how many calories do you get?

5'1", 191 lbs., 1600 calories to lose 1/2 lb./week, age 47, sedentary.

6'4, 216, 2350 a day with 2lb a week weight loss, 3300 to maintain (tdee)

6'1" 260. BMR is around 2200, and since I workout pretty hard 4x/wk, my maintenance is around 3500, so I have MFP set to 2500.

5' 4", 1430. I weigh 115...

5'6", around 140, sedentary lifestyle, 19 years old. I eat around 1700 to maintain.

5'5" - 62 yrs old - 144 lbs. - 1440 calories for TDEE at Lightly Active - 1200 calories to lose a pound a week

I'm Female, 5'9", weigh 281pounds, and get 1600 calories per day.

6'9"
235
1780 is the goal. I end up averaging 1750 a day for the week when the slight shortages each day add up.

5'9", 151 lb, 2060 cal to maintain

I'm 5'4.5"
25
145lbs
___________________________

MFP BEFORE Exercise Goal (AKA Net Goal)
Lightly Active -
1.5lbs per week (deficit of 770)- 1200 **
1.5lbs per week (deficit of 750)- 1220
1lb per week (deficit of 500)- 1470
0.5lb per week (deficit of 250) - 1720

According to Fitbit my average 30 day total intake should have been around 1893 for 1.5lbs per week loss. My 30 day average intake isn't accurate right now. I went to several restaurants (multiple times I might add) that created some days where I completely guessed on how much I ate. It wasn't smart, but it was tasty and I lost closer to 1lb per week instead of the 1.5 I wanted. However, I typically have myself set for 1lb per week and only increased the deficit to try and offset the black hole days. It seems to have worked, seeing as I lost the typical 1lb per week I aim for.

PAV8888 wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

6'9" 235 1780 is the goal. I end up averaging 1750 a day for the week when the slight shortages each day add up.

6'9" 235? Dude! You're tall!

58% of people your age seem to have a higher BMI than you. At a 25% deficit and "very active" one would expect you to eat around 3359; at a 25% deficit and "sedentary" about 2121.

You are getting by with about 1750, so you are either cutting at a >25% deficit while barely overweight, and increasing the risk of fat free mass loss during your weight loss; or your body has adapted due to a steep/prolonged caloric deficit and now requires less calories to sustain itself than what many online calculators would predict!

It looks like my TDEE is about 3136, so that 3359 number is probably very, very close. In the most recent starvation mode thread, I was attributing 276 calories a day to adaptive thermogenesis, which would make my "theoretical" burn 3412, which is even closer. So, yeah, I think your number for me is very reasonable.

I am cutting at a > 25% deficit while barely overweight. My weight has touched the normal range on BMI, but my average for a week hasn't. I'm right on the cusp. In fact, if you look at the "new BMI" which is adjusted "better" for height, I'm solidly normal. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I think my body has adapted by burning fewer calories than I would have if I hadn't gotten obese and then (close to) back to normal.

I don't think I'm at a huge risk for excessive fat free mass loss, though I have bumped up my calories by 150 a day (MFP suggests 1630 for 2 pounds a week, which is where I got the 1780) and I'll bump it up another 150 a day, either starting this Sunday or the Sunday after that.

As near as I can tell, starting at Day One until today, about 86% of the weight I've lost has been fat. Most likely, the percentage has risen some as my weight has fallen, but that's a total I can live with in order to be down 100+ pounds in less than a year, rather than dragging it out for two or more.

I do get your point, though, and I am raising my intake a bit for the reason you mention.

5'7", 145lbs. I maintain on 2700.

DeguelloTex wrote: »

I was attributing 276 calories a day to adaptive thermogenesis, which would make my "theoretical" burn 3412, which is even closer. So, yeah, I think your number for me is very reasonable.
I do get your point, though, and I am raising my intake a bit for the reason you mention.

My napkin said you were a bit higher than the 15% I've seen as the highest level of AT. BUT, muscles also get more efficient doing a particular set of exercise with figures as high as 20%.

When you combine the two adaptations (plus all the other measurement errors in this whole process) you are quite explainable and definitely on the ball!

PAV8888 wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

As near as I can tell, starting at Day One until today, about 86% of the weight I've lost has been fat.

Unfortunately I didn't do my first DEXA scan till early December, shortly after starting on MFP, and starting to learn more about what I was doing.
I did lose more weight before joining MFP than after; but, I certainly feel much more comfortable having a better understanding on what I am doing to myself!