BMR or MFP? Conflicting numbers

Options
1235»

Replies

  • nomeejerome
    nomeejerome Posts: 2,616 Member
    Options
    I need a bingo card.
  • Supergirl9801
    Supergirl9801 Posts: 75
    Options
    No, no, there is no "gaining muscle" when eating in a calorie deficit.

    Then what's the point of working out? Just to earn more calories to eat?
  • TAsunder
    TAsunder Posts: 423 Member
    Options
    No, no, there is no "gaining muscle" when eating in a calorie deficit.

    Then what's the point of working out? Just to earn more calories to eat?

    Your muscles are getting stronger, but not more bulky.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    No, no, there is no "gaining muscle" when eating in a calorie deficit.

    Then what's the point of working out? Just to earn more calories to eat?

    Fitness, endurance, strength gains (not to be confused with muscle gains), muscle retention, etc.
  • Bounce4
    Bounce4 Posts: 288 Member
    Options
    I have not read all the replies. Most likely you just need to give it a little more time. Only 2 weeks of logging and increased exercise - might just all work out in another week or two. :)

    If you ask for a 2lb loss you'll get 1200 calories regardless of your other stats. I'm 6' tall and that is what it gave me. I actually did eat pretty close to that at first and of course I lost a lot which was nice but I got freaked out about loosing muscle (which I don't have enough to start, lol) and so upped them - twice!. I was also really crabby ;) My margin of error is much smaller now and I have weeks of actually gaining and I know this is logging. I don't notice much difference from when I measured to starting to weigh (easier to weigh IMO but I don't weigh egg, oranges, etc. ) but I guess a lot on supper and use someone else's recipe in the system that sounds about right calorie-wise or try as best I can to enter individual ingredients. The recipe feature does me in, when I have done it figuring out the portion has proven a major PITA. I just don't do it. I've tried and use it occasionally but it doesn't work with my life :P More importantly though is the hidden calories I consume from tasting what I'm cooking, licking spoons, grabbing a bite of something when I open the fridge door, swiping from my kids' plates, they share their treats, etc. Apparently Juicy Fruit gum has 10 calories a stick which I can fly through those suckers when I'm hungry or driving. Those things are generally not even reflected in my logging or sometimes I'll do a quick add which is a total guess. When I was eating so far below my TDEE I had a huge margin of error but not anymore.

    I do it more when I'm stressed and overwhelmed and April is a stressful month for me and there is Easter and 4 family birthday meals and so it has been rough.

    Long story short. my experience/share is to take a look at your day and see if you have any of those hidden calories because for me - they really add up.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    No, no, there is no "gaining muscle" when eating in a calorie deficit.

    Then what's the point of working out? Just to earn more calories to eat?

    To actually gain muscle, you need to eat at a calorie surplus and work really hard. You will strengthen the muscles you have by working out, and that is good for health & fitness. You will begin to see your muscles more when the fat comes off, which many people confuse with "gaining muscle". And yes, working out can help create calorie deficit to lose weight. The "earning more calories to eat" is basically just an MFP thing, since MFP numbers do not include exercise. Most other weight loss programs give you a calorie goal which includes the exercise so it isn't a matter of thinking about "earning" them.
  • asciiqwerty
    asciiqwerty Posts: 565 Member
    Options
    calorie deficit <> weight loss
    excercise (while in deficit) <> health, fitness and increasing the calorie deficit
  • midwestspitfire
    midwestspitfire Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure why weighing vs. measuring would make a difference as long as I'm logging it with the correct method used. So if I measure it with a measuring cup I should log that it was measured that way...which is what I'm doing. The two eggs from today are logged by their size (large eggs). Clementines are again all roughly the same size. I also only eat back half my exercise calories for this very reason. It is utterly impossible to completely log everything EXACTLY correctly.

    it can make a huge difference

    first entries in the database by "cup" do you know in which country the member lived when it was entered > cos different countries use different cup sizes
    also was the food compacted into the cup or was it "loose"?
    was the cup full to the brim (levelled) or "heaped"

    most of these also apply to spoon sizes

    even if you reliably use the same style of cup and spoon how do you know what the user had when they entered it in the database: you don't

    the only things that make sense working by volume are liquids in a measuring jug - but even these can work better weighed

    i tend to go through phases - of logging more or less accurately, and when i'm not seeing hte losses that i want is exactly the time to be more picky about measuring

    ps large eggs are different in different countries - also these are defined as a band of weights in the uk large is 63-73g while in the US large is greater than 2oz
    there is a lot of scope for discreppancies here

    but the common things that people forget to log are cooking fats and things that they consider either minor (the odd nut) or healthy life fruit
    This just sounds ridiculous. Seriously...as I said before there is NO way to be completely accurate in your logging. Especially taking into consideration all your "nitpicking" above. This is why I said I only eat back HALF of my exercise calories. To alot for mis-measurements and overcalculations on burns. I mean according to what your saying it would be impossible for anyone to input anything completely accurately into MFP. Might as well just give up.

    Here is the potential problem with this system:

    If you're only eating back half your exercise calories to make up for inaccurate calorie counting…

    ...what happens if you're calculating your exercise burn incorrectly?

    Are you using a chest strap heart rate monitor?
  • asciiqwerty
    asciiqwerty Posts: 565 Member
    Options
    Just for information, you may be interested in this study of dietitians and "other" similar adults:

    It found that even dietitians (who should know better - right?) underestimated their calorie intake. This study (refs below) (small sample alert) of 10 dietitians and 10 other similar adults over a week. The under-reporting was 223 and 429 kcal/day respectively, implying that those who take care and are knowledgeable can significantly increase the accuracy of their calorie tracking compared to those who are less careful/knowledgeable.

    Consider that in this study they were all told that the target was accuracy - so we can assume that they were trying to do their best to be accurate. So i consider myself moderately knowledgeable - but i'm not a professional dietitian, so looking at these figures, I might assume *reasonably* that I under-estimate calories by about 300-350 cals per day! My target deficit is 275 cal/day for a 0.25kg/week loss. For me the difference between being quite accurate and very accurate is the difference between weight loss and weight gain.

    If someone was not targetting accuracy, they might quite reasonably be under-reporting well over 400 cal/day. Esting back only half their excercise if they were doing 300 cal/day, just wouldn't make up for hte under-reporting. Now if they were over-reporting excercise too....

    (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160
    (2) http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=379
  • BoxerBrawler
    BoxerBrawler Posts: 2,032 Member
    Options
    What exercise are you planning to do that will burn 700-800 calories per day? If you were a runner that would mean running > 40 miles per week. Whatever the exercise, it's going to have to be at least 2 hours per day, I would guess.

    A person is able to burn up to 1100 calories in one hour boxing.
  • dmenchac
    dmenchac Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    They are two different methods but they usually get to around the same number if you set them up equally.

    MFP takes your information and calculates your assumed TDEE with no exercise included. It then takes your goal, which I assume is to lose 2 pounds per week (almost everyone chooses 2 pounds/week), and subtracts a certain number of calories to get you there (for 2 pounds per week it takes 1000 calories from your TDEE), keeping 1200 as the absolute minimum threshold.

    The TDEE method that Scooby's uses takes a percentage from your TDEE instead of a set number of calories to keep you from losing weight too fast. In this case, you'd only be losing around a pound a week (maybe a little less). This is the biggest discrepancy between the two for you since you're setting both to sedentary.

    With the MFP method you're meant to log your exercise and eat back the extra calories you earn. You should also be setting a reasonable goal (1 pound per week for most people).

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    Ah, ok...so this makes sense then! Still can't figure out why I'm not losing anything though. I've got to set up a dr appt. though....I think I may have a thyroid issue!

    When in doubt, always blame a medical condition rather than what is really responsible.
  • belanna5
    belanna5 Posts: 85 Member
    Options


    If you're only eating back half your exercise calories to make up for inaccurate calorie counting…

    ...what happens if you're calculating your exercise burn incorrectly?

    Are you using a chest strap heart rate monitor?


    This! I use a chest strap and I log 30% less of what it says. I've seen people logging 160 cal for 30 min of cooking or 250 for singing. Really? Where you doing a concert? 'no but I was using my diaphragm' :noway:
  • asciiqwerty
    asciiqwerty Posts: 565 Member
    Options

    A person is able to burn up to 1100 calories in one hour boxing.

    *a person* might
    but how much I burn will depend on my weight and actual intensity of my activity, i could spend an hour in a boxing gym, but would probably not be boxing for all of that time and the intensity would vary
    and if 4-10-100 (however many) people spent a hour boxing it is very unlikely that any of them actually burn exactly 1100 calories

Categories