Am I undereating? I'm confused about the app's calorie goal in relation to my exercise routine.

bonniephobia wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

MFP uses NEAT calculation which doesn't include your exercise, TDEE includes exercise.

Use one or the other, if you use MFP log your exercise and eat your calories back. If you use TDEE set your calories manually. Review your weight after 4-6 weeks for real world results and adjust accordingly

So even if you log in the exercises you've been doing it will not deduct from your calorie intake?

It will give you extra calories to eat on top of what it budgeted for you. So, if it wants you to eat 1340 calories and you add 1000 calories of exercise (that's a LOT of exercise) it would tell you that you can eat 2340 calories.

Keep in mind that activity level is anything outside of your exercise, so if you have it set as active but you are not really that active outside of exercise, then the results may not be accurate.

Alternatively, if you are 100% sure that you are averaging that much of a burn and want to go for 2469 calories, you can manually adjust the calorie amount to that and eat it, but without logging exercise because it would already be accounted for.

amusedmonkey wrote: »

parachute_hoot wrote: »

Sorry to hijack this thread but a similar question on this theme...

You enter all your details on MFP - your height, weight, goals etc... You want to lose 1lb per week so MFP gives you the calories you need to stick within. If MFP give you 1400 calories to eat for the day and you do exercise and burn 300 calories, you should be eating up to 1550 calories. I understand that part - if you do that, then you lose the weight you have set within the goal settings.

However, what happens if you only eat 1100 calories on some days, or 1250 calories for example? Do you potentially lose more weight? Providing you stick within the 1400 goal.

Or would it have a negative impact?

You lose more weight, but fat is not lost as efficiently (more muscle loss and more down regulation in metabolism although you do lose faster) and you can potentially mess up your hormones, not to mention you might be setting yourself up for a binge.

So if you are happy with the 1lb a week loss, then try and eat your calorie goal each day/week and up to 50% of your exercise calories? Thanks, that's really helpful. I find myself eating to hit the 1400 goal but I have noticed I am trying to hit it with snacks - I look at my MFP after dinner and feel I have 300-400 calories left and I normally have treats or snacks to tick the boxes, whereas maybe I should pre-plan what snack I will have in the evening, say a 100 calorie chocolate treat and then try and build the 'spare' calories into my other meals - maybe more protein or carbs.

So I’m gonna piggy back off this question.

I definitely used the mistake of inputting my TDEE which I got my my Apple Watch/heart rate monitor total daily burn on an average day which includes an intentional 30-45min brisk walk. I then did a 20% deficit to decide my daily calorie goal.

I do want to track my exercise in MFP (it’s synced to my Apple Watch) so I’m assuming I need to:
1) Change my goal to my daily burn - minus exercise (NEAT?) & eat calories back
2) Keep as is, but don’t eat the calories since they’re already accounted for

Do I have that right? What is the best way to figure out how many calories I burn without my intentional exercise? I know I can use MFP, just not sure if that will line up with what I know I’m burning?

Still very new to all this.
Thanks.

Wow! Ok.

First of all piggy back questions are best addressed in their own threads.

Secondly: based on your table of exercises you better believe you better be eating a whole whack more than 1300 or 1500.

Straight to your question: MFP expects you to eat every single net calorie you spend on anything that is not already accounted for in the activity level you have selected for yourself.

This is because your eating goal is based on you achieving your selected weigh loss results without engaging in any more activity than what your selected level includes.

Now. You've done a couple of things right and a couple of things that are... questionable.

Done right: tdee -20% especially with you being near normal weight this is just about the maximum you can expect will give you reasonable results at the least lean mass and hormonal cost. In fact somewhere within the normal range you may find that you have to move at tdee - 15% or tdee -10% pace to minimize impact on lean mass and avoid excess downregulation.

Done questionably: 10 month time limit to achieve x results.

Eating tdee minus 20% till you get to say BMI 24, then tdee -15% till BMI 23, then tdee-10% are goals that make sense. These are things you can directly influence and valid goals.

Unless you are planning to expire your 10 month limit is irrelevant to your health and a potential hindrance to your long term efforts since it may force suboptimal decisions today.

Done questionably: choice of BMI 18.6 as your weight target!

Are you one of the people who seems to think that because the normal BMI range extends from 18.5 to 24.9 this means that any single individual can throw a dart within the normal BMI range and call it "oh this is the perfect BMI for me"?

The normal BMI range says that if out of every 1000000 people in the normal range n% will get sick, 1.x n% people will get sick in the obese weight range and 1.y n% people will get sick in the underweight range.

And since n is smaller than 1.z n%, that's a good range to find oneself in.

Mainly because most people in the range have a fat % that is... normal in terms of their health.

How are you deciding that BMI 18.6 is for you? Based on what weight you were in high school? Because lower is better? Why 18.6 and not 23? Or 24.9 but built and shredded?

So the reframing you may want to consider is that you have gained both fat and lean mass as you unintentionally bulked without exercise.

True. The ratio was suboptimal because you just over ate.

But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

You're barely overweight and I bet you that if you engage in some basic cardio (which is good for you) and a good whole body progressive resistance strength program you may find that the extra fat disappears and your muscles show through while you feel strong.... without reducing everything to BMI 18.

However this requires actually keeping to the deficits you stated (TDEE-20%) and possibly less down the road.

You on the other hand are embarking on tdee - 50%. Because if your TDEE is 3k.... what does eating 1500 mean?

You know what is ironic? Ancel Keys' Minnesota semi starvation experiment specifically took people at or near the normal weight range, fed them on average 1570 Cal, and by ensuring that their tdee was double that, at just over 3000 Cal, run them into the ground. In six months. With ED ideations well before they got to be underweight.

While many people on mfp, in their overzealousness to lose weight, unintentionally try to duplicate his results, they usually do so from a position of having additional fat reserves. They often start in the obese weight range, while you're starting barely in the overweight range.

It's been a while since I have seen starting parameters that are so closely matched to the experiment. So I would say..... that's probably a bad rabbit hole to explore

Keep to your stated deficits. Not double.

And use a trending weight app or web site to gauge your progress but also pictures and measurements!