So if it takes 3500 kcal to lose 1lb.....

Options
Paul_Collyer
Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
How come I have managed to lose 1lb a week from September to Xmas on the following regime?

I am 173cm and started the autumn at 82kg ish.

Eating 1800kcal a day net. 35% carb, 40% fat, 25% protein. 60mg target for sugars. That should give me around 230kcal a day deficit according to MFP. So ~1600 kcal a week.

I burn around 3000kcal a week from running and other activities and eat most of it back. Exercise calories calculated using a Garmin watch and HRM.

I also tend to have 1-2 days a week where I don't log and indulge a bit, although I try to do some workout those days.

Between early September and Xmas I lost an average of 0.44kg or pretty much exactly 1lb a week, on a deficit of around ~1600kcal assuming I don't eat more on cheat days.

For what it's worth I ate similar calories in autumn 2013 and spring 2014 but didn't control sugar and got too obsessed with protein shakes and the like. Lost at half the rate.

Thoughts? Could it be that CICO is only part of the story? ;-)

Replies

  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Water weight for the first few pounds. Plus, your calories burned from normal daily activity are probably higher than MFP estimated.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Has days that doesn't log. Estimates burns more or less.
    It could be that you are underestimating your weekly activity by a 150 cals a day or LBM.

    But CICO DOESN'T work, GUYZ!
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    Options
    We don't all lose exactly as calculators and activity trackers/HRM's dictate. Doesn't mean it's not CICO. Just means our "numbers" are higher or lower than the "standard" formula.
  • Anonycatgirl
    Anonycatgirl Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    I also lost at a faster rate than MFP projected--about double, in fact, like you are. My best guess is that you underestimated your daily activity level outside of workouts, so you have a bigger daily deficit than MFP thinks. (Pretty sure that was true for me.)
  • SergeantSausage
    SergeantSausage Posts: 1,673 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Why?

    Why? Because every number in your post, OP - *every single number* is what we call "an estimate". (Yes - even the 3500 is an "estimate"... but it is, in reality, more of a what you might call a "statistical average")

    Maybe you've heard the terms before ... "estimate" ... "average" ...

    This is not an exact science.

    Science? Yes.

    Exact Science? Not on your life.

  • Holla4mom
    Holla4mom Posts: 587 Member
    Options
    MFP underestimates my TDEE by about 200 calories a day, so I had to customize my settings. I burn 2000 calories a day but MFP said I burn 1800 and gave me too low of a calorie goal as a result.

    Congrats on your weight loss!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    I am a numbers person but even I can't be bothered with that so let me give you the answer I give my 13 year old

    ... because.. magic

    hope that helps :wink:
  • Paul_Collyer
    Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    Few points:

    - My calorie burn numbers could indeed be down to Garmin's HRM formulas being conservative I suppose. I concede that, up to a point.

    - I work at a desk and use the sedentory setting besides my steps were logged by my vivofit and sent to MFP.

    - The days I don't log I am certainly over my 1800 as they tend to involve alcohol and restaurants/desserts/sugar etc.

    - The fact I ate and burnt similar calories a year before yet lost slower does point to the macros being important.

    - The first few weren't water weight....as I accounted for that by not starting my average loss until a week in - I did indeed lose fast the first week as was just back from holiday ;-)
  • SergeantSausage
    SergeantSausage Posts: 1,673 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Paul_Collyer wrote: »
    Few points:

    - My calorie burn numbers could indeed be down to Garmin's HRM formulas being conservative I suppose. I concede that, up to a point.

    Estimate

    - I work at a desk and use the sedentory setting besides my steps were logged by my vivofit and sent to MFP.

    Estimate

    - The days I don't log I am certainly over my 1800 as they tend to involve alcohol and restaurants/desserts/sugar etc.

    Estimate

    - The fact I ate and burnt similar calories a year before yet lost slower does point to the macros being important.

    Estimate

    - The first few weren't water weight....as I accounted for that by not starting my average loss until a week in - I did indeed lose fast the first week as was just back from holiday ;-)

    Estimate


  • Paul_Collyer
    Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    I'll give you the estimates on point 1 and 2. Although 2 will be minimal.

    The non logging days I am no way under the 1800. I am pretty detailed about my logging, weighing things etc and I know when I am eating more than 1800 calories! Not a chance that is an innacurate "estimate" its a 99.999% cert.

    The comparison with last year is also based on detailed logging and weighing. Huge differential.

    Water weight. I think its obvious the first week of dieting after a holiday will see a quick reduction due to water weight. Where is the estimate factor? If indeed I am wrong and it wasn't water weight then the loss would be even more dramatic!
  • SergeantSausage
    SergeantSausage Posts: 1,673 Member
    Options
    So ... still not gettin' what I'm saying then, amirite?
  • Izzwoz
    Izzwoz Posts: 348 Member
    Options
    You make it sound like it's a bad thing?

    There are that many variables in there that this can never be a 100% accurate calculation turned reality. Every single calorie you log (or don't) is estimated - eaten and burnt. Your TDEE is estimated. You say it yourself in your post: "I burn around 3000kcal a week", "So ~1600 kcal a week." ... what is your problem? You losing too fast? Eat more ... ?
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    Options
    You're over thinking it. You're TDEE is just higher than it was previously, and higher than your devices are calculating. Mine is, too. I understand getting wrapped up in the analysis (ha, I'm a mathematician, and have to 'back away' from my spreadsheet to do real life stuff some days).

    It just boils down to variations/estimations. Even our own personal TDEE can vary day to day, even if we're doing essentially the same activities. It just does. Everything is an average and estimation. And it's the averaged numbers that are much more useful than over thinking the minutia of it all.
  • Paul_Collyer
    Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    Its not a problem I'm really happy with it! Just think the numbers are interesting and far enough out from the expected figures to be worthy of discussion :)

Categories