Jordan Syatt fitness

Have you compared that to a tdee calculator, or to what mfp gives you?

The extra calories maybe for exercise you do. Is that part of the equation?

I asked a similar question a couple of months ago. What I've since learned from others (and on my own):

MFP's calorie calculation is based on an estimate of your basic metabolic rate (BMR) and your general daily activity (also, known as NEAT, which does NOT include intentional exercise). The way MFP is designed: you separately log intentional exercise into MFP; then your calorie intake increases for the day, and you can eat back those exercise calories (it was advised here to not eat back all because exercise calories are often inflated on fitness trackers and on MFP).

So when I set up my MFP settings, I put in my basic stats and chose "sedentary" as my activity level, and it set my daily calorie goal for 1200 (for 1b/wk weight loss). If you are getting 1200 for 2lbs/wk weight loss, I imagine you chose that you are lightly or generally active?

Jordan Syatt's formula is a quick and convenient calculation for calorie intake based on your weight loss goal, and after some research, I think his formula is generally in the same ballpark as other TDEE calculators. TDEE calculators come up with their estimates from a sum of the BMR + NEAT + some physio/body biology stuff + intentional exercise. And then advises you to cut 100-500 calories from that TDEE number based on how much weight you want to lose (1lb-2lbs/wk). I ran the numbers from JS's formula as well as a bunch of other calculators, and the numbers I got ranged from 1650-1800 calories per day.

If you are new to weight loss, then it'll be your own trial and error/experimentation to find out what works best for you. I decided to stick with MFP's method at the beginning: use 1200 as my base calorie goal, and then eat more when I did intentional exercise. In the first couple of months, I was averaging 2-4lbs loss/week, which was a LOT more weight loss than I thought and which I didn't necessarily want (though, not going to lie, it was a rush to see a -4lb weight loss a couple of times each month).

I've since made further adjustments: reset my activity level on MFP to "lightly active"; chose a goal to lose .5lb/week; but still eat a portion of my exercise calories back. My new daily calorie intake is 1620, and definitely extra when I do some exercise. For the past 3 months, I've been losing closer to .5-1lb/week, and I'm more comfortable here. And interestingly, at this point, the number of calories I'm eating now is about the same as the number I got using Jordan's calculation (1656). But definitely think it was worth doing the trial and error with MFP to figure this out.

Hope this helps!

I joined his program in June I’m down 10 lbs. Literally the most healthiest approach to weight loss.
5’2, starting 150 currently 140.
135 x 12 = 1620 calories, 135 grams of protein.
I swear give it 90 days track your consistency, it’s life changing. I struggled to lose the same 2 lbs for 2 years, started GB x 12, it slowly melted off. 💜
ALSO, who cares how long it takes to come off as long as it stays off!!

jrc2127 wrote: »

Hey, anyone follow his recs for calories per day for weight loss? I’m 5’2 and 170 with goal of 130 and he says to multiply goal by 12 so 1560. Seems high??

Not inherently high. I don't know how old you are, but if I pretend you're 30, a multi-formula TDEE calculator (Sailrabbit**) puts your *sedentary* TDEE at 1733-1852. So, if you did no exercise, and *are statistically average*, you'd lose slowly, little under half a pound a week, at 1560.

Presumably Syatt's overall approach, as a trainer, would include some exercise, and my guess would be that he intends you *not* increase your eating when you exercise. (That's different from the MFP approach, but not necessarily a bad approach, as long as extreme weight loss rates are not triggered.) If you do exercise, you'd lose faster than half a pound a week (again, if you're average). If you do reasonable amounts of exercise, you might lose around a pound a week, maybe a bit more or less, which would be pretty sensible at your current weight, especially if you have fitness/health goals alongside weight loss goals.

I keep saying "if you are average". Most people are close to average, pretty much by definition. It's possible to be a little higher or lower than average, and a very few rare people may be surprisingly far off, but far off is *quite* unusual.

Here on MFP, you'll frequently see people suggest trying a reasonable calorie goal (like this one from Syatt, or MFP's when logging exercise) for 4-6 weeks, then using average weekly results to adjust the goal once one has that much personal experience data. That's a good route, IMO. If you're an adult woman, but not in menopause, you should compare your body weight at the same relative point in two or more different menstrual cycles, to get an average weight loss rate, because hormonal water weight fluctuations can be weird.

I personally don't like formulas like Syatt's because they don't account for enough differences in humans, in a statistical sense. Example: Let's say you're a librarian, and your job is to sit at a desk all day and answer walk-ups' questions, or answer phone questions. In that case, the "sedentary" idea, and Syatt's formula, may not be terrible. On the other hand, if you're a bricklayer's apprentice, and you spend all day carrying hods of bricks/mortar up and down ladders, then eating at that calorie level would likely have you losing weight at a punitively fast, dangerous rate. In between? It's a cr*pshoot. Also, age can matter.

IMO, the better approaches are either using a TDEE calculator that explicitly considers both your daily life and exercise, and creating a calorie deficit from that estimate; or using the MFP approach and setting your base calories based on your daily life activity (including bricklayer vs. librarian), then log exercise separately/carefully and eat those calories back, too.

You're thinking 1560 is high. My guess is that that's because you've read the all-too-common things that say women must eat 1200 to lose weight, if not less than that, even. We don't need to eat like tiny little birds, to lose at a sensible rate, generally . . . especially if active on the job, with home chores, or via exercise.

I'm one of the rare oddballs for whom many "calculators" incorrectly estimate calorie needs, when I compare their estimates to 6 years' experience of tracking my eating, exercise, and scale-weight results. Even my good brand/model fitness tracker is wildly inaccurate.

People often worry that calculator estimates may be too high, as you're doing now. What if the estimates are too low? Slow loss may be frustrating, but fast loss increases health risks, and can make the process so unsustainable that someone gives up or regularly over-eats in desperation as make-up. That's counter-productive.

If I ate at 12 times my goal weight - a weight I'm actually at, and have been for a while - I'd lose over a pound a week, sometimes close to 2 pounds a week . . . which I have no business doing at 5'5", 125 pounds, age 65. It would be absurdly unhealthy and unsustainable.

** https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/