Do you believe in "Calorie Math"?

michael_hatten wrote: »

I agree that eat less, exercise more works. I've lost 35 pounds this year following that not very complex formula. What I'm pushing back on is obsessing on the numbers. They aren't that accurate and it can make you nuts.

1) I have lost 55 lbs this time using CI<CO
2) Any time over the past 30 years that I've wanted to lose a little bit of weight, I've used CI<CO ... because it works.
3) I like numbers and data. It's what I do. I've been logging my cycling since April 29, 1990. I've been logging my food on and off since about 1984.

While I like to be reasonably accurate with things like distance cycled, I know, and have known since about 1984, that calories are hard to determine accurately ... and really, they don't need to be determined absolutely accurately. For weight loss, as long as you're reasonably sure that the amount you're consuming is less than the amount you're burning, you're good. And you know you've got it right because you will lose weight.

MFP gives one a tool to collect data.
One starts with the numbers MFP, other online calculators, and step/ movement/ HRM devices one chooses to use and then extracts ones personal data from the results one receives.

I don't think any average calculation can give an individual exact results, but the more accurate information one can extrapolate from an imperfect system, the more one can succeed.

I didn't take the numbers with a grain of salt, I tracked them and worked out the calories I personally need when a book worm, when doing 60min cardio, and when lifting weights.
I can easily adjust my intake over the week to make sure I am at least adequately fueled for my activity level.

It takes a bit of work at the beginning, but after 6 years of maintaining within a 5 lbs range, I have found it successful and non intrusive on my daily life.

As a non-numbers person, I have found knowing my own numbers, and working with them, works.

Cheers, h.

Yes. Overestimate calories in, underestimate calories out. Easy peasy.

michael_hatten wrote: »

For sure, working out helps you maintain your weight but I doubt that you can work off 3500 excess calories and thereby lose exactly one pound.

Is it the end of the world if you burn 3,501 calories instead?

michael_hatten wrote: »

I agree that eat less, exercise more works. I've lost 35 pounds this year following that not very complex formula. What I'm pushing back on is obsessing on the numbers. They aren't that accurate and it can make you nuts.

Expending more calories than one consumes leads to an energy deficit. It really is that simple, basic physics.

I agree with your point about obsessing on the numbers. The range of people who seem to think that instrumentation used inappropriately can give them meaningful data is immense, including those who should know better.

The main thing is looking at results on an enduring basis, testing and adjusting as required.

I would add that I'm not a strong advocate of exercise as a method of calorie management. Train for fitness and to meet performance objectives, and eat to a calorie goal. Keep the two discrete.

michael_hatten wrote: »

Trackers are valuable. They can keep you motivated and perhaps give you a way to compare one workout to another as long as they are on the same machine using the same calorie measurement device. But I think the idea that they are anything more than rough measures is just nuts.

I agree with this. Sure the math works but all trackers are based on averages and will likely be 100% accurate for very few people. We don't all absorb the same number of calories for same foods, and we don't all burn the same calories even if we are the same size.

But, trackers and calculators are a decent starting point. You just have to apply common sense and adjust as needed.

Machka9 wrote: »

Yes, it is all about CI <CO.

If you want to lose weight, you need to eat less than you're burning.

If you enter your information into MFP, and select sedentary as your activity level, MFP will give you a number of calories to consume which includes a deficit appropriate for the amount of weight you've selected to lose each week (i.e. 1 lb/week)

Any exercise you do will increase the deficit.

Now, the number of calories burned during exercise is indeed an estimate, and many calorie counters over estimate that amount. That is why the recommendation is to log your exercise, but then to eat approx. half of your exercise calories back.

I also tend to choose the "slow/light" option even if I feel like I walked or cycled fast and put in a really good effort. And I'll round my time down a little bit.

Works for me!

This!!

It worked for me! I lost 42 pounds and have been maintaining it for 7 months now. Yes, calories burned are an estimate so just make sure they are conservative.

Yes, our estimations of CI are just that, though you can get pretty darn good at it with the right measuring techniques.

Yes, our estimations of CO are just that, although with respect to exercise and calorie expenditure there are certain exercises that you can estimate with much better reliability than others - often manually with a formula as the activity trackers may calculate gross calories rather then net, and/or rely on HR which is not a good estimate of actual work done, and/or rely on # of steps or distance or speed that may not be accurate.

In addition, the weight we lose is generally not 100% fat, so the notion that it is accurate to say you 'burn 3500 cals and lose exactly 1lb' is flawed from the get-go. Plus, the notion that 3500 cals == 1 lb of fat is, once again, an estimate.

But, still, "calorie math" in the sense of "get CI < CO and you will lose fat over time" works. "Calorie math" in the sense of "My estimated TDEE is 1700 and my estimated CI is 1200 so I will lose exactly 1lb of fat every week" does not work as an absolute statement.