anyone here familiar with IIFYM needing some input

Due to the fact that I have been on this journey for 3 years and I literally maintained the entire year last year, I am looking for change. MFP is killing me with these super low calorie suggestions. So I used an IIFYM calculator. My numbers are as follows: Total Calories 2360: Protein 177 Fat 103 Carbs 177 Fiber 44

I work out 3-6 days a week lifting and cardio. I cycle 5-15 miles a week (you know actually getting on a bike and riding it lol) I walk the treadmill at the gym on the days I go for 30 minutes (3-5 days). Lifting consists of upper body one day lower body next with a rest the next day then repeat this cycle.
My body stats are 5 foot 5 295 lbs (beginning weight was 414 3 years ago). I have a fairly sedentary job because I am in my car a lot. I do a type of social work.

SO my question is do the numbers look good to you and let me hear some success stories as well please...I am stuck in this rut and i have got to get out of it

Replies

  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    How long have you been doing IIFYM and is it working?

    I love IIFYM! It uses the TDEE method to calculate calories so remember you still track all your food here on myfitnesspal but DO NOT enter or eat back your exercise calories. Those are included in your total calorie goal with the IIFYM method. So remember to keep your excercise pretty consistent with whatever you used to set you calories/macros, and if your exercise routine changes then adjust your calories/macros accordingly. Also remember to recalculate as you lose weight. I think myfitnesspal does this automatically for when it sets your goals for you, but once you manually set your calories and macros it's up to you to adjust them down as you lose weight.

    Great job on your progress so far!!

    I hope you enjoy this method and see continued shccess! I really like it.
  • ninyagwa
    ninyagwa Posts: 328 Member
    I am losing again thanks to diligence and weighing my food. After looking through quite a bit of your food diary it does not look like you consistently log all of your food for the days or even the weeks. I speak from the experience of someone who has done this over and over again, where I thought, I'm good at this, I know what to do, I know what a portion size looks like. But I don't. I need to weigh and measure my food and commit the exact amount to my food log for weightloss to work for me. I think if you really stick to logging your food, and logging it more precisely you'll see results.
    I also notice that you do not put any beverages in your log, maybe you drink a lot of diet soda? The high sodium in that can cause you to not lose when you otherwise would be as well.
    Diligence is really the answer, if you don't lay it all out there you can't find exactly what's causing the stagnation.
    I find if I'm only sort of honest with my food I get either no weight loss for the week or very little, if I am meticulous and I track EVERYTHING, as well as work out 2-3 times a week for 30-60 minutes, I lose 2-3 lbs/week.
    In the last 8 weeks I have gone from 388lbs to 368 lbs. I have lost more in the last 10 days or so because I was honest about everything I put in my mouth.
    Please feel free to look at my diary or friend me.
    Good luck!
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    ninyagwa wrote: »
    I am losing again thanks to diligence and weighing my food. After looking through quite a bit of your food diary it does not look like you consistently log all of your food for the days or even the weeks. I speak from the experience of someone who has done this over and over again, where I thought, I'm good at this, I know what to do, I know what a portion size looks like. But I don't. I need to weigh and measure my food and commit the exact amount to my food log for weightloss to work for me. I think if you really stick to logging your food, and logging it more precisely you'll see results.
    I also notice that you do not put any beverages in your log, maybe you drink a lot of diet soda? The high sodium in that can cause you to not lose when you otherwise would be as well.
    Diligence is really the answer, if you don't lay it all out there you can't find exactly what's causing the stagnation.
    I find if I'm only sort of honest with my food I get either no weight loss for the week or very little, if I am meticulous and I track EVERYTHING, as well as work out 2-3 times a week for 30-60 minutes, I lose 2-3 lbs/week.
    In the last 8 weeks I have gone from 388lbs to 368 lbs. I have lost more in the last 10 days or so because I was honest about everything I put in my mouth.
    Please feel free to look at my diary or friend me.
    Good luck!

    Most of this is good except this part. Diet soda isn't especially high salt and at any rate, would only cause temporary (as in few days) water retention, though I'd doubt there's enough salt to do so.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    Given our weight I would think so. Though IIFYM is a different method than MFP (IIFYM includes exercise, MFP adds them separately).

    In the end they all even out to the same thing. So you not losing for the last year won't be remedied just by changing the method of calorie calculation.

    I would think this is an issue with logging. At your weight you should have no trouble losing weight, your margins for error are larger. A quick look at your diary shows all of your meat suspiciously the same weight (4oz/112g). 1. That's a pretty small portion of meat and 2. chops and breasts are all going to vary in size/weight. You appear to be using cups for solids like cheese, this will never be accurate.

    Get a food scale. Use it. That's going to make more difference than using MFPs calorie goals of IIFYM.

    lkbmffj1r5cv.jpg

    ^ Agree, agree, agree! ^
    As far as macros, you can probably lower your protein and fat intake a bit and designate some of those calories to carbs instead. I usually set my protein about 1g/lb of lean body mass, and fats about 25-30% of calories, and the rest carbs. (Unless you really enjoy fats and would prefer more fats vs carbs.)
    Personally I would aim more in the neighborhood of 140P/80F/270C maybe?
    I've found that you can be a little flexible with carbs and fats, you can manipulate them a bit to fit your eating preferences. (Example - I typically don't eat a super high fat diet and I prefer to eat a lot more carbs, so trying to hit 100+ grams of fat and only 177 carbs would probably have me eating a lot of butter and fatty meats I wouldn't be eating otherwise, "because macros". Eating in a way that is not your norm and you won't want to stick with is not going to help you as much long term as learning about how to manipulate/improve your current diet.
    And it still comes down to overall calories. Macro tracking is really just calorie tracking, but with a slightly different perspective.
    Hopefully that makes sense and didn't just further confuse..? :#
  • JenniferIsLosingIt
    JenniferIsLosingIt Posts: 595 Member
    Given our weight I would think so. Though IIFYM is a different method than MFP (IIFYM includes exercise, MFP adds them separately).

    In the end they all even out to the same thing. So you not losing for the last year won't be remedied just by changing the method of calorie calculation.

    I would think this is an issue with logging. At your weight you should have no trouble losing weight, your margins for error are larger. A quick look at your diary shows all of your meat suspiciously the same weight (4oz/112g). 1. That's a pretty small portion of meat and 2. chops and breasts are all going to vary in size/weight. You appear to be using cups for solids like cheese, this will never be accurate.

    Get a food scale. Use it. That's going to make more difference than using MFPs calorie goals of IIFYM.

    lkbmffj1r5cv.jpg

    I have plans to get a digital scale. I have a non digital one...but i worry about its accuracy..I will take this to heart. It feels like i have been stuck for so long. It has to behow I am tracking. :(
  • JenniferIsLosingIt
    JenniferIsLosingIt Posts: 595 Member
    Given our weight I would think so. Though IIFYM is a different method than MFP (IIFYM includes exercise, MFP adds them separately).

    In the end they all even out to the same thing. So you not losing for the last year won't be remedied just by changing the method of calorie calculation.

    I would think this is an issue with logging. At your weight you should have no trouble losing weight, your margins for error are larger. A quick look at your diary shows all of your meat suspiciously the same weight (4oz/112g). 1. That's a pretty small portion of meat and 2. chops and breasts are all going to vary in size/weight. You appear to be using cups for solids like cheese, this will never be accurate.

    Get a food scale. Use it. That's going to make more difference than using MFPs calorie goals of IIFYM.

    lkbmffj1r5cv.jpg

    ^ Agree, agree, agree! ^
    As far as macros, you can probably lower your protein and fat intake a bit and designate some of those calories to carbs instead. I usually set my protein about 1g/lb of lean body mass, and fats about 25-30% of calories, and the rest carbs. (Unless you really enjoy fats and would prefer more fats vs carbs.)
    Personally I would aim more in the neighborhood of 140P/80F/270C maybe?
    I've found that you can be a little flexible with carbs and fats, you can manipulate them a bit to fit your eating preferences. (Example - I typically don't eat a super high fat diet and I prefer to eat a lot more carbs, so trying to hit 100+ grams of fat and only 177 carbs would probably have me eating a lot of butter and fatty meats I wouldn't be eating otherwise, "because macros". Eating in a way that is not your norm and you won't want to stick with is not going to help you as much long term as learning about how to manipulate/improve your current diet.
    And it still comes down to overall calories. Macro tracking is really just calorie tracking, but with a slightly different perspective.
    Hopefully that makes sense and didn't just further confuse..? :#

    No it totally makes sense. I think i just have to suck it up and get the digital scale and start getting meticulous again...I think complacency has messed me up abit (hence all that damn maintaining)

    Thank you for taking time to help.
  • JenniferIsLosingIt
    JenniferIsLosingIt Posts: 595 Member
    ninyagwa wrote: »
    I am losing again thanks to diligence and weighing my food. After looking through quite a bit of your food diary it does not look like you consistently log all of your food for the days or even the weeks. I speak from the experience of someone who has done this over and over again, where I thought, I'm good at this, I know what to do, I know what a portion size looks like. But I don't. I need to weigh and measure my food and commit the exact amount to my food log for weightloss to work for me. I think if you really stick to logging your food, and logging it more precisely you'll see results.
    I also notice that you do not put any beverages in your log, maybe you drink a lot of diet soda? The high sodium in that can cause you to not lose when you otherwise would be as well.
    Diligence is really the answer, if you don't lay it all out there you can't find exactly what's causing the stagnation.
    I find if I'm only sort of honest with my food I get either no weight loss for the week or very little, if I am meticulous and I track EVERYTHING, as well as work out 2-3 times a week for 30-60 minutes, I lose 2-3 lbs/week.
    In the last 8 weeks I have gone from 388lbs to 368 lbs. I have lost more in the last 10 days or so because I was honest about everything I put in my mouth.
    Please feel free to look at my diary or friend me.
    Good luck!

    Yes... I got very burned out with logging... :( I am friending you now, :)
  • prattiger65
    prattiger65 Posts: 1,657 Member
    Over the last four years, I have lost a bunch of weight, gained a little back. lost that little again, gained a little more back, lost that.......rinse, repeat. Every. Single Time. that I gain weight it is because I get lazy with logging/watching what I eat. When I pay attention, my weight does what it should.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Given our weight I would think so. Though IIFYM is a different method than MFP (IIFYM includes exercise, MFP adds them separately).

    In the end they all even out to the same thing. So you not losing for the last year won't be remedied just by changing the method of calorie calculation.

    I would think this is an issue with logging. At your weight you should have no trouble losing weight, your margins for error are larger. A quick look at your diary shows all of your meat suspiciously the same weight (4oz/112g). 1. That's a pretty small portion of meat and 2. chops and breasts are all going to vary in size/weight. You appear to be using cups for solids like cheese, this will never be accurate.

    Get a food scale. Use it. That's going to make more difference than using MFPs calorie goals of IIFYM.

    lkbmffj1r5cv.jpg

    ^ Agree, agree, agree! ^
    As far as macros, you can probably lower your protein and fat intake a bit and designate some of those calories to carbs instead. I usually set my protein about 1g/lb of lean body mass, and fats about 25-30% of calories, and the rest carbs. (Unless you really enjoy fats and would prefer more fats vs carbs.)
    Personally I would aim more in the neighborhood of 140P/80F/270C maybe?
    I've found that you can be a little flexible with carbs and fats, you can manipulate them a bit to fit your eating preferences. (Example - I typically don't eat a super high fat diet and I prefer to eat a lot more carbs, so trying to hit 100+ grams of fat and only 177 carbs would probably have me eating a lot of butter and fatty meats I wouldn't be eating otherwise, "because macros". Eating in a way that is not your norm and you won't want to stick with is not going to help you as much long term as learning about how to manipulate/improve your current diet.
    And it still comes down to overall calories. Macro tracking is really just calorie tracking, but with a slightly different perspective.
    Hopefully that makes sense and didn't just further confuse..? :#

    No it totally makes sense. I think i just have to suck it up and get the digital scale and start getting meticulous again...I think complacency has messed me up abit (hence all that damn maintaining)

    Thank you for taking time to help.

    It happens to the best of us. The good news is, you have been able to maintain and tha is a triumph in and of itself.

    And for a small investment you can be absolutely sure of what you're eating. Calorie creep is all too real, or at least it can be for me, if I don't have the scales keeping me honest.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,813 Member
    Given our weight I would think so. Though IIFYM is a different method than MFP (IIFYM includes exercise, MFP adds them separately).

    In the end they all even out to the same thing. So you not losing for the last year won't be remedied just by changing the method of calorie calculation.

    I would think this is an issue with logging. At your weight you should have no trouble losing weight, your margins for error are larger. A quick look at your diary shows all of your meat suspiciously the same weight (4oz/112g). 1. That's a pretty small portion of meat and 2. chops and breasts are all going to vary in size/weight. You appear to be using cups for solids like cheese, this will never be accurate.

    Get a food scale. Use it. That's going to make more difference than using MFPs calorie goals of IIFYM.

    lkbmffj1r5cv.jpg

    ^ Agree, agree, agree! ^
    As far as macros, you can probably lower your protein and fat intake a bit and designate some of those calories to carbs instead. I usually set my protein about 1g/lb of lean body mass, and fats about 25-30% of calories, and the rest carbs. (Unless you really enjoy fats and would prefer more fats vs carbs.)
    Personally I would aim more in the neighborhood of 140P/80F/270C maybe?
    I've found that you can be a little flexible with carbs and fats, you can manipulate them a bit to fit your eating preferences. (Example - I typically don't eat a super high fat diet and I prefer to eat a lot more carbs, so trying to hit 100+ grams of fat and only 177 carbs would probably have me eating a lot of butter and fatty meats I wouldn't be eating otherwise, "because macros". Eating in a way that is not your norm and you won't want to stick with is not going to help you as much long term as learning about how to manipulate/improve your current diet.
    And it still comes down to overall calories. Macro tracking is really just calorie tracking, but with a slightly different perspective.
    Hopefully that makes sense and didn't just further confuse..? :#

    No it totally makes sense. I think i just have to suck it up and get the digital scale and start getting meticulous again...I think complacency has messed me up abit (hence all that damn maintaining)

    Thank you for taking time to help.

    I had a spring scale. A digital scale is worlds better.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,373 Member
    I think you're overestimating your activity too... 3-6 days a week for 60 minutes is really considered lightly active, especially if you're sedentary the rest of the time. When I put your stats in Scooby it gives you 2200 to lose 1lb a week. If you're not accurate in your logging you can easily erase that deficit too.

    So yeah, either get a digital scale, and/or decrease your goal (honestly in your position I'd probably eat 2000 or something anyway).
  • JenniferIsLosingIt
    JenniferIsLosingIt Posts: 595 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I think you're overestimating your activity too... 3-6 days a week for 60 minutes is really considered lightly active, especially if you're sedentary the rest of the time. When I put your stats in Scooby it gives you 2200 to lose 1lb a week. If you're not accurate in your logging you can easily erase that deficit too.

    So yeah, either get a digital scale, and/or decrease your goal (honestly in your position I'd probably eat 2000 or something anyway).

    Thank you! I have had the flu for 5 days and have done nothing yet. But I am on the mend.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,069 Member
    I just want to applaud you for taking the advice given in this thread. It's very likely correct but for some reason people don't like accepting that they could be inaccurate with logging habits.

    Best of luck to you!
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,903 Member
    Ditto the digital scale. I got one from Amazon that weighs grams (my old scale only did ounces/pounds). It was $14 and well worth it!
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,784 Member
    The digital scale I have is the EatSmart Precision Pro Digital Kitchen Scale. It has 4.5 stars on Amazon, with 8250 customer reviews. Easy tare feature, easy to switch units (I mostly use grams). I also have their bathroom scale (EatSmart Precision Digital Bathroom Scale with Extra Large Lighted Display, 4.4 stars and about 25000 reviews) and am very happy with both products. Both are inexpensive.
  • lemonychild
    lemonychild Posts: 654 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I think you're overestimating your activity too... 3-6 days a week for 60 minutes is really considered lightly active, especially if you're sedentary the rest of the time. When I put your stats in Scooby it gives you 2200 to lose 1lb a week. If you're not accurate in your logging you can easily erase that deficit too.

    So yeah, either get a digital scale, and/or decrease your goal (honestly in your position I'd probably eat 2000 or something anyway).

    my thoughts exactly, your calorie count is very high for some basic cardio, and weights few times a week. You really should get a scale and start to see how you feel at 2100 cals. Check to see is 2100 will leave you hungry or if it suffices. By the way, using mfp n tdee should have similar numbers at the end of it all. Mfp doesn't automatically calculate exercise calories you have to put them in manually and eat 60% or so of them back.

  • JenniferIsLosingIt
    JenniferIsLosingIt Posts: 595 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    I just want to applaud you for taking the advice given in this thread. It's very likely correct but for some reason people don't like accepting that they could be inaccurate with logging habits.

    Best of luck to you!

    LOL! I am always open to correction. I figured it was going to come back down to weighing and measuring again. I did it in the beginning faithfully. Then about 2 years in I got really comfortable...and that's where weight loss stopped. :) Thank you for the encouragement! :)
  • red99ryder
    red99ryder Posts: 399 Member
    Just look at it like a.long break .. and hey you got to wear these clothes for awhile .. good job so far .. keep caring and don't give up


    Good luck
  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    Any update OP? Have you made any progress since posting this?