Goal Weight x 12 (Jordan Syatt) and WW Wendie Plan

lissakristinej
lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Lately, in all of my WW Facebook groups, everyone is talking about figuring out your calorie target by using a goal weight x 12 formula (though, other places have that number range from 10-13).

A little background information. I am female, 29 (just had my Birthday less than 2 weeks ago), and currently weigh 162 pounds with roughly 31% body fat [though I know my scale is probably inaccurate when it comes to the BF %]. At my heaviest, I weighed around 205 lbs.

I have a skeptical goal weight of around 135 lbs (though, I may decide to lose more or less; . Based on the goal weight x 12 calculation, that would give me around 1,620 calories a day. According to my Fitbit, I've burned an average of 2,312 calories a day over the last 28 days, so that 1,620 number does put me in a small deficit.

I lost most of my weight on WW over the past several months, but I've realized that the 0 point foods and the fact that protein is such a points bargain has been leading me to eat at a maintenance level for quite some time. So, I'm looking at making some changes. I did switch to an older WW program (Points Plus) for a little while, but I'm realizing that I may need to go into calorie counting strictly.

However, the idea of leaving WW and the points system is a tad overwhelming after being on it for so long. One of the things I've really come to LOVE is following something like the Wendie Plan. On Points Plus, I get 26 points a day with 49 weekly points. The Wendie Plan divides up my points so intake varies from day to day:

Day 1: 26
Day 2: 36
Day 3: 33
Day 4: 26
Day 5: 34
Day 6: 27
Day 7: 46-48

When double tracking with calories for a week, this basically had me going from the lower to mid/upper end of my calorie range on days 1-6 and eating in maintenance calories on day 7. At the end of the week, I was still in an overall calorie deficit and I really enjoyed eating in that fashion.

I just don't really know how to take the information from the whole goal weight x 12 guideline and what I know about how I enjoyed eating on the Wendie Plan and combine them. There's no easy calculator online like for the Wendie Plan.

I do know that my calories on the Wendie Plan ranged from 1431 on my lowest calorie day to 2,203 calories on my highest day with an average of 1,750 calories- a little higher than the goal weight x 12 calculation if I decide to stick with a goal weight of 135, but right on target for my maximum goal weight of 150, so I'm not too mad.

I'm planning on using the free premium trial of MFP for a month and really buckling down on following my plan for the full month. The plan is to set different calorie targets for each day in a similar fashion to the Wendie Plan. I'm just not quite sure how to go about doing that. Any ideas? My thought is to use the goal weight x 10-13 formula at least for the first 6 days and go to maintenance for day 7 (or simply go for a higher multiplier). The idea is that I'd switch the multiplier up throughout the week... so day 1 I might go with goal weight x 10 [1.250-1.450 calorie range with a 100 calorie buffer on each end] and day 2 I might go for goal weight x 11.5 [1,453-1,653] I'm still not sure where to start with there. I'm guessing days 1 and 4 would be goal weight x 10, but that's all I know.

In my brainstorming, I multiplied my goal body weight by 10-12 depending on the day based on the Wendie Plan formula. Lowest day(s) were x10, next lowest was 10.5 and so on) and In came up with this chart. I'm just not sure if my thought process is ok or if there's something I'm not thinking about. [Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10 calories for simplicity].

Day 1: 1250-1450 (x10)
Day 2: 1520-1720 (x12)
Day 3: 1390-1590 (x11)
Day 4: 1250-1450 (x10)
Day 5: 1450-1650 (x11.5)
Day 6: 1320-1520 (x10.5)
Day 7: Maintain [based on setting a weekly goal based on goal weight x12, I should have around 2,500 calories available, but I haven't looked into what those numbers would be specifically].

Of course, I'm also considering making my lowest days goal weight x 11 or something (and bumping the other numbers accordingly) and/or making my goal for day 7 a higher multiplier (like goal weight times 13-15ish), but I'm still trying to think things through.

I know this was long and I rambled quite a bit, but I actually process information better if I can bounce ideas off of someone else and think "out loud", so any help you're willing to offer is greatly appreciated.
«1

Replies

  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    The x12 will work for some but its too impersonal to work for all. I'm 143 with goal of 130. 1560 would be my x12 but my TDEE is only about 1650 based on my activity level and desk job. I eat around 1400.

    Mfp assigns a goal customized to each, based on stats and activity level. If your TDEE is around 2300 then eating 1600 on average would be roughly 1.5 pounds per week. TDEE will decrease as your body weight decreased.

    WW and calorie counting are similar in that they lead to some form of food budgeting. But yes, the 0 calorie foods can be problematic.
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    Ps simple way to look at is is to lose weight, eat under TDEE but enough to fuel and satiate your body.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    Consider this approach, as one option:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10636388/free-customized-personal-weight-loss-eating-plan-not-spam-or-mlm/p1

    It outlines a process, not a "meal plan". You use the meal planning skills you already have for eating in a way you enjoy - which you seem moderate comfortable with, if I read you right - and dial in your calories, satiation and nutrition in a somewhat methodical fashion.

    Maybe not your jam - which is fine - but it's an option.

    Best wishes!

    P.S. For me, 12 x goal weight would be absurdly low calories. Even at current weight (130 at 5'5"), it'd have me losing at a too-fast pace. MFP's estimates (if you like logging/eating exercise separately) or a TDEE calculator estimate (if you don't) are a better approach.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,943 Member
    nanamerriman2020 wrote: »
    The x12 will work for some but its too impersonal to work for all. I'm 143 with goal of 130. 1560 would be my x12 but my TDEE is only about 1650 based on my activity level and desk job. I eat around 1400.

    Mfp assigns a goal customized to each, based on stats and activity level. If your TDEE is around 2300 then eating 1600 on average would be roughly 1.5 pounds per week. TDEE will decrease as your body weight decreased.

    WW and calorie counting are similar in that they lead to some form of food budgeting. But yes, the 0 calorie foods can be problematic.

    Same here. MFP actually gives me a NEAT of around 1540 for maintenance. In reality it's closer to 1740, but that's besides the point. With this equation I'd never really lost any weight. Just staying under 1400 (250 cal deficit) worked very well for me on the last stretch. Mind you, I'm somewhat older.
  • LiftandSkate
    LiftandSkate Posts: 148 Member
    GWx12 is recommended by many trainers to determine daily calories for weight loss, and it works. However, it assumes that you work out 3-5 times/week and do not eat back exercise calories. Obviously if you are an endurance athlete or otherwise doing massive training, you would want to adjust accordingly.

    The other method I've seen uses GWx14-500. Basically, 14 calories/pound of body weight is maintenance level, and you adjust up or down depending on your goals.
  • jdhcm2006
    jdhcm2006 Posts: 2,254 Member
    What do you mean by “skeptical” goal weight? Was that a typo? Just wondering bc your goal weight isn’t out of the question. I’m 32 and I started at 160 and I’m at 137 right now, so it is definitely doable.

    But I agree that looking up a TDEE calculator will be helpful. I personally have a calorie goal range. Some weeks I work out more and some weeks I work out less, so I adjust accordingly. That works for me. Through trial and error, you will find what works best for you. But I do agree that you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be.
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    jdhcm2006 wrote: »
    What do you mean by “skeptical” goal weight? Was that a typo? Just wondering bc your goal weight isn’t out of the question. I’m 32 and I started at 160 and I’m at 137 right now, so it is definitely doable.

    I don't know what my final goal weight is. I know 135 is a reasonable goal weight for my height, but I may find that I feel better at 145 or 125 lbs. 135 is just a good midpoint number within my healthy weight range for my BMI, but I don't know if that's going to be my ultimate goal weight.
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    BABeautifulBadass wrote: »
    GWx12 is recommended by many trainers to determine daily calories for weight loss, and it works. However, it assumes that you work out 3-5 times/week and do not eat back exercise calories. Obviously if you are an endurance athlete or otherwise doing massive training, you would want to adjust accordingly.

    The other method I've seen uses GWx14-500. Basically, 14 calories/pound of body weight is maintenance level, and you adjust up or down depending on your goals.

    When I'm on top of things, I do some kind of workout 5-6 days a week PLUS daily walks. Granted, I don't work out intensely- just some Walk at Home videos and/or some light weight lifting (my heaviest dumbbells are 6 lbs; I'm working on getting more). I'm definitely not an endurance athlete or anything like that. I have been hoping that my next job is slightly more physically demanding than my previous position as a dishwasher [I've applied for a few personal shopper jobs that will at least have me walking around during my shift instead of just standing all day. Still, I'm aware that you're not supposed to eat back exercise calories in this case. I figured if I start getting involved in more activity-wise, I can always bump my multipliers up by 0.5 to 1 if needed, but I've been playing around with the numbers a bit and I don't think that's necessary. If I use x11 as my lowest multiplier and x15 as my highest, my average intake would be around 1,735 calories if I eat at the higher end of my calorie range each day. My TDEE is around 2,300 calories. This means that even if I eat at the high end, I'm at about a 500 calorie deficit based on my averages.

    I know my way of looking at things seems complicated, but I really loved the way the Wendie Plan had my points alternate from day to day and this seems like the best way to translate it into calories. I don't really like the idea of having to eat the same amount every day, nor do I like the idea of having MFP set my calorie goal and then eating back exercise calories.
  • LiftandSkate
    LiftandSkate Posts: 148 Member
    Lissakristinej, I dont want to quote your whole post, but it sounds like you've got it worked out. I am not super familiar with the Wendie plan, other than it being a calorie cycling plan vs eating the same calories every day.

    Although I use GWx12 to determine my basic daily calorie allowance, I still cycle calories by eating slightly less than that amount on days I dont work out, and significantly more on the days I burn 3,000 calories. (I'm short with only about 10 more pounds to lose, so GWx12 is pretty close to maintenance for me.) I end up eating a range of between 14-1500 on rest days and up to 2,000 on my long marathon training days. As long as you are maintaining the desired calorie deficit over time, it works out the same.

    I'll keep my fingers crossed that you get the job you've applied for! 😃
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    BABeautifulBadass wrote: »
    Lissakristinej, I dont want to quote your whole post, but it sounds like you've got it worked out. I am not super familiar with the Wendie plan, other than it being a calorie cycling plan vs eating the same calories every day.

    Although I use GWx12 to determine my basic daily calorie allowance, I still cycle calories by eating slightly less than that amount on days I dont work out, and significantly more on the days I burn 3,000 calories. (I'm short with only about 10 more pounds to lose, so GWx12 is pretty close to maintenance for me.) I end up eating a range of between 14-1500 on rest days and up to 2,000 on my long marathon training days. As long as you are maintaining the desired calorie deficit over time, it works out the same.

    I'll keep my fingers crossed that you get the job you've applied for! 😃


    Thank you.

    I do think that's part of the appeal of using a goal weight x ? formula to determine calories. The closer you are to that goal weight, the closer that goal weight x ? is going to be to maintenance calories (in theory). This means that your deficit ends up shrinking as you get nearer to goal.

    I'm still trying to figure out what numbers will work. I really loved the Wendie Plan for what it was, but I want to move on to using calories instead of points. It's just a matter of figuring out the best way to do it. I'm leaning towards making my lowest multiplier 11 instead of 10 so I have 3 days below my 12xGW goal, 3 days above, and 1 day at that number exactly. That seems to be a good balance. My calories on my low calorie day aren't so low that I feel like I can't stick to it and I have enough higher calorie days that I don't feel deprived (but my highest calorie day isn't so high that I feel like I need to go overboard to hit my goals). The numbers end up averaging out to over 1620 calories a day, but I think it was like 1660 or something like that, so I'm not TOO concerned. Going lower ends up bringing my numbers down below the 1620 mark unless I REALLY start nitpicking, and since I'm not sure 135 is my goal weight, I'm ok with that slight variation.

    Day 1: x11
    Day 2: x13
    Day 3: x12
    Day 4: x11
    Day 5: x12.5
    Day 6: x11.5
    Day 7: x15
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited July 2020
    You can have a variable Caloric goal when you use MFP premium.
    You can also have a set caloric goal and a +/- you keep in your mind when not using premium.
    All your multipliers above, look, to me, to be deficit multipliers unless you are extremely sedentary.

    I believe that about 11(f) to 12(m) is equal to BMR. Which means that MFP sedentary would be about 13.75(f) to 15(m). i.e. pretty much all your days are below MFP sedentary for females which would be the minimum Calories proposed by MFP to maintain and suitable for a housebound person who doesn't exceed 2500-3500 steps a day during their self care.

    Why, if you insist on not using MFP, don't you use something like https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

    STOP STOP STOP

    OK I am not sure why you're even using multipliers and estimates. You already have a fitbit and you already have a specific TDEE estimate for yourself. (use their web site to see what they have been recording as your TDEE).

    Based on your OP that estimate is 2312 (I will take it as a given for now, below I discuss how you can validate the number)

    1620 is NOT a "small deficit" off a 2312 TDEE.

    AT a BMI of 28 and a TDEE of 2312 you are looking at a maximum 20% TDEE deficit before you're hitting the aggressive range.

    Which means that a 500 Cal average deficit targeting 1lb a week is the maximum as opposed to minimum you should be considering as your goal. Especially as it sounds as if it is coming at this at the tail end of already having achieved a significant weight loss, so gradual close out to normal weight and setting up for maintenance is much more important than rapid weight loss.

    I am not going to un-ravel your Wendie plan... you could probably calculate a percentage up and down based on the points values and using as an anchor your day 7.

    Day 7 to me looks like a high carb high protein low fat re-feed day at either maintenance Calories (2132) or at a small surplus of Calories (2132 to 2500) with the rest of your days working out to a weekly -3500 calories off your expected average of 2132*7.

    TBH, if you're really incorporating re-feeds, I would argue that what you would want is a two day re-feed at maintenance as opposed to a single day, and I personally think that your plan is a little bit more complicated than it needs to be... but that's me.

    Not sure if you're connecting it with a training schedule. It would make more sense to me if it is helping you accommodate some high end training.

    Anyway. Nothing terrible with the idea.

    But if you're aiming for -700 or -750 as your average from your current position and you're also ending up with -1000 days you're seriously overdoing things and over-stressing your body.

    You're much closer to the -500 or less average to aim for and I am not sure about the benefits you will derive by creating days of much higher deficits than that.

    If you have been logging your caloric intake in MFP for a while and you've been logging your weight trend change using trendweight.com (to which you can very easily connect your fitbit account since you already have a fitbit), then you can easily look at your 4-6 week caloric intake vs your expected expenditure via Fitbit vs your weight trend change and determine what your actual (supported by weight trend changes) TDEE level is.

    I normally express this for my own calculations as a Fitbit % TDEE error, though your food intake logging has just as much or more to do with the apparent accuracy as your Fitbit's abilities!

    Do remember that water weight variation (which in your case will also be exacerbated by variable eating) means that looking at your longer term weight trend is sometimes much more productive than just looking at scale weight!

    take care and good luck!
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member


    I really wasn't looking into what my actual deficit would be. I simply threw up my average Fitbit TDEE to show that I would be in a calorie deficit eating at goal weight x 12. I'm definitely NOT trying to create super high deficits for the purposes of accelerating weight loss. I'm well aware, in fact, that having my calorie deficit TOO high might lead to me binge-eating and feeling deprived.

    The idea of having days that drop below GWx12 was simply to allow myself the flexibility to also have at least one day where I'm looking at something closer to GWx15. 3 days where my calorie intake is a bit lower than GWx12, 3 days where it's equal to or slightly above, and 1 day where it's significantly higher. Overall, it still averages out to around GWx12.28, but I definitely function better knowing that I can aim to eat a little less some days if I can eat more on others. (I just need it specifically written into my plan). I do like the thought that I might be able to play around with the numbers and bump them up, but seeing as I have a 200 calorie range to work with each day, I may leave the multipliers themselves alone and simply shift my range so the GWx?? number is my minimum calories for the day and I can go up to 200 calories over that number.


    I found out that the Wendie Plan gave me a day that was around maintenance only after double tracking points and calories and I really liked that. I wasn't thinking it as a "refeeding" day as much as I was just thinking about it as a break. I don't do well eliminating any food entirely, but I am ok with telling myself "If you still want pizza on Saturday, you can have some" to at least delay giving into cravings. Having a day "off" where I have more room in my budget (but not so much that I have freedom to eat like a complete jerk) actually works well for me.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited July 2020
    I understand the one planned over the top day. Urge you for future to gradually wean from needing it, one of the dangers on entering maintenance is that the over days can multiply. I actually found it easier for myself to do more days at maintenance than encourage deliberate substantially over days (they will still happen anyway with celebrations, get togethers, eating out)

    Forget for a minute the multipliers other than using them to establish the relative daily level variances in you Wendie plan. Calorie cycling may be a relevant term btw.

    You already know a more personalized estimate of your TDEE then weight * multiplier.

    You have your Fitbit data.

    You should be working off your own data and establishing deficits off your own values and testing how closely they match your weight trend change

    Why are you using generic estimates for populations whose activity level is not known when you have your personalized estimates to work from?

    Decide and set your high calorie day at either maintenance or maintenance plus whatever you decide to indulge in, using your 30 day average

    Then apply your percentages and cook the numbers so overall you're planning for -3500 OR smaller deficits for the week

    Then run with that 4-6 weeks observing your weight trend in trendweight.

    Assign 3500 Cal to each lb change and validate your TDEE number from the fresh tdee data you will have gathered.

    Adjust your values based on feedback (or accept a slower rate of loss if it is still good enough for your needs which I would argue it would be since you should be trying to set up maintenance for multiple years more than anything else)

    Rince, lather, repeat


    (Set weight*15 = to Fitbit tdee or the level of TDEE+extra you want, then cycle the days while making sure that in total you end up no worse than (7*tdee)-3500 for the week)





  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    But my one "over the top" day IS eating at maintaince. And I don't see myself going out or celebrating anything any time soon.

    And I'm currently in between jobs so my activity level has changed. I'm not sure if I should even use my Fitbit tdee estimation to figure out my goals. I like the idea of having a more set number to determine my goals and then just using the Fitbit data to check in.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    lissakristinej wrote: »
    But my one "over the top" day IS eating at maintaince. And I don't see myself going out or celebrating anything any time soon.

    And I'm currently in between jobs so my activity level has changed. I'm not sure if I should even use my Fitbit tdee estimation to figure out my goals. I like the idea of having a more set number to determine my goals and then just using the Fitbit data to check in.

    Whether you decide to actively use your Fitbit or not, there may be reasons to monitor it vs. your intake and results to know whether it's fairly close to accurate for you (as it is for many/most people**) or not.

    It's fine and very workable to set fixed calorie goals for yourself, and tweak them to work things out, as a practical short-term strategy.

    However, sometimes we experience significant lifestyle changes (new job, new living situation, less time for exercise, heaven forbid an injury/surgery that sidelines activities for a while, etc.). If you take some time to see how close your Fitbit comes to accuracy in varying circumstances, then something significant like that happens, you'll have an easy thing to fall back on, to make adjustments to new circumstances, without a whole new round of experimentation.

    I believe PAV tracks the performance of his device on a "percentage variation from reality" basis. Knowing that sort of thing can be useful.

    ** A tracker like Fitbit, regardless of model/brand, is giving you a statistical estimate. Assuming a decent brand/model with a well-considered implementation of sound research findings, it will be a good statistical estimate. A good statistical estimate will be close to accurate for many/most people (those close to average), a bit farther off (high or low) for a few, and quite far off for a very rare few. That's just the nature of statistical estimates.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited July 2020
    I just decided to run the numbers because it is easier than trying to explain!

    In the end, much ado about nothing because in reality your numbers end up being within a reasonable weight loss range regardless and a bit below the 500 Cal a day mark to boot, i.e. right in the range I've been advocating.

    Based on the Fitbit numbers and the same plan you would be aiming for 2700 Cal or a 0.75lb a week loss. Based on my assumption that you are basing your eating plan on your future weight of 135lbs you are aiming at a 3314 Cal or almost one lb a week loss. And based on the assumption of you aiming to eat at your current weight times the multipliers, and unless I punched in the wrong numbers, you would be aiming for a 992 Cal deficit per week, or 0.28lb a week = 14.5lb a year, i.e. a bit faster than what I lost my last 14 lbs at.

    The BENEFIT of basing the formulas on your Fitbit average is that it will adjust faster to your individual circumstances both up and down. And you can develop, over time, a feel as to how accurate the numbers it spits out are for you based on your proximity to the statistical mean and on the overall accuracy of your logging (assuming your logging remains CONSISTENT--accuracy not needed, but consistency IS needed).

    A static non personalized generic formula does not give you this "adaptive" advantage.

    162 135 Percent Fitbit TDEE Eat Fitbit % Deficit 162 Deficit 135 Deficit FB
    11 1782 1485 73% 2132 1563 350 647 569
    13 2106 1755 87% 2132 1848 26 377 284
    12 1944 1620 80% 2132 1706 188 512 426
    11 1782 1485 73% 2132 1563 350 647 569
    12.5 2025 1687.5 83% 2132 1777 107 444.5 355
    11.5 1863 1552.5 77% 2132 1635 269 579.5 497
    15 2430 2025 100% 2132 2132 -298 107 0
    992 3314 2700
    54r69r7i2arv.png



  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    I kinda see what you're saying there, though all the numbers are making my head spin a little. Really though, based on using the multpliers I'd be looking at a weekly calorie deficit of 2,214 to 4,014 since I'm allowing for 100 calories on either end of that goal range each day which would have me on track to lose 0.63 to 1.14 lbs a week. (And quite frankly, I'm probably going to be near the mid to upper end of my calorie range most days).

    I'm definitely going to have to look more into the numbers there. I do appreciate the "translation" in showing how the calorie cycling plan I've been considering compares to the Fitbit TDEE averages... and I've been looking to see how close my numbers were to the Fitbit % when following the Wendie Plan (which on WW- which admittedly isn't a 100% fair comparison since the points system allows for some variation in caloric intake; for example, my lowest calorie days are usually Fridays despite Sunday and Wednesday being my lowest points day.)

    This has inspired me to see how the percentages work out when comparing the Wendie Plan to both the GWx12 method and my Fitbit data. I'm seeing what percentage of my weekly points total each daily target is and then seeing how that looks calorie-wise. (Apparently, based on those numbers, using GW x12, my lowest calorie day would be around 1276 and using my Fitbit TDEE, it would be closer to 1679- but seeing as that multiplying 2132 by 7 would give me maintenance calories, I'd need to figure out what my total WEIGHT loss calorie goal would be during the week to figure out my numbers based on that ). Not sure what I'm going to do with the data, but it's interesting to see what the information is.

    I'm definitely at least LOOKING into using the percentages from the Wendie Plan (daily target divided by total weekly points) to figure out my own custom calorie goal ranges- possibly using my Fitbit data or at least a TDEE calculator), but I definitely need to give it some thought.

    FYI, my Wendie Plan Percentages (rounded) are as follows:

    Day 1- 11.3%
    Day 2- 15.8%
    Day 3- 14.3%
    Day 4- 11.3%
    Day 5- 14.7 %
    Day 6- 11.7 %
    Day 7- 19.9% - 20.8 % [I'll probably just go with 20.3% since it the number I'd get for 47 points and my totals for Day 7 are 46-48]

    Figuring out my total weekly calorie intake and then using those numbers to figure out my daily calorie goals COULD be what I'm looking for, so thanks. Your chart definitely helped inspire me to figure out a possible way of determining how to structure my calorie goals for each day over the course of the week.
  • lbride
    lbride Posts: 248 Member
    Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited July 2020
    Column C, header 135, is goal weight of 135 times multiplier in column A.

    Lowest day is *11 using the figures you provided in your post further up.

    This makes your lowest eating day @ 1485 using GW*11 and 1563 using current 28-day Fitbit average of 2132 and eating 73%

    Neither of these match the 1276 and 1679 you mention, so starting with a clean slate and mapping out what you plan to do might be a good idea.

    I think you're trying to calorie cycle using your non free food points which seems weird given they only account for a portion of your caloric intake

    My suggestion would be to decide on a weekly deficit and to calorie cycle using something reasonable which will probably not result in something much more extreme than what's already in the 135 deficit plan detailed above. It already has a couple of minus 647 days which is quite hefty for your current situation.

    My perspective would be closer to mixing - 500 - 250 and 0 days and accepting a slower (-2250) i.e. 30lb a year loss, but I'm quite conservative. And spending a year getting to a goal you're going to have to defend for dozens doesn't seem that far-fetched to me

    Matching inconsistent data to weight loss doesn't look like a high value proposal to me, which means that I don't know whether matching Weight Watchers (unknown calories ingested) points to your past weight loss, as you discuss, will offer much insight for you moving forward.

    However, if you have enough days that you have logged on MFP, or other calorie counting site, especially if you have more than 4 to 6 weeks that include a complete menstrual cycle, then matching your total intake to your total expenditure as per Fitbit and comparing to weight trend change using trendweight (which you can use by connecting it to your Fitbit account) and using the convention of 3500 cal = 1lb may give you a better idea. Starting and ending scale weight will do if you don't have trend data.

    You can also do this by picking an arbitrary starting point and moving forward.

    Figures are not immutable which is why I've been urging you to consider tying in to something that can accommodate variability, vs tying in to a static formula.

    Last, but not least, you don't HAVE to calorie cycle unless there is a reason

    Lots of people Caloric bank or have one or two higher days.

    -500*5=2500 and you get two days at maintenance for a refeed or weekend.



  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    lbride wrote: »
    Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)

    There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    lissakristinej wrote: »
    lbride wrote: »
    Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)

    There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.

    Just log them...
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Column C, header 135, is goal weight of 135 times multiplier in column A.

    Lowest day is *11 using the figures you provided in your post further up.

    This makes your lowest eating day @ 1485 using GW*11 and 1563 using current 28-day Fitbit average of 2132 and eating 73%

    Neither of these match the 1276 and 1679 you mention, so starting with a clean slate and mapping out what you plan to do might be a good idea.

    I think you're trying to calorie cycle using your non free food points which seems weird given they only account for a portion of your caloric intake

    If I was trying to calorie cycle using my non-zero point foods, I would be figuring out about how many calories I get in foods WITH points. That's not what I'm doing at all. I was simply dividing the number of points I get each day on the Wendie Plan and dividing it by the total number of points I get in a week. On a 26 point day, that's 11.3% of my week. Then, I was seeing how many calories I get in an entire week and multiplying that number by the numbers I get from the Wendie Plan math. I was just seeing what it would look like if, like on the Wendie Plan, Sundays and Wendesdays were around 11.3% of my weekly caloric intake and Saturdays were closer to 20%.

    However, after looking at the numbers, I realized that I'd rather eat a little less on Saturday (like with the numbers I get when looking at the multipliers) in exchange for eating a bit more on my low days. I'd also get to eat a bit more (roughly 300 calories a week) by using the original multipliers instead of the Wendie Plan-based ones based on my using GWx12x7 to determine my weekly calorie baseline.

    I also calculated distributing my calories using the total weekly calories I get with the original GWx? multipliers and my Fitbit TDEE-500. I'm just interested in seeing how the Wendie Plan distribution would affect how my calories are distributed throughout the week. I know that realistically, eating the same calories every day isn't going to work for me, so I need to figure out the best plan to distribute the calories I get during the week and I enjoy how the Wendie Plan allows for a few really low days, a few higher days, and one extra high day. (And my approach has always been to switch things around if needed. If I know I have a dinner out on Thursday, I'll make Thursday my extra high day that week). Simply alternating between, say 1420 calorie days and 1820 calorie days is an option as well, but I really liked the way the Wendie Plan distributes things with Points and I've been interested to see if there was a way to translate that into a calorie goal.

    2zlvy3y2ppql.jpg







  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    nanamerriman2020 wrote: »
    lissakristinej wrote: »
    lbride wrote: »
    Why don't you just keep on the plan you love, but stop eating the 0 calorie food? (or calculate the calories and don't let them get over 100 cals or something)

    There are no 0 calorie foods? Do you mean 0 point foods? I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would mean not eating any fruit and eating very few vegetables which seems unhealthy.

    Just log them...

    I do log them, but if I'm going to be measuring and tracking them I might as well switch to a plan that actually has them count for something- especially since seeing that the arugula on my avocado toast is 9 calories or my peach is 37 isn't exactly going to change anything for me if it's still 0 points. I'm aware of how many calories I'm consuming of 0 point produce (maybe 300-400 depending on fruit consumption). Awareness isn't enough for me anymore. I need structure.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited July 2020
    @lissakristinej I am glad to see that you're working through your numbers.

    You stated that your Fitbit TDEE (28 days) is 2132 i.e. maintenance calories are 14924 (7*2132)
    Therefore, a -500, 3500 Cal a week deficit should create an 11,424 Cal week.

    My sheet, above, applying your percentages to Fitbit's 2132 TDEE creates a 12,224 Cal week.
    Your sheet details a 12,594 Cal week as Fitbit-500.

    There is nothing wrong with either as a goal. They're just not Fitbit-500! So do double check that your numbers are engineered to match your hopes and expectations!

    You may also want to explore intermediate deficits (such as -300 as opposed to -500). You need a lot of days with more than 500 Cal deficits in order to make up for your higher eating days and it is my belief that this can be pretty hard on people and may set one up for restrict / binge patterns of eating if they're not very careful.

    Because a lot of your base calories on WW come from their zero point foods, your percentage allocation of the additional elective points does not extrapolate 1:1 to the totality of calories consumed.

    i.e. by applying the elective points change percentage to the larger totality of calories you consume in a day you are creating a larger variance than the one you actually had under WW.

    If you ate all your elective calories on one day, 100%, you would still eat some zero point food all the other days.

    So, even if you use them as an idea, you can't distribute your total calories using the exact same percentages because when you do so you're not taking into account the unknown zero cal foods you were still consuming

    Below I am throwing a couple of "simple" plans at you.

    You could play along the lines of the examples and create something similar for yourself that emulates the essence of your Wendie plan.


    Eat Deficit Eat Deficit Eat Deficit
    2132 1632 500 1685 447 1560 572
    2132 1632 500 1525 607 1560 572
    2132 1632 500 1650 482 1560 572
    2132 1632 500 1525 607 1560 572
    2132 1632 500 1425 707 1560 572
    2132 1632 500 2250 -118 2125 7
    2132 1632 500 1425 707 1560 572
    3500 3439 3439
    xaao9vuxl82q.png
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    Math is NOT my strong point. I probably entered a number wrong somewhere down the line (or it could've been an issue with rounding numbers).

    The amount of produce (the only 0 point food on the plan I was on) that I ate really didn't vary much on high vs low point days.

    I'm definitely going to have to come back to this thread sometime in the future, but I think I may be changing gears slightly. The thing I really liked about WW is the fact that they give you a daily minimum (on the last plan I followed, my minimum was 26 points) as well as an extra bank of weekly points (49 on my plan) to use at your discretion. I liked this approach better than having a single set number each day. I had the freedom to use none of my weekly points, all of them, or any number in between.

    Maybe one week I ate 26 points Sunday-Friday and had a 75 point day on Saturday and used up all my weeklies in one shot.
    Or another week, I ate 33 points every single day and divided things up equally.

    I think my initial plan is to use my weekly calorie goals to basically create the same concept. I'll create a minimum weekly calorie baseline (for this example, let's just say I'm going with GWx10). At a minimum, every day, my goal is to eat 1350 calories (9,450 calories a week).

    However, my weekly goal will be, say GWx12.5x7 (I want to make sure this number is a bit higher than what my actual maximum weekly goal is because I know I'm going to want to stay under it since hitting that number exactly is going to be next to impossible). This gives me roughly 11,810 calories a week as my maximum goal.

    Which basically means I have around 2,360 calories a week that act in the same way my weeklies did on WW. I'll consider my week to be a success as long as, at the end of the week, my weekly total falls within that 9,450-11,810 calorie range AND I've hit that 1,350 calorie goal each day.

    [Note that my lowest calorie day in the past few weeks was over 1,400 and I usually land in the 1,500-1,700 range, so I'm not super concerned about underreating. If I do have a lower calorie day where I'm closer to the 1,300-1,400 range, it's likely to be done somewhat intentionally to allow myself the room to have a treat later in the week].

    I'm going to figure out what my exact numbers are going to be for this and just try this method out for a while. Then, I can go back and revisit whether or not I need a bit more structure in how I distribute those "extra" 2,000 or so calories. I think my biggest challenge is that, in order to set up my tracker to do this, my daily goal is going to have to be my weekly goal/7, so ignoring how much under/over I am when it comes to that number is going to be weird, but I think I'll adjust eventually.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.

    Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.

    You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.

    One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss :smiley:
  • DonnasJourney0805
    DonnasJourney0805 Posts: 75 Member
    I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..
  • lissakristinej
    lissakristinej Posts: 21 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.

    Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.

    You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.

    One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss :smiley:

    Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.

    My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)

    The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.
    DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »
    I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..


    That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.

    I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).

Categories