IIFYM Question

chismmegan
chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
edited November 22 in Food and Nutrition
MFP has me on 1200 cal - 60P/150C/40F
IIFYM has me on 1485 cal - 116P/123C/58F

Seems like a big jump and I'm really confused on what to do. I want to get into IIFYM so that I can actually eat without feeling deprived at the end of the night but I also don't want to gain weight because so far I've lost 14-15 pounds only counting 1200 calories. I rarely eat back my exercise calories.

5'4 - 146lbs
Workout 5 days a week for :55 minutes burning roughly 450-550 cal (according to my polar watch) each time. I'll do :20 minutes stair master then the rest is upper/lower body alternating days.

Before that I was at the gym about 5 days a week for 1:20 burning about 700 calories each time. I changed it because I don't really have 1:45 (with driving time) to be at the gym. I was doing all of my weight training each day instead of alternating between upper and lower body like I am now.

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    edited August 2015
    Did you set the activity and loss goals to the same in both places?
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited August 2015
    MFP doesn't include exercise calories. IIFYM does. That's where your difference is.

    Also IIFYM gives you a 20% deficit, and you probably have a 1000 deficit with MFP.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    Yes, both have the exact same info.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    chismmegan wrote: »
    Yes, both have the exact same info.
    How did you tell MFP how many exercise calories you have per day?
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    Which would be better then? I get into stalls on my weight loss for about two weeks at a time, then see the numbers moving again until they stop. I know weight loss isn't linear but I'm tired of the stopping and going. Rather, I get into a mind set of "I haven't lost any weight for two weeks, what is the point of me resisting this whole tub of ice cream?" LOL
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    They're all guesses - just pick a number and stick to it. After a few weeks the scale will tell you if you should nudge higher or lower.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    What do you mean? I added in that I went to the gym at the very beginning and depending on how much food I want to eat at the end of the day I will just go ahead and add exercise into my daily diary.
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    Based on your stats, I would suggest running with the IIFYM targets for a while and see how it works out. I suspect you have your MFP profile set to a fairly aggressive weekly loss goal.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    Yeah, I had it at 2lbs a week but when I lowered it down MFP didn't give me much more calories so I just went back to 2lbs. (Which totally isn't happening, btw. I'm lucky if it's 1lb a week)
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Your young you should be eating way more then 1200, if you don't eat back exercise calories that means you are netting below 1200 cals which is not good. Eat more.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Which one is better depends on how consistent your exercise is.

    If you're very consistent, I like TDEE better. If you're not, MFP's approach is probably better.

    You can be however tired you want to be of inconsistent weight loss, but your body doesn't care.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited August 2015
    chismmegan wrote: »
    Which would be better then? I get into stalls on my weight loss for about two weeks at a time, then see the numbers moving again until they stop. I know weight loss isn't linear but I'm tired of the stopping and going. Rather, I get into a mind set of "I haven't lost any weight for two weeks, what is the point of me resisting this whole tub of ice cream?" LOL

    It's normal. I always stop losing 2 weeks before my period and lose a bunch the week after... The joy of being a woman, lol. Just use whatever number works for you. I used IIFYM pretty much.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    chismmegan wrote: »
    Which would be better then? I get into stalls on my weight loss for about two weeks at a time, then see the numbers moving again until they stop. I know weight loss isn't linear but I'm tired of the stopping and going. Rather, I get into a mind set of "I haven't lost any weight for two weeks, what is the point of me resisting this whole tub of ice cream?" LOL

    If you keep restricting yourself and eating very little you will most likely binge.

    You have very little to lose you should be shooting for 1/2 to 1 pound a week weight loss.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    I don't track weekly calories, but on Fridays I technically have a cheat meal..even though I don't like to call it that for mindset reasons. I probably reach a goodish number if I was counting weekly cals.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    chismmegan wrote: »
    I don't track weekly calories, but on Fridays I technically have a cheat meal..even though I don't like to call it that for mindset reasons. I probably reach a goodish number if I was counting weekly cals.

    There is no point in worrying about 100-200 difference in calorie target if you aren't going to count literally every calorie you consume, including "cheat" meals.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    In a perfect world I would like to be in the 120s but I feel like my body won't really allow me that considering I've never been there. 130s is probably where I will stay..who knows.

    My workouts are very consistent, I would like to say. It's been 2 1/2 months and the only time I missed 1 day on top of my rest day was when I was sedated at the dentist.
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, since I haven't used MFP's targets in a long time, but isn't MFP a net goal, while IIFYM uses a gross target? If so, based on your described exercise, the 2 are actually pretty close (using the standard advice of adding back half of your assumed exercise burn when using MFP).
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, since I haven't used MFP's targets in a long time, but isn't MFP a net goal, while IIFYM uses a gross target? If so, based on your described exercise, the 2 are actually pretty close (using the standard advice of adding back half of your assumed exercise burn when using MFP).

    What do you follow?

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, since I haven't used MFP's targets in a long time, but isn't MFP a net goal, while IIFYM uses a gross target? If so, based on your described exercise, the 2 are actually pretty close (using the standard advice of adding back half of your assumed exercise burn when using MFP).
    Yeah, @Francl27 said it as well. MFP's goal doesn't include exercise calories but IIFYM does.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    So they ARE basically the same if I eat my exercise calories back..?
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    Those are basically the same numbers. MFP expects you to add in your exercise calories and eat them back so it wouldn't make much to match IIFYM's numbers.

    I prefer to just use the IIFYM number and not add in exercise because 1) exercise calories are all a guess anyway - no good way to get an accurate number, and 2) I don't like trying to reach a moving target - I just want to know what my goal is and be able to plan and eat that.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, since I haven't used MFP's targets in a long time, but isn't MFP a net goal, while IIFYM uses a gross target? If so, based on your described exercise, the 2 are actually pretty close (using the standard advice of adding back half of your assumed exercise burn when using MFP).


    Yes - pretty close. Using MFP @ 1200 + 500 (average of 450-550) Cals/day for five days of exercise = 10,900 Cals per week. Using IIFYM @ 1485 Cals/day (not eating exercise Cals back) = 10,395 Cals per week. Only a 505 Cal per week difference - less than 1/4 lb.
  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    Ready2Rock206 wrote: »
    Those are basically the same numbers. MFP expects you to add in your exercise calories and eat them back so it wouldn't make much to match IIFYM's numbers.

    I prefer to just use the IIFYM number and not add in exercise because 1) exercise calories are all a guess anyway - no good way to get an accurate number, and 2) I don't like trying to reach a moving target - I just want to know what my goal is and be able to plan and eat that.

    Same. Which is why I didn't eat them back. I tried eating them back last night and it was wonderful. I didn't over eat/binge and I went to bed feeling satisfied.

  • chismmegan
    chismmegan Posts: 45 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, since I haven't used MFP's targets in a long time, but isn't MFP a net goal, while IIFYM uses a gross target? If so, based on your described exercise, the 2 are actually pretty close (using the standard advice of adding back half of your assumed exercise burn when using MFP).


    Yes - pretty close. Using MFP @ 1200 + 500 (average of 450-550) Cals/day for five days of exercise = 10,900 Cals per week. Using IIFYM @ 1485 Cals/day (not eating exercise Cals back) = 10,395 Cals per week. Only a 505 Cal per week difference - less than 1/4 lb.

    Thanks for putting that into numbers for me. I think I'll just increase my calories to 1400 in MFP and see where that takes me.

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    chismmegan wrote: »
    So they ARE basically the same if I eat my exercise calories back..?

    If you set the proper goal they should be similar. TDEE -20% should be close to a 1lb/week weight loss goal or at least between 0.5 and 1lb/week.

    As an example say MFP gives you 1450 calories to lose 1 lb/week, and you plan on exercising 5x/week for an average of 400 cals per workout. well MFP will tell you to eat 1450 on the days you don't workout and 1850 on the days you do whereas a TDEE calculator may tell you to eat 1700 everyday regardless if you workout.

    So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas TDEE will have you eat 11,900 (1700*7) almost the same number of cals for the week (250 dif). The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

    What many MFPers do is take the low 1450 and not eat back exercise calories which is wrong, if you are not eating them back then your daily activity level should reflect the higher burn with would be covered in the 1700/day above.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    chismmegan wrote: »
    So they ARE basically the same if I eat my exercise calories back..?
    Yeah. IIFYM is based on TDEE, which includes exercise calories.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories