Most people select a goal weight, and that determines their calories. Has anyone tried it the other
Options
Replies
-
CoachJen71 wrote: »way around? Select a calorie zone and let your weight fall where it may, just to see what happens?
Sure. If you set that number to your intake at your desired maintenance weight, you start eating at your proper intak from the start and there is no transition to maintenance.
That is what I started doing. I couldn't take the changing of the calories...it just ended up frustrating me. It will take longer to lose but I am eating at the level that I will be when I lose all of the weight (or where ever I end up) that I want.
I am okay with it taking longer. I am trying to change my focus from weight loss to creating a more active life.
0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »"Sarauk2sf wrote:Then I am still confused and I still have the question as to how does goal weight determine calories?
I thought people work out what their healthy weight should be for their height/age/frame etc, then either MFP or a TDEE Calc would give them an idea of what their possible calorie intake should be to maintain that weight?
That's one way to do it, but not the most common.
More often people figure out their maintenance at their current weight and then subtract a percentage or set amount.
When I lost before I didn't count calories, but had a way of eating that I followed that probably was on average a particular calorie level. I lost fast for a while and then gradually slowed down and stalled around 135 at which point I kicked up my exercise and ended up at 120.
I can't seem to keep a deficit at the moment (I've been maintaining at 125) so am trying to do something similar.
I'd be losing even now if I could stick to 1400-1600, though (which used to be easy). I'm 45 and 5'3.0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »"Sarauk2sf wrote:Then I am still confused and I still have the question as to how does goal weight determine calories?
I thought people work out what their healthy weight should be for their height/age/frame etc, then either MFP or a TDEE Calc would give them an idea of what their possible calorie intake should be to maintain that weight?
No, to lose weight it looks at what you weigh NOW and what your goal is (.5 to 2 lbs a week loss) Then they calculate a deficit based on what you weigh now, not what you eventually will be.
That's what a lot of people do, which is why a lot of people get in trouble. They use the wrong calculator, they don't account for BF%, and they end up over-eating.
A better way is to figure out your calories based on your end goal, and start eating like that.
BF%? I don't know what you mean by that.
MFP for a weight loss of 2lbs a week gives me 1530 calories per day. My TDEE for my goal weight is 1733.
If I ate at 1733 I'd still lose weight, but at a slightly slower pace. I'm not over eating though.
I'm just asking for clarification, trying to learn, not argue.
My TDEE at goal weight is approximately 400 calories less than what it is now. I am trying to increase my activity level to moderately active and then it will be at about 650 less. I should still lose 1lb a week. As I lose...it will get slower.
0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »"Sarauk2sf wrote:Then I am still confused and I still have the question as to how does goal weight determine calories?
I thought people work out what their healthy weight should be for their height/age/frame etc, then either MFP or a TDEE Calc would give them an idea of what their possible calorie intake should be to maintain that weight?
No, to lose weight it looks at what you weigh NOW and what your goal is (.5 to 2 lbs a week loss) Then they calculate a deficit based on what you weigh now, not what you eventually will be.
That's what a lot of people do, which is why a lot of people get in trouble. They use the wrong calculator, they don't account for BF%, and they end up over-eating.
A better way is to figure out your calories based on your end goal, and start eating like that.
BF%? I don't know what you mean by that.
MFP for a weight loss of 2lbs a week gives me 1530 calories per day. My TDEE for my goal weight is 1733.
If I ate at 1733 I'd still lose weight, but at a slightly slower pace. I'm not over eating though.
I'm just asking for clarification, trying to learn, not argue.
The calorie calculators that don't use body fat tend to overstate your needed calories if you are overweight and do so more the more overweight you are. That's because it's lean mass that burns the calories and the calculators were created for people with more average amounts of lean mass at a particular weight than someone overweight will have. You can see this if you compare the Mifflin and Katch formulas--when I was overweight and estimated my fat percentage I'd get much higher numbers for TDEE and BMR with Mifflin. Now I actually get higher numbers with Katch. This switch seems to happen at higher body fat percentages for shorter people, not sure why.
IME, if you have an aggressive deficit or, like many at MFP, claim to be sedentary when you aren't really this effect gets more than balanced out. I was quite obese when I started and MFP claimed I'd be losing 1.8 lb/week at 1250 (my chosen goal), but I ended up losing 2.5 on average for a while, I assume because I was not as sedentary as I'd thought (I also ate back exercise calories but did not log routine daily walking, and I live in a city).1 -
Our bodies will do whatever they're going to do with what fuel we give them. I can't make my body lose, maintain, or gain. It simply does one of those things in response to the calories I provide and the calories I burn. If we went by determining our daily intake level, first, whatever calorie level we choose to consume could still be too high or it could be too low. That's part of why people tend to maintain weight using some kind of goal weight and then working from there.
^^ this
0 -
I went by the BMI and body fat % at which the doctor told me I would be my healthiest, and then determined calories, nutrients, and exercise to get me there. Had I chosen a particular number of calories that I thought sounded reasonable, I'd still be fat.
I only get 1440 for maintenance, being five three and 46 years old. Before knowing what I know now, I'd have picked 2,000 calories and then I would end up at about 190 lb!!! And that is assuming that I continued to work out. If I didn't, I would end up over 200 lb! So I would consider it very dangerous to set a calorie level rather than BMI or body fat % as your goal. It's like putting the cart before the horse, to say the least. You could pick a calorie level that *sounds* entirely reasonable and end up as a giant ham planet. 0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »way around? Select a calorie zone and let your weight fall where it may, just to see what happens? (I'm trying that for now. I want to see what happens if I eat 1400-1600 on most days, along with the occasional treat meal, and see what I end up weighing. I'm 5'2.5" and middle-aged, though, so I may find this range to be too high. We shall see.)
It makes sense to me. You are basically eating at maintenance for someone in a normal weight range. The pounds will drop off just slower than someone who has cut to that magical 1200 and exercises out the wazoo to get an extra dollop of something to eat.
I'm 5'2" and pushing 60, Doc wants me to eat between 1300-1500 a day and my main exercise is walking, lots and lots of walking. I am still losing .5-1 lb a week
0 -
That would not work for me. I would certainly pick a calorie range too high and get fat again.
Most of us have too much modern stress and there is too much higher calorie than we need foods readily available. The weight range for height is a very close estimate for our calorie needs. I think most of us need the guideline the way it's setup.
The biggest mistake I see is people not happy once they reach a healthy weight range and they get fixated on a specific scale measurement for body weight. If we just let the body weight scale go at that point, find the clothes that fit when we are in that healthy range, and accept the fact that we are human and it will fluctuate slightly that would be good.0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »"Sarauk2sf wrote:Then I am still confused and I still have the question as to how does goal weight determine calories?
I thought people work out what their healthy weight should be for their height/age/frame etc, then either MFP or a TDEE Calc would give them an idea of what their possible calorie intake should be to maintain that weight?
Some people do it that way. There are a couple of issues with it imo. It does not take into account diet induced thermogeniesis, other metabolic variations or the wide range to select for what their healthy weight should be. However, as long as you tweak to adjust actual results, then its not a bad starting point generally - but it would be very individual and give some people calories that are either unnecessarily low for progress, or too high for sustained progress.0 -
CoachJen71 wrote: »"Sarauk2sf wrote:Then I am still confused and I still have the question as to how does goal weight determine calories?
I thought people work out what their healthy weight should be for their height/age/frame etc, then either MFP or a TDEE Calc would give them an idea of what their possible calorie intake should be to maintain that weight?
I think you're probably right that most people do that. As for where you'll end up with your selected calorie intake, it will probably be somewhere between 120 and 150.0 -
Honestly it's what I'm trying to do... I can't imagine eating less than what I've been eating, so that's where I'm going to stop.0
-
Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. You've given me a lot to consider. I will stick with my plan for now, and if I get stuck for a few months at a weight I think is too high, I will see about tweaking.0
-
The problem is that you don't gain weight and stay at that weight. You gain weight and you keep gaining weight.
As another middle aged lady, I essentially did that from 40-53. I wasn't over a lot every day and I only gained a pound or two a year. But I did that for 13 years and gained 30 pounds. I lost it again with MFP and have kept it off 3 years. But my only regret is that I gained it to start with and didn't start sooner.
Plus - and this will kill you - your metabolism definitely slows down with age. So both my kids (16 and 27) eat twice as much as me and are skinny. I used to do that too. My eating actually got less as I got older. But I still gained weight because my body slowed down.
Just suck it up. It really isn't hard to find food that makes you feel good and full and is delicious. Look at your log and figure out the foods that are wasted calories. I realized I didn't need the big glasses of milk and two pieces of bread with my sandwiches. Dropped that and switched to water and tortillas and I was down 500 calories and still eating ice cream for dessert (in little tiny bowls). You can do it.1 -
The problem is that you don't gain weight and stay at that weight. You gain weight and you keep gaining weight.
As another middle aged lady, I essentially did that from 40-53. I wasn't over a lot every day and I only gained a pound or two a year. But I did that for 13 years and gained 30 pounds. I lost it again with MFP and have kept it off 3 years. But my only regret is that I gained it to start with and didn't start sooner.
Plus - and this will kill you - your metabolism definitely slows down with age. So both my kids (16 and 27) eat twice as much as me and are skinny. I used to do that too. My eating actually got less as I got older. But I still gained weight because my body slowed down.
Just suck it up. It really isn't hard to find food that makes you feel good and full and is delicious. Look at your log and figure out the foods that are wasted calories. I realized I didn't need the big glasses of milk and two pieces of bread with my sandwiches. Dropped that and switched to water and tortillas and I was down 500 calories and still eating ice cream for dessert (in little tiny bowls). You can do it.
Your BMR does not decrease that much as you age, and its mainly to do with muscle loss. Our TDEE may well decrease as we become less active.2 -
The problem is that you don't gain weight and stay at that weight. You gain weight and you keep gaining weight.
As another middle aged lady, I essentially did that from 40-53. I wasn't over a lot every day and I only gained a pound or two a year. But I did that for 13 years and gained 30 pounds. I lost it again with MFP and have kept it off 3 years. But my only regret is that I gained it to start with and didn't start sooner.
Plus - and this will kill you - your metabolism definitely slows down with age. So both my kids (16 and 27) eat twice as much as me and are skinny. I used to do that too. My eating actually got less as I got older. But I still gained weight because my body slowed down.
Just suck it up. It really isn't hard to find food that makes you feel good and full and is delicious. Look at your log and figure out the foods that are wasted calories. I realized I didn't need the big glasses of milk and two pieces of bread with my sandwiches. Dropped that and switched to water and tortillas and I was down 500 calories and still eating ice cream for dessert (in little tiny bowls). You can do it.
Your BMR does not decrease that much as you age, and its mainly to do with muscle loss. Our TDEE may well decrease as we become less active.
Well your BMR decreases by 10 or so every year... so that's 300 calories a month... enough to gain a pound a year. Not a huge deal obviously but, give it 10 years without changing your calories and you'll have gained quite a bit.1 -
The problem is that you don't gain weight and stay at that weight. You gain weight and you keep gaining weight.
As another middle aged lady, I essentially did that from 40-53. I wasn't over a lot every day and I only gained a pound or two a year. But I did that for 13 years and gained 30 pounds. I lost it again with MFP and have kept it off 3 years. But my only regret is that I gained it to start with and didn't start sooner.
Plus - and this will kill you - your metabolism definitely slows down with age. So both my kids (16 and 27) eat twice as much as me and are skinny. I used to do that too. My eating actually got less as I got older. But I still gained weight because my body slowed down.
Just suck it up. It really isn't hard to find food that makes you feel good and full and is delicious. Look at your log and figure out the foods that are wasted calories. I realized I didn't need the big glasses of milk and two pieces of bread with my sandwiches. Dropped that and switched to water and tortillas and I was down 500 calories and still eating ice cream for dessert (in little tiny bowls). You can do it.
Your BMR does not decrease that much as you age, and its mainly to do with muscle loss. Our TDEE may well decrease as we become less active.
Well your BMR decreases by 10 or so every year... so that's 300 calories a month... enough to gain a pound a year. Not a huge deal obviously but, give it 10 years without changing your calories and you'll have gained quite a bit.
Agreed that it can add up, but I do not consider 300 calories a month that much and you can always mitigate it by trying to maintain LBM.
Body slowing down =/= primarily BMR decreasing - its usually because we are less active.0 -
would there be a motivation to deviate from TDEE in this manner, other than sheer curiosity?0
-
It isn't just getting older lowering your BMR that makes you put on weight. If you think back to how active you were in your teens and twenties ( if you weren't overweight or sedentary ) and how active you are now, there is often a difference. I have issues with my feet and legs so I move less now. I also own a car and my kids are finally old enough that they don't need me chasing them 24/7. You also tend to move toward more sedentary jobs as you get older and more sedentary past times. People just don't think about this stuff, they just think their metabolism alone dropped off the planet. It drops slowly as you lose muscle mass due to aging.1
-
I'm not an expert, but WebMD says there's a 400 calorie difference in what the average person can eat between 19-30 to maintain and what they can eat over 50. That was my experience, although obviously it also varied a lot by activity level, which also feeds into muscle mass.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/estimated-calorie-requirement
But 400/calories a day is a lot. Let's say that's too high, and it's really only 200 calories/day (though if you're more active the difference is bigger). That's still a lot. I cut back my eating when I hit 40, but not enough not to gain a pound or two a year. And that's all it takes over 15 years to gain 30 pounds.
The MFP calorie calculations take age into account. I believe there's a reason for that. Whatever they estimate, it works correctly for me.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions