Something I've found useful...

Due to my work I have to deduct 20% from my Fitbit step count. Turns out when I'm moving my hands a lot, it counts as steps.
Yikes!

I appreciate your post, because I've been thinking about getting an activity tracker for the same reason (I actually think my TDEE may be quite a bit less than MFP gives me credit for). But may I point out that, if your profile pic is current, 2 lbs/week sounds far too aggressive for you. 2 lbs/week is generally for obese people. If you have a relatively small amount to lose, a 2 lb/week goal will cause you to burn valuable lean muscle mass.

Thank you for the info!

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

I appreciate your post, because I've been thinking about getting an activity tracker for the same reason (I actually think my TDEE may be quite a bit less than MFP gives me credit for). But may I point out that, if your profile pic is current, 2 lbs/week sounds far too aggressive for you. 2 lbs/week is generally for obese people. If you have a relatively small amount to lose, a 2 lb/week goal will cause you to burn valuable lean muscle mass.

Thank you for the info!

I had 19 lbs to lose when I started Jan 4. 13 left to go to my goal of 140lbs. Could probably lose more but that is where I always feel most fit. I naturally seem to be more muscular which i think is why I've never been able to get down to the 120s even with small to medium frame size. I figure as long as I'm eating my 1200 calories a day and reaching my deficit by exercise I should be able to maintain my muscle ??

It's good that you are eating your 1200 calories, but if you work out with any kind of intensity, that means you are netting far less than that, which is unhealthy and will cost you lean muscle mass. You should be eating back at least part of your exercise calories, and pay particular attention to your protein.

I did overlook something, though. Even if you set your goal for 2 lbs/week, 1200 calories is the lowest MFP will give you. 2 lbs/week requires a daily 1000 calorie deficit, which likely would take you far below 1200. So even though you've seen some movement on the scale, you probably won't, and shouldn't, see a 2 lb/week (average) loss. Generally, within 15 lbs of goal, most people are better off with a .5 lb/week goal, as it gets harder & harder to create a safe, sustainable deficit the closer you get. I have a couple of short friends on my list who had to net slightly below 1200 at the end to get the last few lbs off, but they were very careful with their macros to ensure they were getting proper nutrition.

Can someone explain what "reaching my deficit" means? I eat close to 1200 calories a day - desk job and not very active. But starting to walk on the treadmill this weekend. Just want to make sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to.

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

I appreciate your post, because I've been thinking about getting an activity tracker for the same reason (I actually think my TDEE may be quite a bit less than MFP gives me credit for). But may I point out that, if your profile pic is current, 2 lbs/week sounds far too aggressive for you. 2 lbs/week is generally for obese people. If you have a relatively small amount to lose, a 2 lb/week goal will cause you to burn valuable lean muscle mass.

Thank you for the info!

I had 19 lbs to lose when I started Jan 4. 13 left to go to my goal of 140lbs. Could probably lose more but that is where I always feel most fit. I naturally seem to be more muscular which i think is why I've never been able to get down to the 120s even with small to medium frame size. I figure as long as I'm eating my 1200 calories a day and reaching my deficit by exercise I should be able to maintain my muscle ??

2 pounds per week is too aggressive for 13 pounds. It is too aggressive for 20 pounds. You really should set your goal to .5 per week. Faster weight loss is not better weight loss.

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

I was struggling not seein results quick enough for my liking and feeling really down on myself.. I thought I was doing everything right until I invested in a Fitbit. Now I realize I wasn't burning as many calories in my workouts that I thought I was! I was going by what my treadmill said or online calculators... they were way off. Now with my Fitbit I can see exactly how many calories I have left to burn to hit my deficit for the day and I'm loving it. It motivates me to do another run at night if I need it.. or if I want that glass of wine I know what I have to do to earn it. So far I'm down 3 lbs in 3 days ( yes I know that will mostly be water weight and I am only aiming for 2lbs a week but it feels great to see the scale go down regardless)
And I also know that Fitbit isn't 100% accurate but it's motivating me and making me feel positive about this process!!! I may be a little obsessed now lol

Those dratted machines! They are trying to say what a person of 150 lb would burn using the machine. So, a small woman of about 120 is burning 25% fewer calories than the machine tells her.

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

Question and it might be silly and I may get flamed for it but..... I know muscle burns more calories than fat and it's what makes us look more toned but if I'm only losing 13lbs and continue to do it at 2lbs a week am I really going to lose enough muscle mass to make a difference?

You have to decide that for yourself. My workplace colleague, a 30-ish woman with 3 kids, took 2 months to lose 8 lb and she was doing it with 1200 calories daily, running, not re-eating calories burned, plateaus, frustrations, and tears, but now she's maintaining the loss with barre classes and she make my old heart flutter when I see her.
I don't think you'll notice the difference, myself. I look like a shar pei, but then I've lost 89 lb.

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

leannehathaway1 wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

I appreciate your post, because I've been thinking about getting an activity tracker for the same reason (I actually think my TDEE may be quite a bit less than MFP gives me credit for). But may I point out that, if your profile pic is current, 2 lbs/week sounds far too aggressive for you. 2 lbs/week is generally for obese people. If you have a relatively small amount to lose, a 2 lb/week goal will cause you to burn valuable lean muscle mass.

Thank you for the info!

I had 19 lbs to lose when I started Jan 4. 13 left to go to my goal of 140lbs. Could probably lose more but that is where I always feel most fit. I naturally seem to be more muscular which i think is why I've never been able to get down to the 120s even with small to medium frame size. I figure as long as I'm eating my 1200 calories a day and reaching my deficit by exercise I should be able to maintain my muscle ??

It's good that you are eating your 1200 calories, but if you work out with any kind of intensity, that means you are netting far less than that, which is unhealthy and will cost you lean muscle mass. You should be eating back at least part of your exercise calories, and pay particular attention to your protein.

I did overlook something, though. Even if you set your goal for 2 lbs/week, 1200 calories is the lowest MFP will give you. 2 lbs/week requires a daily 1000 calorie deficit, which likely would take you far below 1200. So even though you've seen some movement on the scale, you probably won't, and shouldn't, see a 2 lb/week (average) loss. Generally, within 15 lbs of goal, most people are better off with a .5 lb/week goal, as it gets harder & harder to create a safe, sustainable deficit the closer you get. I have a couple of short friends on my list who had to net slightly below 1200 at the end to get the last few lbs off, but they were very careful with their macros to ensure they were getting proper nutrition.

You're right.. I haven't been eating back my exercise calories so I am netting less. I feel like I need a degree is mathematics to figure this weight loss thing out!!
Question and it might be silly and I may get flamed for it but..... I know muscle burns more calories than fat and it's what makes us look more toned but if I'm only losing 13lbs and continue to do it at 2lbs a week am I really going to lose enough muscle mass to make a difference?

I'm not going to pretend I'm knowledgeable enough to answer that. What I do know is you're talking about weeks of severely under-fueling your body and all of it's important systems for the sake of speed (don't forget- your heart is a muscle too). I vote for slower, healthy weight loss.

laceyslabaugh wrote: »

Can someone explain what "reaching my deficit" means? I eat close to 1200 calories a day - desk job and not very active. But starting to walk on the treadmill this weekend. Just want to make sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to.

The general rule of thumb when adding exercise tends to be, eat back 50% of those calories for a few weeks and see how things go. Remember, all of the numbers we're talking about are estimates, so the results are what tell the real story. Also, people have varying degrees of accuracy in logging, so somebody who is a sloppy logger may not want to eat back exercise calories, whereas someone who is very precise and accurate can. Personally, my calories are about 1500 right now for a 1 lb/week loss. I work out 4-5 times a week, maybe burning 200 calories each time. My logging can tend to be a little sloppy (I don't log when I lick the knife after I make the kids p.b. sandwiches or when I snag a couple of chips off their plates, and I don't weigh pre-packaged foods), so I assume I need that cushion, and my results verify that. And BTW, for those very close to goal, like the OP, precise logging (and patience) becomes critical. If a person has a goal of .5 lb/week, that's only a 250 calorie deficit- not hardly any room for error- so using a food scale, choosing accurate entries in the database, and logging every BLT (bite, lick, & taste) are essential.