Newbie...Please Help

Hi! I'm about 153 cm, 46kg. I maintain on around 15-1600 Cals. I lose pretty quick on a strict 1400 - so that would work for you, I'm sure (I have a part time desk job, walk around a fair bit at home, and do weights workouts 4 times a week for half an hour a go. Good luck.

angelathailand wrote: »

Um....I can see the rolls 😆 it's not pretty.

I hope you're realizing that even quite slim, fit women will see things that could be described as "rolls" in certain positions? Skin need to have some stretch so we can move, so there will be some "rolls" if those areas are in effect compressed.

See https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10689837/does-this-uterus-make-my-stomach-look-fat/p1, which includes some examples.

Please understand, as you read responses to your post, that many of us may be over-sensitized to cases where women report being/feeling fat, at relatively low BMI, then as the discussion evolves (maybe with photos), it becomes fairly clear that there's a body image issue in the scenario. I'm *not* saying that's true for you (and often that's teenagers in the first place), just explaining that some of us may react a bit more strongly out of concern when seeing some elements of that in a post, in ways that may seem inappropriate or harsh to you as the person posting.

So, I can understand that some of our (kneejerk) concern may not actually apply to you. I'm trying not to react in that hyper-concerned way if not justified, but trying to clarify.

There are a few other things that I think may be relevant.

One is a question, that I hope you won't find offensive: I notice that your MFP ID includes "Thailand". Are you of an Asian ethnic origin? I know that there are adjusted BMI thresholds that have been proposed, for people with that background, from the perspective that it's more common (not universal of course!) to have a little more delicate or narrow build, at any given height. Those alternate BMI evaluation schemes lower the threshold between overweight and normal categories, but leave the boundary between normal and underweight at the same spot.



So, if the above applies to you, your BMI at 21.6 could have different implications, in a normal BMI range where the top end is 22.9 rather than 24.9. It's still in the normal range, expected to be a healthy weight, but it's relatively higher in the normal range than it would be for others of different body type.

From what source did you get the 33% bodyfat estimate? Was it from a BIA scale, that gives you the reading when you stand on it? Those can be inaccurate, so I wouldn't put much stock in the absolute number it shows. (Long term changes can show a directional trend, even if the number itself is iffy. Keep in mind that if weight goes down, but the percent stays steady, that implies fat loss is happening because a the same percent of a lower number is fewer pounds of fat!

For the moment, let's assume the 33% is accurate (which is tenuous). There are various views about what appropriate body fat levels are. All of these vary for men vs. women, and some consider age. Here's one of the latter:



(From https://www.dexafit.com/blog2/what-is-the-ideal-body-fat-percentage)

If we accept that one, you're in a healthy range for your age, but could be leaner and still be on the good side of health statistics.

I'm a bit older than you (65), but not so much that I don't empathize. One of the things that tends to be true as we age, especially for women, is that even at constant body weight, our muscle mass decreases and our fat mass increases. This is extra true if relatively inactive. Further, that muscle loss can affect probability of bone loss (i.e., risk of osteporosis), and very long term, the ability to stay active and independent. The bottom line of all that is that routinely doing some kind of strength exercise will have positive effects on your body fat percentage, appearance (in general in terms of looking "toned", and via posture) and long term prospects for an active, healthy future. No need to go to bodybuilder levels of muscularity unless one wants to, but working on strength and muscle mass will contribute to losing those perceived "rolls", too.

As far as eating exercise calories, it matters how you estimate the number of calories to eat.

If you use the "MFP method", you set your activity level based on your life *before* exercise, and MFP gives you a base calorie goal for X weight loss rate that you requested. When you exercise, you log the exercise and eat those calories too, to keep the same weight loss rate. (Some people worry that exercise calories are overestimated, so only partially eat them back . . . but it's important to understand that that can increase weight loss rate, and faster isn't necessarily better, especially if you want to keep muscle and lose only fat!

If you use an outside TDEE calculator, your activity level is intended to include exercise. The calculator gives you a calorie estimate that includes planned exercise and (most of them, if you ask for it) a calorie deficit for weight loss, and you eat that number same each day. You're still eating back exercise, it's just averaged into every day. That can work fine, too . . . unless someone plans a lot of exercise, tells the calculator that, and then doesn't actually do the exercise. A person who does that will lose unexpectedly and unnecessarily slowly (plus miss the other benefits of exercise, of course).

I agree with folks above that you have comparatively little to lose, and that half a pound a week is a good plan. Recognize that that loss rate may take longer to show up on the scale clearly, possibly several weeks, in amongst daily fluctuations. Hang in there: Patience plays out. I went through a super-slow loss recently of 10-15 vanity pounds, going slower than half a pound a week, even, and it worked just fine . . . given time. 😉 It was also pretty painless, which is *great*, in my book.

As far as macros, the MFP defaults are fine as a starting point for most people, as long as they don't cut calories crazy-low for their current size. If you're picking half a pound a week, and eating to goal calories and macros, it's probably fine for you. I'd recommend considering the MFP protein and fat goals as minimums to hit, rather than maximums you shouldn't exceed. With some experience, and by reading more about the topic, you can decide whether you may want to revise your macro goals for satiation or energy-level reasons, or just general happiness.

You don't need to be at perfect numbers instantly. Calories alone are the direct influence on body weight. Macros can *indirectly* affect weight loss via energy level (because we move more, or less) or appetite (because cravings/hunger make it harder to stick with calorie goal).

From your comments, it sounds like improved appearance is among your desires in this process. If that's true, good nutrition, slow-ish weight loss, exercise (cardiovascular *and* strength) are your best bets.

Best wishes!

angelathailand wrote: »

Hi,
I am new to all of this and need help to work out how many calories I should be eating and what my macros should be? It's all a little confusing to me.

My stats are as follows:
Age - 57
Gender - female
Height - 155cm
Weight - 52 kg
Body fat - 33%
Water - 49%
TEDEE - between 1528 - 1740
BMR - 1166
My exercise calories are on average - between 300 - 400 calories per day
My daily step count - 10,000 - 12,000

I am wanting to lose weight. My ideal weight would be between 48 - 49kg.

I'm confused about what my macro % should be, and should I be eating my exercise calories or not? That doesn't make sense to me if I want to lose weight.

And....how much calorie deficit should I have in order to lose weight?

Thanks so much friends, for helping out this newbie girl!

Ange

With only 3-4 kg to lose, select the lowest possible weekly weight loss goal here:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided



The MFP macros are a good place to start, especially since you are getting 300 - 400 calories per day and hopefully eating those calories back. Adding exercise calories will boost your protein grams, which should bring you into alignment with the recommendation from examine. (Many protein recommendations these days are crazy high.)

https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/

Macros only help people lose weight indirectly. If people eat a macro balance they find filling, they are more likely to comply with a calorie amount that creates a deficit.