Please tell me this is wrong!

shrez
shrez Posts: 22 Member
edited November 9 in Health and Weight Loss
Sorry in advance for long post....

I just updated my weight loss goals (Screenshot below).

zcjjr4ztcmur.jpg

I set it to lose 1kg per week and to exercise 5 workouts a week for 60 minutes (screenshot below).

l00q5xqzllas.jpg

When I continue it says based on my profile my projected weight loss is 0.5kg a week and by 12 February I should lose 1.1 kg. 12 February is 5 weeks away! I know weight loss can be slow but I am quite disheartened by that.

Am I doing some thing wrong? I don't think it is wrong to want to lose 1kg in a week or even 0.5 would be better than 1.1kg in 5 weeks.

Anyone else experienced this?
1.JPG 98.1K
2.JPG 87.1K

Replies

  • fearlessleader104
    fearlessleader104 Posts: 723 Member
    Yeah... no, don't do that. Eat more and go for .5lbs loss per week. That's 1kgs every 4 weeks
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    Clearly there's some hiccup in MFP. It cannot both be true that the same set of data projects a half kilogram loss per week and only 1.1 kg loss by a date five weeks out, unless there's something wrong with the set of calculations it's using to come with one or both of those predictions.

    1 kg a week is a somewhat aggressive goal for someone who doesn't have that much to lose. And you may find that even with a desk job (or whatever your daily life is like that chose "sedentary"), you burn more than MFP predicts for a sedentary person of your age, height, and weight. I have a desk job, and even at the "lightly active" setting I lose more than MFP projects at the goal calories it sets--i.e., I burn more calories than MFP thinks a lightly active person of my age, height, and weight should. Currently, my stats are roughly in the same ballpark as yours - I'm an inch shorter, about six or seven pounds heavier, and eight years older, and I can lose a pound (roughly half a kilo) a week netting in the range of 1700 to 1850 (netting means eating 1700 to 1850 calories a day PLUS "eating back" calories from exercise beyond my normal routine).

    Don't get too obsessed with what MFP is telling you at the outset. Use it as a starting point, track your calorie intake as accurately as possible, and as you accumulate data, you'll see what your true maintenance level is, and how much you can eat to achieve the results you want. You may also discover that limiting yourself to 1200 calories is too restrictive, leaving you so hungry all you can do is think about food. Or you may find you're perfectly happy at 1200, but you're losing weight so fast that you're sacrificing too much lean mass (muscle), which generally isn't considered good.

    Best of luck.
  • Donners185
    Donners185 Posts: 329 Member
    Using fitness frog I input your stats and including your cals burned through exercise your total daily expenditure would by 2242 cals a day to maintain your current weight. In order to lose 2.2lbs a week (1kg) in theory you would need to burn 1000 cals a day (3500 cals = 1lb, in THEORY) so that would mean you would need to eat 1242 cals a day to lose 1kg a week. In my opinion it is a low cal threshold to stick to. 2lbs a week is quite a high loss for somone who only wants to lose 20lbs. I would aim for 1lb a week or less. Your goal would then be 1742 cals a day (including exercise cals). This gives you a bit more room to play with your cals once you hit a plateau. Where can you go if you are already eating 1200 cals and you stop losing? restrict your cals more? Exercise more? Burn out? Its a risky road to take if you think about it long term. I'm sorry I know I am ranting. MFP must have calculated your loss wrong. If you eat 1200 cals a day in theory you will lose 1 kg a week. Good luck. :)
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    You have lost a load of weight already so why are you taking notice of what a dumb calculator tells you?
    Fitness goals are just that - no impact on weight loss projections.

    1kg weight loss a week for a long duration is going to be really tough to sustain.
  • tammyc226
    tammyc226 Posts: 158 Member
    Its because no matter how much weight you'd like to lose per week, MFP will not produce a recommendation for less than 1200 calories a day. So the maths works out with your weight, height, age and sedentary lifestyle it would mean less than 1200 calories per day to lose 1kg per week which is unhealthy. It then takes the calc based on all these things to come up with what it thinks you'll actually lose
  • ASG_21
    ASG_21 Posts: 82 Member
    edited January 2015
    Basically... MFP is not hiccuping. It won't let you sustain a deficit that will take you below 1200 calories per day--Which is already a very low amount. A weight loss goal of one kilo per week is A LOT of weight to lose, as it calls for a 1000 calorie deficit every day, putting you at just under 800 calories per day to lose that. Since your maintenance before exercise is only 1790, it would be a lot easier for you to go for a 250 to 350 gram loss per week instead.

    I have the exact same maintenance number, and I eat between 1350 and 1400 to lose weight (1780, actually. Disclaimer, this is my husband's account and not mine).

    Editing to add... Oops. My bad. Your estimated calorie burn per week is 1790, not your maintenance. But your maintenance is probably around that much, if losing 0.5 kg per week will take you down to 1200 calories. :)
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    You have lost a load of weight already so why are you taking notice of what a dumb calculator tells you?
    Fitness goals are just that - no impact on weight loss projections.

    1kg weight loss a week for a long duration is going to be really tough to sustain.

    QFT

    don't set your weight loss target too high - it will not do you any good, it will eat into more LBM than it needs to and result in your maintenance becoming much harder

  • shrez
    shrez Posts: 22 Member
    Thank you all for your answers. Going to aim for 0.5kg a week and focus on being healthier :)
  • LNPurdie
    LNPurdie Posts: 84 Member
    Okay, "This is Wrong"! :smiley:

    Aim for .5 a week and add in exercise and you will see it drop off faster. And coming off slowly isn't a bad thing, it indicates you are not crash dieting and more likely to retain the change of lifestyle.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    There's nothing wrong with aiming for 1kg per week. What I think is happening is that MFP expects you eat back your exercise calories it doesn't take projected exercise into account, but the 1200 minimum forces your daily goal into the 0.5kg range. To lose at 1kg per week, you need to eat 1200 calories and create the rest of the deficit with exercise.
  • jke78
    jke78 Posts: 59 Member
    The MFP calculator is very basic and is using a basic equation. However, individual results will vary because simply not everyone is the exact same. You and I could keep the same diet strategies yet one of use lose more than the other at the same time rate. Or maybe one of us hit a plateau sooner than the other.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited January 2015
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with aiming for 1kg per week. What I think is happening is that MFP expects you eat back your exercise calories it doesn't take projected exercise into account, but the 1200 minimum forces your daily goal into the 0.5kg range. To lose at 1kg per week, you need to eat 1200 calories and create the rest of the deficit with exercise.

    which would mean netting less than 1200 calories which is a highway to inadequately fueling said exercise, poor nutrition and crashing and burning

    I truly believe this advice would be detrimental to your health and wellbeing
  • peanutcats
    peanutcats Posts: 14 Member
    First of all, slow weight loss is no problem. It's actually optimal to lose weight more slowly, as this way you can preserve more muscle mass. Muscle mass is so so so important- the more muscle you have, the more calories you will burn at rest, because it's a metabolically active tissue. (It's also much denser and heavier than fat, i.e. 1kg muscle takes up much less space than 1kg fat.)

    The target weight loss rate you've set for yourself of 1kg a week is too high, which is pretty unsustainable and MFP is correct in not letting you drop your calories that low. Stick with 0.5lb a week. Think forward a couple of months and HEY! You've lost 10+ lbs! :D It's much easier and healthier to lose weight slowly, plus you'll save that much needed muscle, and won't have crazy binges and cravings from eating too little.

    When you lose weight too quickly and eat too little, you DO of course lose fat, but along with that muscle mass is lost. And that means your metabolism gets slower, and the more you lose, the lower you have to set your calories...until you're eating very little yet still find yourself stuck at plateaus. You also could very possibly end up "skinny fat"- you weigh little, but have no muscle and therefore a high body fat percentage, so you still look and feel flabby. Plus, maintenance will be really hard because you're gonna have to try maintain on really low calories when your metabolism slows to a crawl. So lose the weight slowly. This happened to me and I'd definitely go for the slower option! :-)

    Don't look at the number on the scale too much, focus more on your body fat percentage. Say if you gained 4kg of muscle...you'd actually look better! Muscle is pretty awesome :D maybe give weights a go too, it's fun!

    wow ok this is loooong....but good luck! I hope I made sense :smile:

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with aiming for 1kg per week. What I think is happening is that MFP expects you eat back your exercise calories it doesn't take projected exercise into account, but the 1200 minimum forces your daily goal into the 0.5kg range. To lose at 1kg per week, you need to eat 1200 calories and create the rest of the deficit with exercise.

    which would mean netting less than 1200 calories which is a highway to inadequately fueling said exercise, poor nutrition and crashing and burning

    I truly believe this advice would be detrimental to your health and wellbeing

    First, the issue isn't that netting 1200 calories is unsafe, because it isn't about calories but nutrients.

    Second, the MFP net calories thing is meaningless because it doesn't take into account non-exercise calories burned.

    I sometimes eat more than 2000 calories and still end up with a negative net calories.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories