Welcome to the new Community design. We know there are some big changes to get used to as well some challenges and bugs. Please check out our post about New Updates To The Community as well as Outstanding Bugs. We will continue to collect feedback and bug issues and will work to make improvements.

2 lb per week weight loss

13»

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,207 Member
    nikkons017 wrote: »
    buy a food scale and use it to measure out your food in grams to get accurate calories. Never count exercise calories towards what you can eat. You burn very little calories from exercising, just consider the calories you burn as a bonus.

    if you are near the 1200 calorie mark, do not go below. 1200 calories is the calorie intake of like a 10 yr old and you are bordering on malnutrition. You need to be lifting weights to build muscle so it increases the calories that you burn.

    build more muscle = higher metabolism = easier to burn fat = able to eat more food and still lose weight

    Most fitness girls I know eat around 1800 calories if not more for their "cutting"/fat loss

    MFP uses the NEAT method, and as such the system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.

    When I weigh my food on a digital food scale, eat the calories MFP gives me, eat some (but not all) of my exercise calories, I lose as expected over the course of a month.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,207 Member
    EricaH7 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the advice and help. I definitely learned a lot. As far as my stats go I started at 184.4, currently I am at 175.2. My goal is to be somewhere between 130-150. Right now I have been averaging losing 2 lbs. per week eating as I do which obviously I have not been eating back the exercise calories, however I do not find this amount of calories I am eating hard to maintain which is confusing to me when everyone is saying it should be? I have been eating like this for over a month now and I really have not been hungry. I have been maintaining this amount just fine. If you guys believe this is unhealthy then I will listen to suggestions and up the amount I am eating, but to be honest I have not changed the quantity of foods I am eating at all. I have only changed the quality.

    With only 25-45 pounds to lose, 2 pounds per week is an overly aggressive goal. Do dial back to a pound a week.

    You start using a food scale, at which point you will learn that you've been eating more than you think, and start eating back a percentage of your exercise calories, or continue as is as the extra consumption is currently balancing out the calories burned via exercise.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,458 Member
    nikkons017 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nikkons017 wrote: »
    buy a food scale and use it to measure out your food in grams to get accurate calories. Never count exercise calories towards what you can eat. You burn very little calories from exercising, just consider the calories you burn as a bonus.

    if you are near the 1200 calorie mark, do not go below. 1200 calories is the calorie intake of like a 10 yr old and you are bordering on malnutrition. You need to be lifting weights to build muscle so it increases the calories that you burn.

    build more muscle = higher metabolism = easier to burn fat = able to eat more food and still lose weight

    Most fitness girls I know eat around 1800 calories if not more for their "cutting"/fat loss

    To the bolded, as was explained upthread, the calculation of a calorie goal from MFP excludes exercise, it is a NEAT goal, so the system is actually designed that if you exercise you should eat back at least a portion of those calories.

    I'm not sure how on one hand you are stressing the need to eat at an adequate minimum level yet on the other dismissing the idea of eating back exercise calories... isn't that kind of the same thing? If OP exercises and burns 400 calories, and eats those back increasing her total calorie intake to 1680, how is that different than your recommendation to just increase her calorie goal?

    if you can find any reliable way to accurately measure energy consumed by exercise as all the machines and trainers give you bogus numbers. The amount you burn depends on lots of factors like height, weight, age, gender, muscle mass, muscle adaptation etc... I know people like to look on their cardio machine and it gives them a nice 400 number but it is complete bs. Those formulas also include a portion of bmr which is what you would burn if you did absolutely nothing and just existed, which is near half of that number. This is why they can magically calc your calories burned from just entering your weight knowing nothing else about you (lol). You are not buring 1k+ calories in your body pump/combat/yoga/whatever class, its marketing. If you really wanted to burn over 1k calories you would have to almost full out sprint continuously for 2.5hrs straight with no breaks, then you might get close. Again this doesn't factor in age, weight, etc... We are physically adapted to be efficient when doing exercises/work/hunt and we eat calorie dense foods. This is why humans survived.

    So you can't estimate accurately how much calories you are burning so you can't accurately determine how much "extra" you could theoretically eat. However it is fact that if you are not in a caloric deficit, you will not lose weight according to thermodynamics. So you get 3 options, eat a caloric deficit, eat at maintenance, eat above maintenance. 2/3 of those, you will not be losing weight. I'd rather not guess when the odds are already against me.

    Muscle take up more energy to maintain then fat does on your body. As when you crash diet, you are mostly losing muscle/water as its the first thing to go in terms of keeping you alive, thus how you get skinny fat people who are thin but still look frail. If you put on more muscle, you require more energy for your body to maintain that muscle. Thus you are increasing how much you can eat. The amount is determined by your goals and how much previous muscle mass you have. You adjust accordingly by your progress pictures and long-term scale moving averages.

    This works the same for exercise. But the key point for exercise/activity level is that is has to be consistent week over week, which is really hard for most people as stuff just happens. If you can do it, great; watch the scale and photos and increase your cals, working towards you goal.

    But this is the catch. A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So for you to lose even 1 pound per week you need to be in a deficit of 500 calories each day for 7 DAYS (minimum). If you cut that to 250 cal deficit then it takes you around 2 weeks to lose 1 lb. So if you mess up your calories adding them back in, you could be losing weight but extremely slow. So if you decide to cheat; 1 medium pizza is ~2k calories, bar of chocolate is around ~900 cal, a normal combo meal from a fast food place is like ~2k cals, its extremely easy to erase what little deficit you had and erase 2 or more WEEKS of progress.

    The minimum level is for safety. 1200 is extremely low and it is hard to eat a wide variety of foods to get adequate macro and micro nutrients at that level. If you want to go below that, this is your choice but be warned that you will probably develop nutrition deficiences, you body will go into panic mode cause your starving yourself and will make fat loss near impossible. It will also lower your metabolism to further conserve energy making weight loss harder/slower. You will also be eating mostly muscle and not the fat you wanted to lose.

    I think that you are failing to understand that MFP calculates a NEAT calorie goal for individuals based on BMR + Non Exercise activity - such that the deficit for weight loss is built into the goal that MFP provides, and one can lose weight according to their goal even if they do no exercise whatsoever. Adding back in some exercise calories (and most people, myself included, recommend only eating back a portion of any estimated calorie burns to compensate for potential inaccuracies until a consistent baseline data set can be established by an individual) helps to ensure that the deficit is not too large. The deficit isn't coming from exercise, so your example of inaccurate burns throwing off the progress is not an issue here.

    I also still don't understand why you are saying that the OP needs to eat more than the 1200 minimum (which I agree with) but don't think she should be eating back exercise calories. You are basically describing a TDEE method in which a calorie goal is based off of total calories burned including exercise, and a deficit from that number, in which case no, an individual wouldn't eat back exercise calories. But this OP is using the MFP NEAT method and so eating back those calories burned helps with satiety, overall nutrition, and total energy while maintaining a moderate deficit from the calorie reduction in her initial goal (which I personally think is too aggressive for the amount of weight she wants to lose).

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    I wrote something not to long ago to help someone else understand how MFP works, I might just link it here if you want to check it out. Explains some terms you might be seeing on these forums, help you to understand what they are and what MFP is doing in a way that will help you make intelligent informed decisions about your diet.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10454792/what-mfp-does-when-it-calculates-your-goal#latest

    I will echo everyone else and say from your screencap you are misinterpreting what you are supposed to be doing. From the information you supplied MFP it calculated your NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) which is the amount of calories your body requires without additional exercise. From that it then asked how much you wanted to lose. You said 2 pounds which is a 7000 calorie weekly deficit or 1000 calorie daily deficit so it took your NEAT and subtracted 1000 to arrive at your goal which it gave as 1280. You are supposed to eat 1280 to have a 1000 calorie deficit and if you do additional exercise you are supposed to eat those calories back.

    The only trick is that estimates of calories burned from exercise can be pretty innacurate so a lot of time people opt to just eat back about 50% of the estimate (so if a calculator tells you you burned 500 calories eat 250 more that day). If you end up over time losing too quickly you can always eat more.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited September 2016
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    EricaH7 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the advice and help. I definitely learned a lot. As far as my stats go I started at 184.4, currently I am at 175.2. My goal is to be somewhere between 130-150. Right now I have been averaging losing 2 lbs. per week eating as I do which obviously I have not been eating back the exercise calories, however I do not find this amount of calories I am eating hard to maintain which is confusing to me when everyone is saying it should be? I have been eating like this for over a month now and I really have not been hungry. I have been maintaining this amount just fine. If you guys believe this is unhealthy then I will listen to suggestions and up the amount I am eating, but to be honest I have not changed the quantity of foods I am eating at all. I have only changed the quality.

    With only 25-45 pounds to lose, 2 pounds per week is an overly aggressive goal. Do dial back to a pound a week.

    You start using a food scale, at which point you will learn that you've been eating more than you think, and start eating back a percentage of your exercise calories, or continue as is as the extra consumption is currently balancing out the calories burned via exercise.

    This. I have similar stats to you. I started at 190, currently weigh 175 and am aiming for 140. I've set MFP to give me a loss of 1 pound/week, and it tells me to eat about 1600 cals/day (for lightly active). Before exercise. I work out twice a week, so actually averaged eating 1750 cals/day in August. And lost 10 pounds that month.

    Setting a 1 pound/week goal gives you a little more flexibility. You "get" to eat more so you can decide whether or not you want to eat back some or all of your exercise calories (assuming not too huge of a burn). It's also important to realize that it's the overall average that matters. I rarely want to eat back my exercise calories that day, but sometimes I want them the next day.

    Regarding figuring out how many calories your body *really* burns, that's easy enough to work out after a while by comparing your weight loss to the number of calories consumed. I weigh everything so I know my CI very accurately, and measuring my weight loss longterm will tell me where my CI-CO is at. I can work out CO from that.
  • MrsKila
    MrsKila Posts: 320 Member
    RGv2 wrote: »
    EricaH7 wrote: »
    At the end of the day I have an extra 500-800. This is after I work out and I don't eat out my exercise calories. I thought you need to have a deficit of 1000 a day?

    You're doing this wrong....

    You're supposed to HIT the number that MFP gives you, not stay 500-800 under it. It's quite possible that being under your goal by 500-800 cals per day, if logged accurately, your deficit is well over 1000 cals per day and far too steep for long term success.

    Would it be possible to get your ht / wt / calorie goal / exercise routine so we can possibly help you understand further? Also, is it possible to look at your diary?

    Like Malibu said, MFP gives you the calorie goal assuming you do no exercise per day so you're supposed to eat those calories back (or at least some of them).

    I was just about to ask how everyone was coming up with all these calculations without knowing the important information like the height weight calorie goal exercise routine excetera.