Why has My fitness pal lowered my calorie allowance?
Replies
-
Not everyone gets cranky from dieting and few people think they NEED TO lose at a particular rate. They choose a rate based on the range of healthy rates offered up by the software based on their own goals and traits and beliefs about the process.
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.0 -
Yeah that works
Try Googling for some basic full body lifting routines too, many will have just 3-4 exercises. Shouldn't take too long, especially if you only do ~3 sets (whcih is more than fine in a caloric deficit), stay under 2 minutes for your rests, and only do 1-2 warm up sets per muscle group. The t25 could be something you do before bed instead of when you wake up, or you could just do it right after weights and then jog on your off days, etc. Just figure out how much time you can/want to commit to exercise every day and tailor things to work for you
Yes that works too, thanks for all your input, helped me put things in focus. Appreciate it to0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Not everyone gets cranky from dieting and few people think they NEED TO lose at a particular rate. They choose a rate based on the range of healthy rates offered up by the software based on their own goals and traits and beliefs about the process.
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.
Considering almost everyone who starts up on MFP willingly chooses 2lb/week, it would highly suggest that they think that faster loss = better. especially when they come and post about eating 1200 and not eating their exercise calories and thinking that 5lbs lost in a week is slow.
The software offers generic options, it does not omit or include the options based on the person's starting weight. If I only had 10lbs to lose and set up my account, MFP would still say "here choose 2lbs/week if you'd like." And for people who are nearing their goals, choosing the fastest weight loss route is very likely to also result in not eating enough to be satisfied, help fuel their workouts, and ensure they stick to their weight loss plans.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »169 lean + 49 fat = 218
something isn't adding up here.
I'm guessing that he got the test done earlier and has since lost weight
This.
I think I was 212 when I had it done, so that would be 43 not 49
That's assuming everything you lost is fat.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Not everyone gets cranky from dieting and few people think they NEED TO lose at a particular rate. They choose a rate based on the range of healthy rates offered up by the software based on their own goals and traits and beliefs about the process.
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.
From what I've picked up on from many newbies here is that they want the fastest way to lose weight. If that was my goal and I had choices to lose a half pound a week or 2 pounds a week, I'd set it for the 2 pounds a week too, even if I had 5 pounds to lose.
I used to be a result-based person as well, until I figured out that weight loss is a journey and not a destination, and that doing anything quickly will get me into trouble. Quick, not well-thought choices usually lead me straight into non-sustainability.0 -
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.
Many people seem to have the misconception that there is a fitness-model figure hiding underneath the fat, and if they just hurry up and lose weight, they'll look great. Then they hit goal and find themselves disappointed, because they've lost so much muscle that they don't look "toned," and basically look like a smaller, still squishy version of themselves. Then they have to fight to put muscle back on, either by bulking/cutting or recomping, and that can take a long time and be incredibly frustrating. Usually when you get within 10 lbs of goal, it's a good idea to re-evaluate your goal and determine whether losing more weight is actually going to get you the body type you want. We see a lot of people here desperate to lose the last 5 or 10 lbs, when realistically losing that weight still wouldn't get them the look they want and they need to focus on body composition - but I digress.
Hit the nail on the head for me personally! 40 pounds down now and I still am not pleased with how I look outwardly. I feel stronger, my endurance is up and I'm healthier than I've been since I graduated in 2011. However, for 2014, I was focused (and still am) on dropping pounds and losing inches. All important things for me. But I need to focus on body comp now, since I have 13 pounds to go 'til goal, and building up my strength. I will be incorporating weight training with cardio. Due to my busy schedule, I've only been able to get to my college's weight room about once or twice a week. This will be week three of using it.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Not everyone gets cranky from dieting and few people think they NEED TO lose at a particular rate. They choose a rate based on the range of healthy rates offered up by the software based on their own goals and traits and beliefs about the process.
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.
Considering almost everyone who starts up on MFP willingly chooses 2lb/week, it would highly suggest that they think that faster loss = better. especially when they come and post about eating 1200 and not eating their exercise calories and thinking that 5lbs lost in a week is slow.
The software offers generic options, it does not omit or include the options based on the person's starting weight. If I only had 10lbs to lose and set up my account, MFP would still say "here choose 2lbs/week if you'd like." And for people who are nearing their goals, choosing the fastest weight loss route is very likely to also result in not eating enough to be satisfied, help fuel their workouts, and ensure they stick to their weight loss plans.
This is true, but if someone has 10 lbs to lose and chooses 2 lbs/week and gets hungry on 1200 (which likely won't give them 2 lbs/week in many cases), what's the harm? Either she decides to eat more and lose slower or she fails at this diet, but can always try again later and at 10 lbs to go probably not a huge thing. It would not be my recommendation, of course--I think assuming dieting had to suck is why the younger me was vaguely dissatisfied at 10-15 lbs above my ideal weight (although being clueless about weight training was more of an issue with my dissatisfaction)--but I think people can try it and adjust without harm. I don't think it's sensible to start going down even lower to get that maximum loss, however.
Why I changed my mind from wanting to keep a 1 lb/week rate now that I'm close to goal is that I really don't see the point--indeed, now I look okay wrt the amount of fat, it's overall body composition that matters most, so why risk muscle. And that said, between September and January I lost muscle (granted, significantly more fat) despite eating plenty of protein and doing weight training (also lots of cardio, though), and the obvious culprit IMO is that I was losing about 1.5 lb/week to 1 lb/week for much of that time. So that convinced me that at this point slower is better. NO benefit to losing the last 5-10 faster FOR ME unless I try hard to make it mostly fat.
Also, men and women who are larger or work out a lot can lose 1 lb /week even when close to goal, assuming they don't get too hungry of have their workouts suffer, which is common. For 5'3, 125 women like me, especially if you aren't 21, I'd say do the math. It's not reasonably possible for many to do even 1 lb per week without going ridiculously low. Below 1200 for a dr supervised diet when you need to get the fat off for medical reasons is one thing, but it seems extreme to me just to lose 5-10 lbs faster.0 -
It would be very simple for the software to incorporate that chart you see thrown around here all the time that says if you have X lbs. to lose you should select Y as your rate of loss. It doesn't because those recommendations include unrealistic assumptions -- that everyone feels underfed and so fails at that level because they aren't smart enough to adjust their goals if that is their case.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Not everyone gets cranky from dieting and few people think they NEED TO lose at a particular rate. They choose a rate based on the range of healthy rates offered up by the software based on their own goals and traits and beliefs about the process.
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.
Considering almost everyone who starts up on MFP willingly chooses 2lb/week, it would highly suggest that they think that faster loss = better. especially when they come and post about eating 1200 and not eating their exercise calories and thinking that 5lbs lost in a week is slow.
The software offers generic options, it does not omit or include the options based on the person's starting weight. If I only had 10lbs to lose and set up my account, MFP would still say "here choose 2lbs/week if you'd like." And for people who are nearing their goals, choosing the fastest weight loss route is very likely to also result in not eating enough to be satisfied, help fuel their workouts, and ensure they stick to their weight loss plans.
Plus it assumes that just as many people don't quit in frustration from lack of results from picking a small deficit, overshooting it and not seeing scale results at all.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Plus it assumes that just as many people don't quit in frustration from lack of results from picking a small deficit, overshooting it and not seeing scale results at all.
Bang on.
Being overweight is dangerous. Remaining overweight for longer periods of time is more dangerous than for shorter periods of time. As-rapid-as-is-safe-and-sustainable should be everyone's goal for weight loss, and advice that increases the attrition rate is not helpful.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions