What's your caloric deficit, how did you calculate it, how easy is it to stick with it?
Options
Replies
-
I strive for a 1000/day deficit, which means eating ~1200 calories and burning 700 - 800 over BMR, which isn't THAT hard.0
-
It really depends. I use the IIYFM calculator and it recommends that I eat 1515 calories a day with 5 days of exercise a week. My calories deficit has been between 436-1244 this week. I've had a back injury in the last half of the week and that has limited the exercise I could do.0
-
Try http://1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ and play around with the different formulas.
For example:
30 yrs.
6 ft.
180 lb.
sedentary male
=
2181 TDEE calories for maintenance.
Eat 10-20% less than 2181 to cut, or 10-20% more than 2181 to bulk.0 -
I try to maintain between 500 to 1,000 calorie deficit per day. I just don't look at it like a science project. I exercise and move as much as I possibly can throughout each day. I under estimate my exercise burn and over estimate my calories consumed. I don't eat and/or snack based on the preconceived notion of meal times e.g., breakfast, lunch dinner, snack, etc. I eat when I feel hungry and I stop when I feel full. I weigh and measure everything. I know that food choices don't make a difference as long as you're at a deficit but I keep two things in mind when prepping meals. One, what purpose is my food going to serve my body and athleticism? If there answer is "nothing", I don't eat it. I eat to perform meaning I try to plan all of my food around the activities of the day (my scheduled exercise classes). Another thing I keep in mind is I am not doing this just to lose weight, I am doing this to fuel my performance and increase my athletic ability. The weight loss just comes naturally after that. A little over two years ago I was close to 200 lbs. Today I am around 120-125. I'm consistently losing and plan to get to around 115 which is my rock bottom number. I had tried going by TDEE a while ago and it just didn't work for me. My body and mind both function better with less calories / nutrient dense and consistently slightly hungry.0
-
a_stronger_me13 wrote: »
Because it's a complete misuse of the terms.
It would be really helpful to explain why? I'm starting to get a little frustrated here - I've had a couple people suggest I'm doing things wrong and then fail to provide any explanation as to why.
Again, here's what I did:
Went to http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
Entered my vitals - 225 pounds, six foot three, 41 years old.
My BMR is 2013.
HOWEVER, I am reasoning that a BMR is a fairly useless baseline for calculating total daily energy requirements, as virtually no one (Including me!) lies motionless all day.
Using the Mifflin St-Jeor formula, if I assumed exercise of around 5 days per week, my TDEE would be 2945. HOWEVER, in that case it would make perfect sense to NOT add back exercise calories (as that would be straightforward double-dipping).
If I assumed just a sedentary activity level, my TDEE is 2416. Taking that, I subtract 25% of that figure (604 calories) and then use 1812 as my net caloric intake goal. That allows me to subtract exercise as well - which I like to do, since I personally like counting everything.
Please, someone tell me where my reasoning may be incorrect (don't just assert it).0 -
I think it's probably because TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure. If your calculating it a Sedentary TDEE when your not Sedentary, it's not your TDEE. It ends up being similar to MFP's method of using NEAT (calculating your daily burn without exercise and then adding exercise in).a_stronger_me13 wrote: »
Because it's a complete misuse of the terms.
It would be really helpful to explain why.0 -
Try http://1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ and play around with the different formulas.
For example:
30 yrs.
6 ft.
180 lb.
sedentary male
=
2181 TDEE calories for maintenance.
Eat 10-20% less than 2181 to cut, or 10-20% more than 2181 to bulk.
That makes perfect sense. And it would also make sense for you to add back exercise calories as you do them, since you assumed no exercise was taking place when you calculated your initial TDEE.0 -
Try http://1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ and play around with the different formulas.
For example:
30 yrs.
6 ft.
180 lb.
sedentary male
=
2181 TDEE calories for maintenance.
Eat 10-20% less than 2181 to cut, or 10-20% more than 2181 to bulk.
That makes perfect sense. And it would also make sense for you to add back exercise calories as you do them, since you assumed no exercise was taking place when you calculated your initial TDEE.
TDEE includes your activity level, so there is no need to add back exercise calories. It would be counter-productive to do so. This is why I feel that MFP is only good for tracking food calories. I don't use it for exercise since my TDEE already accounts for calories burned from exercise.0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
I think it's probably because TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure. If your calculating it a Sedentary TDEE when your not Sedentary, it's not your TDEE. It ends up being similar to MFP's method of using NEAT (calculating your daily burn without exercise and then adding exercise in).a_stronger_me13 wrote: »
Because it's a complete misuse of the terms.
It would be really helpful to explain why.
THANK YOU. Good. This is telling me my reasoning is correct, then.0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
I think it's probably because TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure. If your calculating it a Sedentary TDEE when your not Sedentary, it's not your TDEE. It ends up being similar to MFP's method of using NEAT (calculating your daily burn without exercise and then adding exercise in).a_stronger_me13 wrote: »
Because it's a complete misuse of the terms.
It would be really helpful to explain why.
If you're blurring the lines between Sedentary and Lightly Active, then it would be wise to calculate your TDEE at both activity levels and use the middle figure.
TDEE is a maintenance calorie value (no weight gained, no weight loss if followed). It is based on more than activity level, including height, weight, age, etc.0 -
Maintenance for me is about 2,200 calories*, as determined by the best fit line of my giant spreadsheet. My MFP target is set to 1,800, but my average consumption runs more like 1,900. So about a 300 calorie / 14% deficit.
* I count by eyeball. Internet calculators based on my age / size / gender / activity level say maintenance for me is more like 1,650. Assuming I'm mostly losing fat, rather than muscle, I've still got a 300-calorie-per-day deficit, based on my long-term trend in weight change. So it's possible (but IMHO unlikely) that if I measured everything with a gram scale and a calorimeter, I'd find I'm really consuming 1,350 calories a day, and have an 18% deficit.0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
I think it's probably because TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure. If your calculating it a Sedentary TDEE when your not Sedentary, it's not your TDEE. It ends up being similar to MFP's method of using NEAT (calculating your daily burn without exercise and then adding exercise in).a_stronger_me13 wrote: »
Because it's a complete misuse of the terms.
It would be really helpful to explain why.
If you're blurring the lines between Sedentary and Lightly Active, then it would be wise to calculate your TDEE at both activity levels and use the middle figure.
TDEE is a maintenance calorie value (no weight gained, no weight loss if followed). It is based on more than activity level, including height, weight, age, etc.
Interesting. When I take your approach (averaging lightly active and sedentary TDEE correction factors) and then factor in my desired caloric deficit (25%) I get a number much closer to what MFP suggests (a higher overall net caloric allotment).
Using my approach, my adjusted TDEE plus 25% deficit = 1812
Using your approach, my adjusted TDEE plus 25% deficit = 1944
Using MFP's built in approach = 2078
Very interesting.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I sacrificed a chicken and gave it to the MFP gods. They returned with their magical number of 2320 calories. I checked with a few other sources as well as calculated it through math and stuff. It's about right. From what I've been told, all of the meat from the sacrificed chicken was used to feed the hungry around the world.
Your method is as good as any. Eat 2,320 calories for a few weeks, then reevaluate your progress.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I sacrificed a chicken and gave it to the MFP gods. They returned with their magical number of 2320 calories. I checked with a few other sources as well as calculated it through math and stuff. It's about right. From what I've been told, all of the meat from the sacrificed chicken was used to feed the hungry around the world.
That was my method too.
Only the magic number was 1250 cal.
Maybe my chicken was too small.
0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I sacrificed a chicken and gave it to the MFP gods. They returned with their magical number of 2320 calories. I checked with a few other sources as well as calculated it through math and stuff. It's about right. From what I've been told, all of the meat from the sacrificed chicken was used to feed the hungry around the world.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions