Calorie Goal

Wait, wait, wait.

Didn't you JUST say you'd lost 10 pounds in the last month? OBVIOUSLY your weight loss is progressing, and rather quickly I might add.

I have no more to add to that. I just think you should know that 10 pounds in a month is FANTASTIC progress. Just saying.

chismmegan wrote: »

I did tell MFP my exercise, which is about 30-45 min cardio and 20 min strength machines about 4-5 days a week.

Doing this does not affect your calorie goal or anything else.

I was looking at other calorie calulators and they ranged from 1200 to 1800..which is a big jump.

The higher ones include exercise. The lower ones are probably really BMR calculators.

Eating at 1300 was fine for me but I know that some people would up their calorie intake and get better results. I've been at this for a month and have lost about 10lbs.

I just seem to not be going forward with my weight loss and I'm not really sure what do to.

As everyone else said, these last two sentences don't go together. How is losing 10 lb in a month not going forward with your weight loss?

mashiara81 wrote: »

tiffanylacourse wrote: »

Wait, wait, wait.

Didn't you JUST say you'd lost 10 pounds in the last month? OBVIOUSLY your weight loss is progressing, and rather quickly I might add.

I have no more to add to that. I just think you should know that 10 pounds in a month is FANTASTIC progress. Just saying.

+2

OP, just curious...if you're considering 10 lbs as 'no progress', what exactly is your weight loss expectation?

This. Considering you started about a month ago, you're at a 2.5 lb loss a week. Even that could be too fast. Best to lose it slowly while changing habits

chismmegan wrote: »

I never said that 10lbs wasn't good or "no progress"
I'm saying that I've been at that point for what seems like a good while now and I'm not sure if I'm at the right intake amount.

2 weeks isn't "a good while now". That's a typical, normal fluctuation in weight.

If you're stuck for a month or more, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate...not after only 2 weeks.

You should probably read the stickies.

Until you fully understand the risks and ramifications of your decisions, your weakly weight loss target should not exceed 0.5lbs per 25lbs you are above the bottom of your healthy BMI range.

Mfp's caloric recommendations assume that you will eat back the full amount of true net exercise calories you spend over and above your selected activity level.

Determining that amount is not always easy which is why people suggest that you start by eating back half your exercise calories and re-evaluate based on your results.

Your weight loss speed expectation is beyond unrealistic, verging into detrimental, given you're at a normal weight.

You would be much better served by using a weight tracking application that creates a trendline to track your weight.

Weightgrapher.com has an optional feature where you can display your previous cycle on the graph. This helps women with a smaller deficit see their real weight picture even through periodic water retention fluctuations.

I haven't run your numbers, but if you're already in the bottom half of your normal bmi range you may be better served by body recomposition and exercise as opposed to caloric restriction.

Mapalicious wrote: »

Hey PAV8888 - I haven't heard this idea before, but I find it interesting!

The 0.5lbs per 25lbs "you have to lose" is a common MFP recommendation to preserve lean mass and ensure sane cutting goals for most people.

Technically speaking it is incorrect, because a real recommendation should probably be a % cut off of the person's TDEE based on the fat available to be lost.

But body fat % and TDEE are not usually known... so we go to proxies and estimates. Proxy for body fat % being how much you are planning to lose, and the estimated TDEE being MFP (NEAT+exercise), or scooby's or your Fitbit.

The only "tweek" is that I've added 0.5lbs per 25lbs "from the bottom of your normal weight range".

This is because you could have a 220lb obese person who has a goal of 195lbs at the top end of their overweight range.

The speed of weight loss they can tolerate is vastly different than what a 120lbs person trying to come down to 110lbs at the bottom of their normal weight range can tolerate without excessive lean mass loss.

The people who should be the MOST concerned about excessive lean mass loss are found in the second case. The ones who are trying to lose too fast when they are already at a normal weight.

But in trying to protect them, we shouldn't unduly scare people who have a lot of excess fat available to lose!

And when we don't tie the 25lbs "you want to lose", to some normative level ("from the bottom of your normal weight range") we could be discouraging someone who CAN tolerate a faster rate of loss.

AND on top of all that the real issue for most people (once you figure out a maximum cut) is to ensure that the cut is not so drastic that they give up, or binge, or restrict themselves so much they can't keep at it long enough to succeed.

BTW: there is no absolute agreement amongst the various studies that I am aware off. (And all this is just from random googling of pubmed studies; it's not like I have a monopoly on them )

There are studies that point out that a safe % loss rate to ensure maximum lean mass preservation is 0.7%.
Others point out that 1% and even 1.5% is safe, assuming the subjects have enough fat available.

Many point out that positive nitrogen balance (eating extra protein) is muscle sparing. Again the exact amount ranges. Double RDA, 1g per lb of lean muscle mass (proxied to 0.8g per lb of bodyweight), some more, some less. Of course, if you have bad kidneys, not a good idea to eat too much protein!

And lifting progressive weights. As long as you don't injure yourself great idea.

And frankly there are other studies that say that none of this will work and that you will lose lean mass anyway. And let's not even go into long terms weight loss success rates!

So all these are starting goals/rules of thumb till people can read and learn enough to forge their own path.

But, I do think that they are better than letting people who are already at a normal weight set themselves into 1000 or 1500 Cal deficits and expect good results....