MFP - CICO general question
Options
mrramsey1969
Posts: 46 Member
Greetings all,
So I squeaked out 1.4 pounds this week YAY! I was expecting closer to 2 but I am not complaining. What I am hoping to do is understand so I can adjust down the road when needed.
Here's the sitch: My TDEE is about 2300cal MFP gave me 1960 @ a 1.5lb goal per week. My consumption was was about 1300 cals below for the week. I burned an additional 7100 cals in exercise (Number based on chest mount HRM). I feel my diary records are accurate (weighing where I can)
For the most part I hit my weight loss weekly goal however based on the numbers I think you can see why I thought it would be closer to 2, not that that will be my norm. I did have a bout of constipation this week and I wouldn't say I am 100% back to normal yet so that may play into this as well. At any rate I will keep the same regimen going for the next week as this will give me a full 14 day window.
Thought's?
So I squeaked out 1.4 pounds this week YAY! I was expecting closer to 2 but I am not complaining. What I am hoping to do is understand so I can adjust down the road when needed.
Here's the sitch: My TDEE is about 2300cal MFP gave me 1960 @ a 1.5lb goal per week. My consumption was was about 1300 cals below for the week. I burned an additional 7100 cals in exercise (Number based on chest mount HRM). I feel my diary records are accurate (weighing where I can)
For the most part I hit my weight loss weekly goal however based on the numbers I think you can see why I thought it would be closer to 2, not that that will be my norm. I did have a bout of constipation this week and I wouldn't say I am 100% back to normal yet so that may play into this as well. At any rate I will keep the same regimen going for the next week as this will give me a full 14 day window.
Thought's?
0
Replies
-
Nice going! Good start.
A favorite (and true) saying around here is that "Weight loss isn't linear." You might be logging inaccurately, it could be water weight or constipation, you might drop 4 lbs next week... you never know. If you want to lose more, you could examine your logging/measuring process for errors, eat fewer of your exercise calories, or increase your weekly goal. Or, as you said, just keep doing what you're doing. Slow and steady wins the race. 5 -
Weight fluctuations are a product of a number of variables, only one of which is fat loss.
Two others are water and food passing through your system,
As a result, even with the most precise measurements of CICO, you will rarely get the precise predicted result in any given week.
Yours was unusually close.
7 -
Wait, are you grossing 1300 calories per day and exercising to a 1000 calorie per day burn? So netting 300 calories? Forgive me if the numbers are confused.0
-
My suggestion would be to keep the same regimine for 4 weeks before you make changes. Just a thought I wanted you to think about ... that heart rate calculator for burned calories ... it includes your BMR as well as the additional calories you burn via extra exercise, as it cannot split off how much was extra and how much was base. That's one reason why it's important to not eat back all of your 'exercise' calories based on what you got from the timed activity.
0 -
Nice going! Good start. A favorite (and true) saying around here is that "Weight loss isn't linear." You might be logging inaccurately, it could be water weight or constipation, you might drop 4 lbs next week... you never know. If you want to lose more, you could examine your logging/measuring process for errors, eat fewer of your exercise calories, or increase your weekly goal. Or, as you said, just keep doing what you're doing. Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow and steady for sure. I will add that my previous time on MFP I would indeed have a lower loss one week followed by a larger loss the next. That was the norm for me then. MFP has changed slightly from 3 years ago so just trying to understand the variances to plan accordingly.
You are correct.Weight fluctuations are a product of a number of variables, only one of which is fat loss.
Two others are water and food passing through your system,
As a result, even with the most precise measurements of CICO, you will rarely get the precise predicted result in any given week.
Yours was unusually close.VintageFeline wrote: »Wait, are you grossing 1300 calories per day and exercising to a 1000 calorie per day burn? So netting 300 calories? Forgive me if the numbers are confused.
No, I am trying to hit my daily 1960, some days more some less. All in all I was 1300 under for the WEEK. Exercise I will hit in the 1000 c range daily.My suggestion would be to keep the same regimine for 4 weeks before you make changes. Just a thought I wanted you to think about ... that heart rate calculator for burned calories ... it includes your BMR as well as the additional calories you burn via extra exercise, as it cannot split off how much was extra and how much was base. That's one reason why it's important to not eat back all of your 'exercise' calories based on what you got from the timed activity.
Ok based on averages for me that would be a reduction of almost 246c daily @ 82c per hour (BMR/24). I totally agree and I don't nor did I in the past eat all of my exercise cals back. Pretty much just ate my daily goal and maybe a little more.0 -
I'd suggest 1-week is too short for a good measurement. Look after 4-6 weeks and you'll be closer to the pin.
TDEE, exercise calories, portions / calories in food have all got variance. I'd love it if my body responded entirely predictably to every input, but it doesn't.0 -
mrramsey1969 wrote: »Nice going! Good start. A favorite (and true) saying around here is that "Weight loss isn't linear." You might be logging inaccurately, it could be water weight or constipation, you might drop 4 lbs next week... you never know. If you want to lose more, you could examine your logging/measuring process for errors, eat fewer of your exercise calories, or increase your weekly goal. Or, as you said, just keep doing what you're doing. Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow and steady for sure. I will add that my previous time on MFP I would indeed have a lower loss one week followed by a larger loss the next. That was the norm for me then. MFP has changed slightly from 3 years ago so just trying to understand the variances to plan accordingly.
You are correct.Weight fluctuations are a product of a number of variables, only one of which is fat loss.
Two others are water and food passing through your system,
As a result, even with the most precise measurements of CICO, you will rarely get the precise predicted result in any given week.
Yours was unusually close.VintageFeline wrote: »Wait, are you grossing 1300 calories per day and exercising to a 1000 calorie per day burn? So netting 300 calories? Forgive me if the numbers are confused.
No, I am trying to hit my daily 1960, some days more some less. All in all I was 1300 under for the WEEK. Exercise I will hit in the 1000 c range daily.My suggestion would be to keep the same regimine for 4 weeks before you make changes. Just a thought I wanted you to think about ... that heart rate calculator for burned calories ... it includes your BMR as well as the additional calories you burn via extra exercise, as it cannot split off how much was extra and how much was base. That's one reason why it's important to not eat back all of your 'exercise' calories based on what you got from the timed activity.
Ok based on averages for me that would be a reduction of almost 246c daily @ 82c per hour (BMR/24). I totally agree and I don't nor did I in the past eat all of my exercise cals back. Pretty much just ate my daily goal and maybe a little more.
Okay. So first thing to say, is that one week will tell you diddly about progress. If you have recently started or increased exercise you could be retaining water for muscle repair, so you need to give it more time.
Secondly, you seem to be confused about how MFP works and TDEE. MFP uses the NEAT method. So their 1960 is before purposeful exercise. If MFP gives you 1960 calories for 1.5lbs per week loss, your NEAT to maintain current weight is 1960+750. Exercise would be extra again. TDEE is a different calculation that averages out exercise and includes it daily calorie goals.
1300 calories under goal for the week is barely half a pound so it does actually look like you're spot on for losses allowing for wonky calorie burns and perhaps the odd small logging error. So keep on keeping on.
Also, you didn't mention how many days a week you're exercising. Be sure to include rest/active rest days so as to not stress the body and burn yourself out.1 -
It's already been said but the scale won't just go down and down. If I looked at one week to the next, some weeks I might see a plateau or really minor loss but the graph line is jagged as all get out and headed downwards in the big picture. I set myself to lose 0.5 per week and 9 out of 10 days I'll come in 1-200 cals under and have lost 0.76 pounds per week average. This is a 13 week stat and it makes sense.
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Okay. So first thing to say, is that one week will tell you diddly about progress. If you have recently started or increased exercise you could be retaining water for muscle repair, so you need to give it more time.
Secondly, you seem to be confused about how MFP works and TDEE. MFP uses the NEAT method. So their 1960 is before purposeful exercise. If MFP gives you 1960 calories for 1.5lbs per week loss, your NEAT to maintain current weight is 1960+750. Exercise would be extra again. TDEE is a different calculation that averages out exercise and includes it daily calorie goals.
1300 calories under goal for the week is barely half a pound so it does actually look like you're spot on for losses allowing for wonky calorie burns and perhaps the odd small logging error. So keep on keeping on.
Also, you didn't mention how many days a week you're exercising. Be sure to include rest/active rest days so as to not stress the body and burn yourself out.
You are correct in that a week is not enough time for progress. That was not my intent. I was just trying to gain a better understanding of the numbers. I know it is not and never will be a precise as we all would like them to be. So with the 1960 being approximatley a 1.5 lb per week loss and the fact that I was 1300 cals lower than that for the week@ potentially an additional 1/2 lb I should have seen closer to 2lb loss (based solely on numbers alone in a perfect world) Now factor the extra cals for exercise that were burned maybe another 1-1.5 lb potential loss. In the end it will all come out in the wash.
My exercise is pretty much daily. 3.1 miles on the TM before work, I work from home and stand at my desk all day, Lunch time will do another 1.5-3miles with the dog. I will then finish the day after dinner with another 3.1 miles on the TM. TM is now becoming my TV time. Strength training will get worked in after 4-5 weeks of tracking and daily routine building.0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »It's already been said but the scale won't just go down and down. If I looked at one week to the next, some weeks I might see a plateau or really minor loss but the graph line is jagged as all get out and headed downwards in the big picture. I set myself to lose 0.5 per week and 9 out of 10 days I'll come in 1-200 cals under and have lost 0.76 pounds per week average. This is a 13 week stat and it makes sense.
You are correct, weigh loss is not linear. That is not exactly what my post was about. What it really boils down to is the over exaggerated MFP calorie burn numbers. I will rarely ever eat back any exercise cals. From an analytical standpoint I would like to calculate a better calorie burn number. From Nikion's comment above that burn would also include the calories in your BMR. Thus in my case 80ish calories high for an hour. So going forward if MFP suggests that I burned 400 cals in an hour for some exercise I will reduce that by 100 cals for a more conservative / realistic number to use.
0 -
Fair enough. I use my Apple Watch for exercise cals and it's kept me on track as you see.0
-
A WL of 1.5 or so a week is a good one for long term succes. As others have said, the scale will jump around a bit no matter how you work your program.
If you lost a little weight, ate well, liked what you ate, felt good, and weren't hungry most of the time, then do what you are doing.
Don't focus too much on scale expectations unless you answered NO to any if the above questions.0 -
mrramsey1969 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »It's already been said but the scale won't just go down and down. If I looked at one week to the next, some weeks I might see a plateau or really minor loss but the graph line is jagged as all get out and headed downwards in the big picture. I set myself to lose 0.5 per week and 9 out of 10 days I'll come in 1-200 cals under and have lost 0.76 pounds per week average. This is a 13 week stat and it makes sense.
You are correct, weigh loss is not linear. That is not exactly what my post was about. What it really boils down to is the over exaggerated MFP calorie burn numbers. I will rarely ever eat back any exercise cals. From an analytical standpoint I would like to calculate a better calorie burn number. From Nikion's comment above that burn would also include the calories in your BMR. Thus in my case 80ish calories high for an hour. So going forward if MFP suggests that I burned 400 cals in an hour for some exercise I will reduce that by 100 cals for a more conservative / realistic number to use.
So if you didn't want to hear weight loss isn't linear what did you want our thoughts on?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »mrramsey1969 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »It's already been said but the scale won't just go down and down. If I looked at one week to the next, some weeks I might see a plateau or really minor loss but the graph line is jagged as all get out and headed downwards in the big picture. I set myself to lose 0.5 per week and 9 out of 10 days I'll come in 1-200 cals under and have lost 0.76 pounds per week average. This is a 13 week stat and it makes sense.
You are correct, weigh loss is not linear. That is not exactly what my post was about. What it really boils down to is the over exaggerated MFP calorie burn numbers. I will rarely ever eat back any exercise cals. From an analytical standpoint I would like to calculate a better calorie burn number. From Nikion's comment above that burn would also include the calories in your BMR. Thus in my case 80ish calories high for an hour. So going forward if MFP suggests that I burned 400 cals in an hour for some exercise I will reduce that by 100 cals for a more conservative / realistic number to use.
So if you didn't want to hear weight loss isn't linear what did you want our thoughts on?
I was really after I guess was trying to figure out where the calories were off. I think nikions comment that the calorie burn also include the burn that is already taken into the equation. Thus making my numbers for calorie burn about 2k higher for the week than they actually we're. There is no problem with the way I am doing things nor the result I got. Just trying to paint a more accurate picture.0 -
Something is wrong here. If your TDEE is about 2300 calories, your daily goal calories to lose 1.5 lbs a week should be 1550 (2300 - 750) (with no eating back exercise calories, because TDEE already includes exercise calories). If MFP thinks you will lose 1.5 lbs a week on 1960 a day, MFP thinks your daily calorie expenditure before exercise is 2710 (1960 + 750).mrramsey1969 wrote: »Greetings all,
So I squeaked out 1.4 pounds this week YAY! I was expecting closer to 2 but I am not complaining. What I am hoping to do is understand so I can adjust down the road when needed.
Here's the sitch: My TDEE is about 2300cal MFP gave me 1960 @ a 1.5lb goal per week. My consumption was was about 1300 cals below for the week. I burned an additional 7100 cals in exercise (Number based on chest mount HRM). I feel my diary records are accurate (weighing where I can)
MFP doesn't calculate TDEE, it calculates your calorie expenditure based on activity without exercise. Did you go to some other site to calculate your TDEE?For the most part I hit my weight loss weekly goal however based on the numbers I think you can see why I thought it would be closer to 2, not that that will be my norm. I did have a bout of constipation this week and I wouldn't say I am 100% back to normal yet so that may play into this as well. At any rate I will keep the same regimen going for the next week as this will give me a full 14 day window.
Thought's?
Less than two weeks into starting a new reduced level of calories does not provide enough information to make an assessment. Many people lose a lot of water weight early on, from depleting glycogen stores (your body needs extra water to store glycogen).
You're headed in the right direction. Keep doing what you're doing, and assess/adjust as you go.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions