Cut off for “not enough calories”
Replies
-
The recommended wisdom is to eat the number of cals suggested for 6 weeks. Look at your wight at the start and end of that period and calculate your rate of loss. Are you losing at the rate you expected? If so, carry on. If not, adjust a little up or down. It's all based on averages, whereas most of us are not average.
The 6 weeks takes you through one full menstrual cycle (assuming you're female and have cycles). Men can get away with doing this for a month. It allows for fluctuations, of which there will be many, for many reasons.3 -
Thanks. I’ve moved toward trying to get close to the base calories.1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »Thank you. My calorie budget is 1290, and I’m trying to come in below that every day. I have a very narrow range to fit into.
Why are you trying to come in below a target goal?
Can’t speak for the OP, but I always try to beat my “targets”. You’re right that this is semantically nonsensical - but it pushes my dopamine buttons.
4 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »I double checked and I did enter that I wanted to lose one pound a week. And MFP gave me the 1290 calorie count.
Just keep in mind that MFP's daily calorie estimations aren't always accurate. I'm maintaining my current weight and it gave me a goal of something like 1570 calories. That surprised me because I wouldn't expect that an adult woman of average height would be given such a low calorie goal, and also I remembered it being higher (around 1800) when I used MFP in the past. I know from experience of maintaining over years that my baseline is around 2000-2100 calories, and then of course if I exercise I have to eat even more, so for me their estimate is really off. So just keep that in mind and, if you find that you're losing more weight than expected, that could be the reason why.
Well, those numbers are based on statistical averages. Some of us are a lot more active than others. For maintenance I get about 1540-1580 calories per day, depending on the calculators for sedentary. I guess most women of a certain age are just a lot more sedentary and have a lot less muscle mass. In reality it's more like 1800 for me. And more when I exercise.0 -
I’m quite sedentary. I have a bum foot and ankle and have pain when I walk or stand. That’s one of my main motivations for losing weight. Less weight=less pain = more mobility = more activity = less pain = more activity = less weight. At this point, my activity level is very light, and my exercise is a chair exercise routine. I don’t drip sweat, but I do break a sweat. And a lot of it is focused on strength and mobility. It burns about 120 calories.
I’ve also seen targets as something to beat. I’m trying to make sure I don’t beat the target by too much. Yesterday I ate more than my food target, by a bit, and slightly less than the food calories with exercise calories added.4 -
As long as your net calories are below your Maintenance calories, you'll be losing weight. You may be losing a little slower than planned, but you'll still be losing weight.
A useful tool is in the app version of MFP where you can see your weekly net average. It's common for people to bank calories and eat (or drink) a little more on a night out (remember those?) or at the weekend. If your average net figure, for the week, is roughly at your goal, you're doing fine.2 -
Whatsthemotive wrote: »I think MFP set that calorie goal. And I thought that the goal was to come in below it. Not by a lot.
If you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal - you should eat at least that much. They have already built in a deficit.
IMO you shouldn't use MFP to calculate your calorie goal. You should use a TDEE calculator that figures your TDEE and BMR and then set your calorie goal manually to something in between those and hit that net calorie goal through what you eat/exercise.1 -
westrich20940 wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »I think MFP set that calorie goal. And I thought that the goal was to come in below it. Not by a lot.
If you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal - you should eat at least that much. They have already built in a deficit.
IMO you shouldn't use MFP to calculate your calorie goal. You should use a TDEE calculator that figures your TDEE and BMR and then set your calorie goal manually to something in between those and hit that net calorie goal through what you eat/exercise.
If someone finds MFP's NEAT easier to use, why not use that? It's just a different way to getting to the same end point. Figuring out my TDEE is functionally no different that getting a base calorie goal based on my regular lifestyle and then adding the calories burnt through intentional exercise and for some of us it's a way better fit.11 -
GrizzledSquirrel wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »Thank you. My calorie budget is 1290, and I’m trying to come in below that every day. I have a very narrow range to fit into.
Why are you trying to come in below a target goal?
Can’t speak for the OP, but I always try to beat my “targets”. You’re right that this is semantically nonsensical - but it pushes my dopamine buttons.
You get your jollies from undereating?4 -
I had no idea I was creating a controversy with my question. We all want to be healthy.
5 -
Whatsthemotive wrote: »I had no idea I was creating a controversy with my question. We all want to be healthy.
Agreed. But the way some people go about weight loss is actually unhealthy. Unfortunately many don't realise it is / how unhealthy and think that losing quickly is good.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GrizzledSquirrel wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »Thank you. My calorie budget is 1290, and I’m trying to come in below that every day. I have a very narrow range to fit into.
Why are you trying to come in below a target goal?
Can’t speak for the OP, but I always try to beat my “targets”. You’re right that this is semantically nonsensical - but it pushes my dopamine buttons.
You get your jollies from undereating?
You don’t know what my targets are. 😊. For example, I might set my target to aim for a weight loss of 1/2 lb oer week, but I try for more. Doesn’t mean I under eat.
I set my steps for 10k a say but as soon as I do, I NEED to smash that target by 50%.
Just how my mind works.
2 -
My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?0
-
gmonge7807 wrote: »My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?
The 2200.3 -
gmonge7807 wrote: »My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?
That's not possible as there's no food that does not consist of either carbs, protein or fat (leaving out alcohol here), and each gram of protein or carbs come in at 4 calories and each gram of fat at 9 calories. It's quite likely you've chosen wrong database entries4 -
gmonge7807 wrote: »My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?
I think that means you stop counting macros at 2000 and start eating cookies!6 -
gmonge7807 wrote: »My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?
That's not possible as there's no food that does not consist of either carbs, protein or fat (leaving out alcohol here), and each gram of protein or carbs come in at 4 calories and each gram of fat at 9 calories. It's quite likely you've chosen wrong database entries
Not necessarily. Depends how a person sets the goals. Personally, I target macros in grams, specifically a minimum of 100g protein and 50g fats daily, in maintenance. (I don't target percents, nor do I care about carbs one way or the other). So, if I could eat "pure" protein and fats, I'd need about 850 calories to hit my meaningful macro targets. If I did target carbs, I'd probably pick 250g, which would take me to 1850 calories (but I don't care about carbs, really). On 1850 ignoring exercise, in maintenance, I lose weight very slowly. With exercise, I'd lose weight at a bit under a pound a week.
The implication is that I have on average around 350-400 calories left daily, maybe more with the "don't care about carbs", after I hit reasonable macros, if I want to hold my weight steady. The further implication is that (if I want to) I can have any macro at all, or even - if I don't let it get out of hand in other respects - alcohol, which is not officially a macro at all, but costs around 7 calories per gram.2 -
gmonge7807 wrote: »My caloric goal is 2200, but I reach my macros at near 2000. Which should I choose?
That's not possible as there's no food that does not consist of either carbs, protein or fat (leaving out alcohol here), and each gram of protein or carbs come in at 4 calories and each gram of fat at 9 calories. It's quite likely you've chosen wrong database entries
Not necessarily. Depends how a person sets the goals. Personally, I target macros in grams, specifically a minimum of 100g protein and 50g fats daily, in maintenance. (I don't target percents, nor do I care about carbs one way or the other). So, if I could eat "pure" protein and fats, I'd need about 850 calories to hit my meaningful macro targets. If I did target carbs, I'd probably pick 250g, which would take me to 1850 calories (but I don't care about carbs, really). On 1850 ignoring exercise, in maintenance, I lose weight very slowly. With exercise, I'd lose weight at a bit under a pound a week.
The implication is that I have on average around 350-400 calories left daily, maybe more with the "don't care about carbs", after I hit reasonable macros, if I want to hold my weight steady. The further implication is that (if I want to) I can have any macro at all, or even - if I don't let it get out of hand in other respects - alcohol, which is not officially a macro at all, but costs around 7 calories per gram.
Yes, that's another explanation 1 -
It won't let you "Complete your day" (which gives your projected weight in 5weeks) If your under 1200 calories, however, it will allow you to log-it
AND on the flip side..
-It will "Complete the day" with a High deficit(over the reccomended)if the deficit is from exercise.
Be well, Good luck:)0 -
Yeah, you may have to manually adjusted for your individual metabolism. Track your weight loss and calories for a month but if you're losing too fast you can get health problems in a pretty serious way - especially if you lose super fast a nd have even a hint of gallbladder issues.
MFP gives me (at 5'5" and sedentary) about 1750 calories to maintain 162 pounds, or 1500 to lose half pound a week, which means a little over 1200 if I wanted to lose 1lb/week. ...Yeah no. I lose about a 1.25 a week at the 1500, and a little under a pound with 1750 or so.
Some of this is, undoubtely, that while still sedentary I've built more muscle. Some of it's just that in spite of being allergic to most exercise, middle aged, and female, my metabolism just doesn't perfectly fit the calculator. I suspect most people's don't.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions