is it possible to ''save'' some of your calories for a time (such as a meal out or birthday)?
carliejmm
Posts: 2 Member
Hi all
I've noticed in recent days that I have calories ''left over'' (even accounting for a bit of a buffer that I tend to leave myself for un-noted bits of food, such as that 1/2 a sugar in a coffee whilst out or similar). Is there an ''official way to apply them to a certain day or meal to show that I'm using them within a reasonable time frame? I realise the point is to eat enough, not to starve yourself and then binge eat, but I mean that extra 200 calories at the end of the week type of thing.
I've noticed in recent days that I have calories ''left over'' (even accounting for a bit of a buffer that I tend to leave myself for un-noted bits of food, such as that 1/2 a sugar in a coffee whilst out or similar). Is there an ''official way to apply them to a certain day or meal to show that I'm using them within a reasonable time frame? I realise the point is to eat enough, not to starve yourself and then binge eat, but I mean that extra 200 calories at the end of the week type of thing.
4
Replies
-
Yes.
Many people look at weekly average and will purposely save calories for the weekend...or eat more on some days and less on others. Whatever works for you. Your body just cares about the balance over time, days are meaningless.10 -
I'd say weekly is a reasonable time frame. You can switch to a weekly view of your calories on MFP to see if you're on target on average.4
-
I don't know if this would be considered "official," but if you want your diary to reflect the saved calories, you could create an exercise called "banked calories" or something similar, and log the banked calories on the day you eat them.
You would have to track the banked calories yourself. Although at the end of each day you could edit the exercise you created to reflect any additional calories that you've banked that day. E.g., on Monday you had 100 calories left, and you go in and set calories burned for your "banked calories" exercise to 1 hour or 1 unit (I'm not sure I've ever created a cardio exercise in MFP, so I'm not sure exactly what your options are) to 100. Then on Wednesday you have an extra 150 calories at the end of the day, and you edit "banked calories" so that calories burned per hour is 250 (total of Monday and Wednesday leftovers).
Or you could just keep track in the notes section.1 -
I definitely save calories if I know I’m going to be eating out on the weekend or have some sort of event where I will eat over what I should. It’s helped me lose over 25lbs so far 😊2
-
-
Yes. But my personal 'rule' is to bank the calories before I need them as in planning ahead. Not randomly have a blow out and tell myself "Oh, I'll make it up later".
Such as I may plan for a bigger cal day on Saturday, and 'save' 200 cals each day Wed-Thur-Fri and get in extra activity on Saturday to 'pay' for it.4 -
Yes you can bank but I think 200 is not really enough to consider banking for a later date and here is why. People tend to under estimate calories, even if you think you are giving yourself a buffer. Labels are not always accurate. 0 calorie food or spices are not really 0 calories. 200 a week is 2800 calories every 2 week. Which is less than a pound. People will say you can fluctuate your weight more than that daily. So it would be really hard to tell if you did indeed bank 200 a day like you were expecting. I would say if you see a steady trend of 4 to 5 lbs weight change in either direction you have accurate data. However at 200 calories that would take months, which would mean you have to consider other factors such as body recomposition .0
-
I respectfully disagree, and here is why:
You are correct that even with meticulous counting, we are bound to have some errors in logging. But assuming one is consistent in their methods, if I eat 200 less x 3 days and 600 extra on the 4th day, that should be relatively equivalent to breaking even.
I am not saying this method would work for an all out smorgasboard of eating thousands of extra calories. I would not suggest someone 'bank' X calories per day for weeks or months and then use them all at once. That would just be too hard to keep track. One can only reasonably 'bank' so many in a day. Perhaps more than my 200 example, depending on what calorie goal they are working with normally. Personally I'm eating 1400-1700 daily, so I can shave 200 and still be satified/satiated. And I have results over the course of months that show I am losing at a rate relative to what I expect.
It goes without saying that if one is not losing or is losing slower than they think they should be, they should evaluate their logging to see where they can improve accuracy.Yes you can bank but I think 200 is not really enough to consider banking for a later date and here is why. People tend to under estimate calories, even if you think you are giving yourself a buffer. Labels are not always accurate. 0 calorie food or spices are not really 0 calories. 200 a week is 2800 calories every 2 week. Which is less than a pound. People will say you can fluctuate your weight more than that daily. So it would be really hard to tell if you did indeed bank 200 a day like you were expecting. I would say if you see a steady trend of 4 to 5 lbs weight change in either direction you have accurate data. However at 200 calories that would take months, which would mean you have to consider other factors such as body recomposition .
8 -
Absolutely. I take 100 cals/day M-F and add 250 each to Saturday and Sunday.5
-
Yes you can bank but I think 200 is not really enough to consider banking for a later date and here is why. People tend to under estimate calories, even if you think you are giving yourself a buffer. Labels are not always accurate. 0 calorie food or spices are not really 0 calories. 200 a week is 2800 calories every 2 week. Which is less than a pound. People will say you can fluctuate your weight more than that daily. So it would be really hard to tell if you did indeed bank 200 a day like you were expecting. I would say if you see a steady trend of 4 to 5 lbs weight change in either direction you have accurate data. However at 200 calories that would take months, which would mean you have to consider other factors such as body recomposition .
If regularly "banking" 200 calories won't work because of inaccuracies in estimating calorie intake, then not banking (that is, eating your full allotment every single day) won't work either. The 200 calories are being used either way -- either I'm banking them or I'm eating them each day. If inaccurate estimates doom my effort to usefully bank 200, then they'll also doom my effort to manage my weight by eating to a set calorie goal each day.
But clearly people DO successfully manage their weight through calorie counting, so it's clear that the inherent lack of COMPLETE precision in calorie estimation doesn't doom our efforts.
So eat your 200 calories the day of or save them for the weekend, it's purely your preference. They're the same calories, whether I'm using them on a 200 calorie snack each day of the week or having a 1,400 calorie slice of cake on Saturday afternoon.11 -
Yes you can bank but I think 200 is not really enough to consider banking for a later date and here is why. People tend to under estimate calories, even if you think you are giving yourself a buffer. Labels are not always accurate. 0 calorie food or spices are not really 0 calories. 200 a week is 2800 calories every 2 week. Which is less than a pound. People will say you can fluctuate your weight more than that daily. So it would be really hard to tell if you did indeed bank 200 a day like you were expecting. I would say if you see a steady trend of 4 to 5 lbs weight change in either direction you have accurate data. However at 200 calories that would take months, which would mean you have to consider other factors such as body recomposition .
I've been eating about 150-250 calories under my TDEE most days for roughly the past year, to lose a few vanity pounds in maintenance. It works fine. If I banked those calories most days to eat later, and ate them, I'd maintain weight. (Banking and eating back, at that same level, was exactly my normal routine for around 4 years of previous weight maintenance, after losing from obese to healthy weight, BTW.) It can work fine, in practice.
Estimating calorie intake isn't always accurate. Estimating calorie output isn't always accurate. Pay attention, watch the scale over the long haul, adjust some factors if needed, and banking calories works fine. Follow the process until you can trust your process.
The daily weight fluctuations? Yeah, mostly water weight and digestive contents changes, not body fat changes. Total red herring. As you say, fat loss/gain shows up mostly in multi-week/month trends in scale weight, unless there's a *dramatic* change in eating or activity levels. Body recomposition (muscle gain) is more like many months. None of that means a 200 calorie deficit (or a two hundred calorie bank, eaten back) will cause failure. The fact that it's hard to see doesn't mean it's not effective, it just means it's hard to see. (Over the last year, even my weight trending app thought I was gaining for a couple of weeks or more at a time. I knew I wasn't; I was losing. The long term bore out my belief. I'm down 10-12 pounds over the year, very much what I'd expect from what I've logged.)
Reference: https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations4 -
I personally don't often bank calories; I like to have the same calorie target every day, but I don't see why it'd be a problem at all to bank some cals for usage later in the week, as many here do. One thing I would recommend against is eating less AFTER going over - in other words "I went 400 calories over yesterday so today I'm going to eat 400 less". That sounds OK in theory but in my experience can end up taking you to a very bad place. But accumulating surplus calories for use later, as long as it's not too much later, like that week - no problem.3
-
I'm not saying you shouldn't bank calories. I personally believe you should always try to eat in a small calorie deficit even in maintenance because life happens and there is always a special event around the corner. I am saying when you get down to that small of an amount, you shouldn't stress too much over it.
If a person post a thread saying "I ate my maintenance calories yesterday and I weighted 1 pound more or less! Why?". The response would be daily fluctuation, variables and that its nothing to worry about.
So if this person that is trying banking 200 calories a day, and eating an extra 1400 on the weekend. Well in 2 week if they say I gained 1 pound. Would you give the same response to this person as the person above? I would. Or would you tell them you didn't really bank 200 calories each day? This is why I said until you see a trend of 4-5 pounds, it's really hard to say whether you are indeed banking 200 or not. Even if you don't, eating that extra 1400 and you do indeed gain 1 pound in 2 weeks, 2 pound in a month, I would say that is still within "maintenance" range.
My take is counting macros is not an exact science and trying to fine tune down to such a small amount isn't really worth the return on investment. You know if you are eating around your maintenance calories and being true to your diet. Whether you did or didn't bank 1400 shouldn't stop you from celebrating that special occasion. If you do see that you are getting to the high end of your maintenance range, then you can buckle down a little bit to get it back to the midpoint of your maintenance range.
I find that determining what is truly a "special occasion" is the real challenge. New years, birthdays, valentine day, vacation, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, work function, dates, independence days, labor day, friend get together, hard day at work, diet break, graduations, anniversary, and others.
As always, do what works for you. If it is working for you and you don't mind the effort, then keep doing it.1 -
The daily weight fluctuations? Yeah, mostly water weight and digestive contents changes, not body fat changes. Total red herring. As you say, fat loss/gain shows up mostly in multi-week/month trends in scale weight, unless there's a *dramatic* change in eating or activity levels. Body recomposition (muscle gain) is more like many months. None of that means a 200 calorie deficit (or a two hundred calorie bank, eaten back) will cause failure. The fact that it's hard to see doesn't mean it's not effective, it just means it's hard to see. (Over the last year, even my weight trending app thought I was gaining for a couple of weeks or more at a time. I knew I wasn't; I was losing. The long term bore out my belief. I'm down 10-12 pounds over the year, very much what I'd expect from what I've logged.)
I use a fitbit Aria scale and I can actually see my body fat change daily. For some reason, you have to use the android app version to see it down to the 100th decimal place. When I am putting my self in a larger calorie deficit over 2 week. I can see a steady drop of .05-.1% day over day. At the end of 2 weeks, it is a .5% to 1% total drop.0 -
The daily weight fluctuations? Yeah, mostly water weight and digestive contents changes, not body fat changes. Total red herring. As you say, fat loss/gain shows up mostly in multi-week/month trends in scale weight, unless there's a *dramatic* change in eating or activity levels. Body recomposition (muscle gain) is more like many months. None of that means a 200 calorie deficit (or a two hundred calorie bank, eaten back) will cause failure. The fact that it's hard to see doesn't mean it's not effective, it just means it's hard to see. (Over the last year, even my weight trending app thought I was gaining for a couple of weeks or more at a time. I knew I wasn't; I was losing. The long term bore out my belief. I'm down 10-12 pounds over the year, very much what I'd expect from what I've logged.)
I use a fitbit Aria scale and I can actually see my body fat change daily. For some reason, you have to use the android app version to see it down to the 100th decimal place. When I am putting my self in a larger calorie deficit over 2 week. I can see a steady drop of .05-.1% day over day. At the end of 2 weeks, it is a .5% to 1% total drop.
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.2 -
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.
I agree it may not be accurate number. But it’s a consistent inaccuracy. At 20%. I can’t see abs. At 15% I can. Maybe if I used dexa, it would say I was really 19% to 14%. Point being as it was dropping week over week. Abs showed more and more. So it wasn’t just making up small number drops day over day just to keep me motivated. The fat did come off. So why would it be unreasonable to say I lost .05 a day, but believe in 3 month I lost 2 -3%? Change has to be gradual.0 -
Yes I do this quite a lot. Some days I'm over, but most days I am under, and it evens out overall. It's hard to keep every day exactly the same and I agree with people who are talking about weekly rather than daily totals.1
-
I'm not saying you shouldn't bank calories. I personally believe you should always try to eat in a small calorie deficit even in maintenance because life happens and there is always a special event around the corner. I am saying when you get down to that small of an amount, you shouldn't stress too much over it.
If a person post a thread saying "I ate my maintenance calories yesterday and I weighted 1 pound more or less! Why?". The response would be daily fluctuation, variables and that its nothing to worry about.
So if this person that is trying banking 200 calories a day, and eating an extra 1400 on the weekend. Well in 2 week if they say I gained 1 pound. Would you give the same response to this person as the person above? I would. Or would you tell them you didn't really bank 200 calories each day? This is why I said until you see a trend of 4-5 pounds, it's really hard to say whether you are indeed banking 200 or not. Even if you don't, eating that extra 1400 and you do indeed gain 1 pound in 2 weeks, 2 pound in a month, I would say that is still within "maintenance" range.
My take is counting macros is not an exact science and trying to fine tune down to such a small amount isn't really worth the return on investment. You know if you are eating around your maintenance calories and being true to your diet. Whether you did or didn't bank 1400 shouldn't stop you from celebrating that special occasion. If you do see that you are getting to the high end of your maintenance range, then you can buckle down a little bit to get it back to the midpoint of your maintenance range.
I find that determining what is truly a "special occasion" is the real challenge. New years, birthdays, valentine day, vacation, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, work function, dates, independence days, labor day, friend get together, hard day at work, diet break, graduations, anniversary, and others.
As always, do what works for you. If it is working for you and you don't mind the effort, then keep doing it.
I don't think anyone is recommending that people should STRESS over banking calories. The point is that if you know you like to eat more on, say, Saturday or Sunday, it's perfectly fine and sustainable to cut a couple hundred calories from days during the week to balance things out. For many people, it's a better way to manage weight than just going ahead and eating more on the weekend without adjusting during the week.
I personally don't like the "wait until you get too high and buckle down" method. I realize it's great for some people. For me, it feels unpleasantly like yo-yo dieting (although intellectually I realize it is not). It feels easier and less stressful to bank. Would I let the failure to bank STOP me from celebrating a special occasion? No. But when I have the foresight to know something is coming, I'll plan for it.4 -
Yes and I think it is a great idea!4
-
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.
I agree it may not be accurate number. But it’s a consistent inaccuracy. At 20%. I can’t see abs. At 15% I can. Maybe if I used dexa, it would say I was really 19% to 14%. Point being as it was dropping week over week. Abs showed more and more. So it wasn’t just making up small number drops day over day just to keep me motivated. The fat did come off. So why would it be unreasonable to say I lost .05 a day, but believe in 3 month I lost 2 -3%? Change has to be gradual.
No you are not seeing body fat changing daily - you are seeing your electrical resistance changing daily which is what those scales measure.
And that's primarily a function of changes in hydration.
And the biggest problem with BIA devices is inconsistent inaccuracy.
You really do need to better understand the tool you are using and its many limitations. They (some at least, some are just horrendously inaccurate all of the time!) can provide a usable trend over an extended period but no you can't put that level of belief in individual readings.5 -
Then how do you pick and choose which day is a reliable. Again, over say 2 month , I can make a drastic difference I believe that day 1 is some what accurate. And the end of 2 month is somewhat accurate cause I can see and feel the difference. So if you go from 20 to 15%. None of the 60 days in between that is showing a drop is reliable? But on day 61. It’s reliable?
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.
I agree it may not be accurate number. But it’s a consistent inaccuracy. At 20%. I can’t see abs. At 15% I can. Maybe if I used dexa, it would say I was really 19% to 14%. Point being as it was dropping week over week. Abs showed more and more. So it wasn’t just making up small number drops day over day just to keep me motivated. The fat did come off. So why would it be unreasonable to say I lost .05 a day, but believe in 3 month I lost 2 -3%? Change has to be gradual.
No you are not seeing body fat changing daily - you are seeing your electrical resistance changing daily which is what those scales measure.
And that's primarily a function of changes in hydration.
And the biggest problem with BIA devices is inconsistent inaccuracy.
You really do need to better understand the tool you are using and its many limitations. They (some at least, some are just horrendously inaccurate all of the time!) can provide a usable trend over an extended period but no you can't put that level of belief in individual readings.
Fat definitely disappeared off my body in those 60 days. And the readings say the same thing.
Also. Everyone agrees 3500 calories = 1 lbs of fat. So if I burn 3500 calories and the scale shows the drop in body fat, why would you say it’s not accurate?
The scale is a machine that does same thing over and over. It’s your body that’s inconsistent.0 -
Then how do you pick and choose which day is a reliable. Again, over say 2 month , I can make a drastic difference I believe that day 1 is some what accurate. And the end of 2 month is somewhat accurate cause I can see and feel the difference. So if you go from 20 to 15%. None of the 60 days in between that is showing a drop is reliable? But on day 61. It’s reliable?
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.
I agree it may not be accurate number. But it’s a consistent inaccuracy. At 20%. I can’t see abs. At 15% I can. Maybe if I used dexa, it would say I was really 19% to 14%. Point being as it was dropping week over week. Abs showed more and more. So it wasn’t just making up small number drops day over day just to keep me motivated. The fat did come off. So why would it be unreasonable to say I lost .05 a day, but believe in 3 month I lost 2 -3%? Change has to be gradual.
No you are not seeing body fat changing daily - you are seeing your electrical resistance changing daily which is what those scales measure.
And that's primarily a function of changes in hydration.
And the biggest problem with BIA devices is inconsistent inaccuracy.
You really do need to better understand the tool you are using and its many limitations. They (some at least, some are just horrendously inaccurate all of the time!) can provide a usable trend over an extended period but no you can't put that level of belief in individual readings.
The trend - not the individual data points. Trending smoothes out the bad data.
To a degree the advantage of home BIA units (if they achieve a level of reasonableness in the first place, many do not - I had some that made me 32% fat with visible abs...) is that you get many data points and the other advantage is that you can at least make the some of the variables in hydration consistent.2 -
Then how do you pick and choose which day is a reliable. Again, over say 2 month , I can make a drastic difference I believe that day 1 is some what accurate. And the end of 2 month is somewhat accurate cause I can see and feel the difference. So if you go from 20 to 15%. None of the 60 days in between that is showing a drop is reliable? But on day 61. It’s reliable?
The probable error from BIA scale estimates of body fat is really too big to rely on distinctions that fine. Some sources say it they can be up to 8-9% off, in home models. Any home body fat "measurement" to hundredths of a percent is false precision. Of course our bodyfat changes daily . . . tiny amounts, under most real-world conditions.
I agree it may not be accurate number. But it’s a consistent inaccuracy. At 20%. I can’t see abs. At 15% I can. Maybe if I used dexa, it would say I was really 19% to 14%. Point being as it was dropping week over week. Abs showed more and more. So it wasn’t just making up small number drops day over day just to keep me motivated. The fat did come off. So why would it be unreasonable to say I lost .05 a day, but believe in 3 month I lost 2 -3%? Change has to be gradual.
No you are not seeing body fat changing daily - you are seeing your electrical resistance changing daily which is what those scales measure.
And that's primarily a function of changes in hydration.
And the biggest problem with BIA devices is inconsistent inaccuracy.
You really do need to better understand the tool you are using and its many limitations. They (some at least, some are just horrendously inaccurate all of the time!) can provide a usable trend over an extended period but no you can't put that level of belief in individual readings.
Fat definitely disappeared off my body in those 60 days. And the readings say the same thing.
Also. Everyone agrees 3500 calories = 1 lbs of fat. So if I burn 3500 calories and the scale shows the drop in body fat, why would you say it’s not accurate?
The scale is a machine that does same thing over and over. It’s your body that’s inconsistent.
Is this some kind of Zeno's Paradox of body fat estimation?!
With respect to the daily values, it's inconsistently inaccurate, as Sijomial says. It's a little under, a little over, sees a change in fat when only hydration/dehydration level changed: Imprecise. Over time, in something loosely akin to the Law of Large Numbers, it averages out (though these are not, strictly speaking, large numbers 😆).
At the same time, in *addition* to being inconsistently inaccurate in daily estimates, it may - as you say - *also* be consistently inaccurate, i.e., *tend* to be a point or few high or low overall, if you could compare multiple observations to dexa (which is also not 100% spot-on IMU, though it's more accurate than BIA). However, with both those inaccuracy factors, the *trend* can still deliver somewhat accurate information (not data: information). If the change in values tends to cluster around body fat being - picking a random number here - 5% lower after 90 days, then there's a decent chance the actual change is probably somewhere around 5%.
Like so many things about weight management, the longer-term trend is close enough to be useful, even though it's an error prone estimate, not a precise measurement. Most of this stuff we rely on for calorie counting and weight management is approximations and estimates. It works anyway . . . close enough for gubmint work, as the cliche goes.
Some of this "things average out over the long term" effect is also why calorie banking 150 calories a day can work, even though the 150-calorie (or whatever) estimate is imprecise. It can be close enough to be useful.
With respect to the bolded: Yes, the machine does the same thing over and over. It shoots some electricity through our body (part of our body, actually) and measures resistance. Yes, our body is inconsistent. So, the machine takes the resistance as measured and applies an algorithm to produce a body fat *estimate*. Measuring one thing, and using it to estimate another, is also super-common in the data and informaion we rely on for weight management and fitness improvement. It's good to be clear about what's being measured, what's being estimated, and what potential there is for sources of variation in the measurement that could result in inaccuracy of the estimate. Here again, the estimates can be useful, even though we know they're estimates, approximations, subject to error. Knowing things about their precision and accuracy is part of making them useful, if you ask me.4 -
@annpt77 If a person weighs 100 lbs has exactly 20% body fat at and is in a 500 calorie deficit per day, what would you expect the most accurate body fat scale to say what their body percentage is each day they are in 500 calorie deficit?
By the 7th day after they burned off 500, they should weigh 99 lbs and body fat of 19.19% body fat according to the 3500 calorie = 1 lbs.
Each day should be a minor change to eventually get to 19.19%.
In my case, my scale weight shows that I lost significant weight. My eyes tells me I lost significant weight. My clothes shows I lost significant weight. My weight training tells me I didn't lose significant muscle. My diet supports the theory I shouldn't have lost all muscle. My scale shows that my body fat has gone down. So if all the tools support the fact that the fat is gone, at the end of the day, I will continue to believe that the small trends downward is somewhat accurate.
I am not saying it's down every day. Just like weight, there are day it fluctuates, but over say 10 out of 14 days, it is down and align with my calorie deficit from the day before. Such as 19.0, 18.96, 18.91, 18.89, 19.94, 18.92, 18.88, 18.74, 18.69 and so forth.
0 -
@annpt77 If a person weighs 100 lbs has exactly 20% body fat at and is in a 500 calorie deficit per day, what would you expect the most accurate body fat scale to say what their body percentage is each day they are in 500 calorie deficit?
By the 7th day after they burned off 500, they should weigh 99 lbs and body fat of 19.19% body fat according to the 3500 calorie = 1 lbs.
Each day should be a minor change to eventually get to 19.19%.
In my case, my scale weight shows that I lost significant weight. My eyes tells me I lost significant weight. My clothes shows I lost significant weight. My weight training tells me I didn't lose significant muscle. My diet supports the theory I shouldn't have lost all muscle. My scale shows that my body fat has gone down. So if all the tools support the fact that the fat is gone, at the end of the day, I will continue to believe that the small trends downward isn't somewhat accurate.
I am not saying it's down every day. Just like weight, there are day it fluctuates, but over say 10 out of 14 days, it is down and align with my calorie deficit from the day before. Such as 19.0, 18.96, 18.91, 18.89, 19.94, 18.92, 18.88, 18.74, 18.69 and so forth.
No one is saying you didn't gradually lose fat, eventually losing many percent/pounds of it. No one is saying you didn't retain material amounts of muscle, maybe even gain some if your deficit wasn't big and your training/diet were optimal for that. That's great stuff, exactly what many people are trying to achieve: Good show!
All we're saying is that those specific numbers aren't very reliable.
But, like I said, close enough for gubmint work.
P.S. Keep in mind, you seemed to be arguing earlier that calorie logging was imprecise, so imprecise that eating back calories saved on a prior day was a bad plan. Now you seem to be arguing that calorie logging is so precise that it tracks with hundredths of percents of body fat estimates from your scale. Or that someone can know they have exactly a 500 calorie deficit consistently every day, in your theoretical example. Um, what?
I think it's all estimates. Useful estimates. Look, I'm not trying to convince you, truly. In a generic forum, with many readers at varying levels of knowledge, I'm suggesting that people not put too much emotional investment in the accuracy of a BIA estimate of body fat. It's not unusual to see people here stressing out over unexpected small fluctuations in body fat, as seen by such a scale . . . stressing out way beyond the probable level of accuracy. If you're happy with yours, and getting useful info as you see it? Go, you - sincerely.
We've digressed a long, long way from the OP: It's fine to save (bank) calories and spend them later. even though it's all estimates anyway. Heck, over the course of around 30 years, I stored about 210,000 calories right there on my body, then spent them on activity in a bit less than a year, kind of a reverse form of calorie banking, with a really, really big piggy bank. 🤣 P.S. I don't think I lost much muscle, either. 😉5 -
If the op said I would like to eat a piece of 140 calorie cake at the end of this week. So I plan to bank 20 calories a day. What would you say. I would say. Don’t worry about it and just keep doing your thing because that 140 is so small it’s not worth trying to figure out where you need to try to figure out how to bank it each day.
Now if the op says I’m going to eat 4000 calorie pizza. I would say. Yes. You need to figure out how to bank that 4000 ahead of time.
So really it’s at what point is it worth the effort. My opinion is 200 isn’t there yet. But if op wants to make 1400 big meal a weekly thing. Then I would say yes you need to just adjust your plan. But if your only doing it 3 or 4 times a year for special occasions, then I don’t see a need.0 -
Hi all
I've noticed in recent days that I have calories ''left over'' (even accounting for a bit of a buffer that I tend to leave myself for un-noted bits of food, such as that 1/2 a sugar in a coffee whilst out or similar). Is there an ''official way to apply them to a certain day or meal to show that I'm using them within a reasonable time frame? I realise the point is to eat enough, not to starve yourself and then binge eat, but I mean that extra 200 calories at the end of the week type of thing.
If you eat a little less one day, you can eat a little more the next day. I say this from personal experience as it is has been working for me. On Friday evenings for instance, I like to go for Wafflehouse style platters (not to say that is unhealthy) and milk shakes that total to well above my maintenance calories on myfitnesspal, but then over the weekend, I truly do rest--my gut that is--by eating lighter meals lower in overall calories, so the calories balance out over the course of the whole week. I prefer this over eating the same meals and the same number of calories everyday for the rest of my life.1 -
If the op said I would like to eat a piece of 140 calorie cake at the end of this week. So I plan to bank 20 calories a day. What would you say. I would say. Don’t worry about it and just keep doing your thing because that 140 is so small it’s not worth trying to figure out where you need to try to figure out how to bank it each day.
Now if the op says I’m going to eat 4000 calorie pizza. I would say. Yes. You need to figure out how to bank that 4000 ahead of time.
So really it’s at what point is it worth the effort. My opinion is 200 isn’t there yet. But if op wants to make 1400 big meal a weekly thing. Then I would say yes you need to just adjust your plan. But if your only doing it 3 or 4 times a year for special occasions, then I don’t see a need.
TBH, I'm more interested in clarity about the principles, less interested in telling others exactly where to draw the line.
Supposed to all be adults here, over 18. They know their logging meticulousness and personality type better than I do. If someone is a very careful logger, and motivated by sticking closely to the rules, maybe they'd want to bank the 20 calories for the cake. S'OK by me.
Personally, when maintaining, I just bank the 150 or so calories most days, and if a 4000 calorie pizza presents itself, and I decide it's worth it, I'd eat it. If I do that sort of thing too often, my weight starts to drift up, so I'll start sticking more closely with the 150 calories as a deficit, not a bank account, until the scale weight drifts down again. It's been working OK for a few years now, so I'm pretty relaxed about it, personally. The principle is still "it's fine to eat a little less some days, and eat a little more other days, as long as it balances out".
I am kind of curious where your hypothetical person gets their 140 calorie cake, and whether it's good, though: Even the nice (not very sweet) whole wheat rhubarb upside down cake I made in the Spring was 150 calories for a tiny piece. 😆 Tasty, though.
I'm out, from here. I think we've digressed far enough from OP's question. Cheers!1 -
phoenixrb35 wrote: »On Friday evenings for instance, I like to go for Wafflehouse style platters (not to say that is unhealthy) and milk shakes that total to well above my maintenance calories on myfitnesspal, but then over the weekend, I truly do rest--my gut that is--by eating lighter meals lower in overall calories, so the calories balance out over the course of the whole week. I prefer this over eating the same meals and the same number of calories everyday for the rest of my life.
Err what? The same number of calories can be constituted by all sorts of different meals. I eat something different almost every day in any given week (though I have particualr evening meals that would eat most weeks, and my breakfast i pretty stable, and lunch definitely less varied). Most days I am within my calorie goal; sometimes not, but that is an entirely different question. I am not knocking your Fridays nights at all, by the way: if that works for you, that's great. But don't think that eating within your calorie goal means that you have always to eat the same meal(s)!2 -
Short answer - yes, you can save calories from one day and eat them on a different day. Why? Because it is consistency over time that matters. One day of higher calories is not going to result in weight gain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions