Hello

Head smack. 🤦🏻‍♀️ Fitbit says you burn that many?

Need a Fitbit user to let us know if that’s TDEE or if it’s over-recording exercise calories?

Guys?

bonnielassies wrote: »

My TDEE is 14000 if I say I do light exercise, though maybe walking 100,000 steps a week and hula hooping for 3 hours a week counts as moderate?

I'll just keep doing what I am doing and re-assess when I get closer to 8 stones I think - thanks for your help!

I'm confused.

For most people, the very best estimate of TDEE is the all-day calorie number from a well-designed device like a Fitbit. You're saying that's 2000?

As an aside, 2000 seems plausible to me, too: I eat at or a small bit over that to maintain (5'5", mid-120s pounds - around 9 stone this morning, and age 66). If you're 8 stone 3.6 (115.6 pounds) and concerned about it, I'm assuming that means you're quite petite in height? For someone of average height, i.e., closer to my height, that would be borderline underweight - that's why I'm thinking you're quite petite.

Still, 2000 isn't impossible.

In the post I quoted, you say TDEE is 1400 (I assume you meant 1400, and that 14000 was a typo?). Is that your MFP goal calories? With a target loss of the 1.5 pounds a week? Or with a target of maintenance? Or did you get it from someplace else?

If you're using MFP to get an estimate, you wouldn't use your exercise to set your activity level. MFP intends you to set activity level based on your life before exercise (job, home chores, stuff like that), then log exercise separately when it happens and eat those calories, too. If someone has a device that will synch with MFP, such as a Fitbit, I'd encourage them to start by synching the device, and believing the calorie goal that that device and MFP collaborate to calculate. They will be trying to keep you at the weight loss rate you've requested (unless it would put you below 1200, perceived as a minimum for good nutrition).

A device does have limitations: Basically, it assumes you're a pretty average person. Consequently, they tend to be reasonably close, for close to average people. The only way to know if you're non-average is to follow the recommendation for one or more full menstrual cycles (to compare bodyweights at the same relative point in at least two different cycles), then compare weight change to weight change goal. If you're on target, the implication is that you're average or close (as most people are, by definition).

If you're not so average, you could burn more or fewer calories than the device & MFP estimate: When they're not accurate for a specific person, they can be inaccurate in either direction, i.e., it's not that everyone for whom they're inaccurate will find that they burn fewer calories than the average person like them: They may burn more. (I do.)

As an aside, I agree with Spring that 1.5 pounds is more aggressive than is ideal, at your weight, with so little to lose. I get that you're really determined, and you're certain you can achieve it - that's great.

But too-fast loss increases health risks, and can compromise appearance (hair thinning, for one). Further, if a person wants to maintain a loss long term, stay at a good weight for them permanently, then losing more slowly makes it more likely that one will figure out good, sustainable habits that will help that happen. Treating weight loss as an urgent project with an end date, after which things go back to normal, is a recipe for yo-yo losses and gains over the long haul - that's probably the least healthy approach, potentially worse health-wise than staying mildly overweight.

Yeah, we're mother-henning you a bit here, I admit. But truly, it's out of sincere concern. Also, both of us have lost material amounts of weight, and have been keeping that weight off long term, so this is not just maternal "do as I say, not as I do" advice.

Wishing you success in your goals, sincerely!