspects to retain muscle mass in the face of a diet - reasonable deficit, and enough protein. You add the 3rd aspect by doing lifting.
The spreadsheet also self-corrects very well from what is normally seen, as BF% improves in accuracy, TDEE and TDEG change correctly.
But fat2fit doesn't use BF% in eating levels, and unless you provided it to Dan he couldn't, and Scooby has option to use it, which sounds like you did.
Use the spreadsheet, track your progress, since if you have good workouts, measurements may change more than weight. In which case update every 2 weeks.
Oh, to the measurements, so maximum and minimum are self-explanatory in the spreadsheet.
For instance, waist minimum, well, whatever the minimum spot is in the waist area. Hips max, well, hip area, biggest measurement.
Tape should be not too tight and squishing out skin, but firm.
And it should be level going around to the view of the body. So for hips you don't angle it down to grap the rear area and up to grap the belly area. Standing, tape should be level across plane of body. Same with forearm, you've seen a loose bracelet that hanging you might say sideways. So make the tape straight.
It's not always the exact same spot, it's max and min, so that will change as fat is lost. Now, there are 2 other option spots you can fill in on the Progress tab, perhaps you want upper arm, or bust, ect. Either use max method, or pick a mole.0 -
Oh, to the measurements, so maximum and minimum are self-explanatory in the spreadsheet.
For instance, waist minimum, well, whatever the minimum spot is in the waist area. Hips max, well, hip area, biggest measurement.
Tape should be not too tight and squishing out skin, but firm.
And it should be level going around to the view of the body. So for hips you don't angle it down to grap the rear area and up to grap the belly area. Standing, tape should be level across plane of body. Same with forearm, you've seen a loose bracelet that hanging you might say sideways. So make the tape straight.
It's not always the exact same spot, it's max and min, so that will change as fat is lost. Now, there are 2 other option spots you can fill in on the Progress tab, perhaps you want upper arm, or bust, ect. Either use max method, or pick a mole.
The part I'm really not sure on is the hips - it may sound like a stupid question, but do you measure over the lower belly pouch, or under it? That makes quite a big difference.
Also, after some sleep and not looking at this thing at 4 in the morning, I just realized I had accidentally left some calculations in the yellow boxes that weren't mine, which of course skewed my results.
The spreadsheet now says my TDEG is 1902, which is what I've been aiming for lately, so I guess I'll stick with this number for awhile longer and try to figure out how to eat more protein and eat closer to the goal instead of 400 cal below it.
Thanks for the explanations.0 -
The part I'm really not sure on is the hips - it may sound like a stupid question, but do you measure over the lower belly pouch, or under it? That makes quite a big difference.
Between upper and lower bony areas.
About here.
And if that makes it bigger than you think, it may over-estimate BF% right now.
But that's fine, just means for a little while, you are getting bigger deficit than you will later, which can probably be supported.
But since only 1 calc uses hips, it'll still be averaged out with other calc.0 -
I am a numbers nerd. I too would love an absolute number for my BMR and TDEE. But unless I intend on doing expensive testing often... heybales spreadsheet is awesome. For right now I am sticking with a number that I think is somewhere in the sweet spot. I am losing about a half a pound a week and seeing my measurements go down and strength gains go up. For now that is going to be enough.0
-
And if that makes it bigger than you think, it may over-estimate BF% right now.
But that's fine, just means for a little while, you are getting bigger deficit than you will later, which can probably be supported.
But since only 1 calc uses hips, it'll still be averaged out with other calc.
Okay, then I guess the answer is "over it"... because if I hold the tape measure there it's going to go across my lower belly paunch/pouch/whatever-you-call-it.
What about for "Waist - Minimum Girth"? I don't really *have* a "smallest part of" of my stomach unless you're measuring directly under my breasts or in the crease between rolls of fat at my navel, and I use the latter for the abdomen at navel measurement.
Believe it or not, I *have* googled "how to measure your ____" many times and not come up with a single good answer that applies to those who are morbidly obsese.0 -
Okay, then I guess the answer is "over it"... because if I hold the tape measure there it's going to go across my lower belly paunch/pouch/whatever-you-call-it.
What about for "Waist - Minimum Girth"? I don't really *have* a "smallest part of" of my stomach unless you're measuring directly under my breasts or in the crease between rolls of fat at my navel, and I use the latter for the abdomen at navel measurement.
Believe it or not, I *have* googled "how to measure your ____" many times and not come up with a single good answer that applies to those who are morbidly obsese.
Waist does start that high possibly. Actually, one site showed example of healthy weight ladies, and some really did have waist smallest there, gently going up to hips that flared out. They had muffin tops, thin looking but high % of fat.0
