Am I eating too little?

Again here, you're just getting my opinions. If others disagree, they'll probably either comment or click disagree, so keep an eye on that as a reality check.

evilwitch452 wrote: »

I am 5'5 and 29.

Just for context: I'm also female, 5'5", formerly class 1 obese (mid 180s or a bit above) and overweight for most of my adult life, now in year 6+ of maintenance mostly at mid-120s pounds, though up a couple of pounds post-holidays (128-point-something this morning), quite active, age 66. I eat 1850 plus all exercise calories (so low 2000s calories most days) to maintain, which is high for my demographic.

Don't read anything into that about what I think your goal weight should be, because my skeletal structure, body composition, and personal preferences may be very different from yours. Also, don't read anything into that about what I think your calorie goal should be, because that's dependent on your characteristics, not mine.

I'm just doing an honest self overview, so you'll have some idea what may've formed my opinions.

I wasn't having any issues until Thanksgiving and that's when I started having more cheat days and not being disciplined. I stopped losing weight normally since then, and assumed it was overeating. I got back on track being disciplined, but I realized I still have been struggling. That's when I became worried about undereating since I read if you don't eat enough you could stop losing weight.

Personally, I'd be inclined to think that "more cheat days" is a result of restricting calories too much, for too long, and getting some pushback from one's body. You might get some useful info from this thread:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

The idea that undereating stalls weight loss is mostly oversold, IMO. Yes, if we persistently underfuel, some bodily processes can slow down a bit (lower body temp, slower hair growth and maybe thinning, etc.).

Perhaps more significantly calorically, when persistently undereating, there can also be subtle fatigue that makes us move less (think less fidgeting, which can be up to low hundreds of calories daily at extremes; lowered exercise intensity; simplifying home chores and such, for example making simpler meals, putting off or slowing down home improvement projects, feeling reduced interest in non-exercise hobbies that involve movement, etc.).

Regardless, if we eat fewer calories than we burn, we'll still lose weight. It's just that because of factors like the above, that might be lower calories than we expect (or slower loss than we expect).

If eating too little literally stopped weight loss, no one would ever starve to death, and sadly very many people do so worldwide every day, and they aren't fat when that happens.

On top of that, long and extreme calorie reduction can cause creeping water weight gain (related to stress/cortisol), which may mask ongoing fat loss on the scale.

So: Eating too little can be counterproductive, because it can trigger binges/unplanned breaks; and because calorie balance is dynamic, i.e., eating too few calories reduces calorie expenditure basically through depleting energy.

There's likely to be a sweet spot, where energy and strength stay high, cravings are moderate to minor (manageable), but reasonably steady weight loss happens (averaged over weeks to a small number of months, not days).

That "0.5% to 1% per week" maximum is kind of a rule of thumb starting point for finding your own personal caloric sweet spot (which may change over time).

I usually measure everything that isn't pre packaged besides my lunch which we just divide into 5s for my work week. I used a different website that says I should eat around 1680 a day and i put in I exercise 4-5 days a week so I assumed it meant eat 1680 amd exercise.

Most web sites are "TDEE calculators", and average in exercise calories. Loosely, if you used a calculator that talks about activity levels partly/wholly in exercise terms, you'd be expected to eat the amount the calculator says, every day, and not add exercise on top. This can work well for people who prefer to have a set number of calories daily, every day; and whose exercise schedule is fairly consistent. In the world of TDEE calculators, I think this one is better than average, in that it has more and better activity level options than many of them do:

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

If eating back exercise, it's probably a better to let MFP estimate your calorie goal: Set up your profile here, set a reasonable weight loss rate goal, base your activity level on your life before intentional exercise, then log exercise when you do it (or synch a tracker, as you're doing).

Tracker synch can be a great thing - is a great thing, for most people. However, trackers aren't measuring calories, they're still just estimating them, albeit in a more nuanced, personalized way. A good brand/model will be pretty close for most people . . . because most people are close to average, by definition.

Regardless of how you get an estimate, it's a good plan to reality test it over the first 1-2 menstrual cycles (or 6-8 weeks for those who don't have cycles). If weight loss differs from sensible expectations, adjust accordingly, using that "500 calories per day is roughly a pound a week" idea, and doing math.

Personal results data is more reliable than calculator/tracker estimates, generically. If it confirms the calculator/tracker estimates, life is arithmetically easier going forward.

I use a recumbent bike to exercise because of back issues and it was recommended by my physical therapist. My galaxy watch 4 counts my calories and pulse since my bike pulse doesn't work. The bike is usually 100 less than my watch maybe since no pulse, but my watch automatically puts my exercise I'm MFP so I go by that amount.

I'd go with the synched calories from a reputable device, as a starting point, too.

Keep in mind that MFP and your tracker are intending to compare their estimates of your total calories burned for the day (by the end of the day), which can include more than actual intentional exercise. It can even (depending on settings in MFP) subtract calories if you do less than MFP expects from your activity level setting.

Do you have negative calories enabled in MFP? If not, and you frequently see zero adjustment calories, I'd suggest considering it.

Besides that, sometimes the displayed exercise calories on a tracker for an exercise session can include one's BMR calories and the calories one would've spent just doing normal life stuff during that time period. In other words, it's gross calorie burn for the time period, when you want to add to MFP is the net calories - additional calories burned on top of normal stuff. The tracker synch does that adjustment, though in kind of a convoluted way.

If you synch your tracker for all-day calories, I'd suggest not manually logging your exercise in MFP separately. Let the tracker and MFP work it out. (In some scenarios, there are ways to manually log a workout, and not be double counting exercise calories, but it's pretty easy to accidentally double count, IMO.)

I read bike calories were the most accurate of exercise calories, so I thought it was as good as I can get. I wish I could see a dietician, but I will have to wait since my insurance doesn't cover it.

Well, maybe. If the bike you use is properly calibrated, reliably measures watts, and uses that to estimate calories, it can be pretty accurate, especially for entirely-seated cycling. (It could still be telling you gross calories, depending on the details.) But there are bikes that aren't designed to be that precise, but will still give you a calorie estimate of some type.

But I am getting that I should be eating 1680 after exercise? So If I exercise 700 off , eat close to 2300?

What I'd suggest is that you kind of start fresh, arithmetically, since your data is a little muddy during recent times. (It would usually be better to use the recent couple of months, because they happened at closer to current weight.)

I'd recommend:

Decide whether you want to eat the same amount every day, or vary the amount eaten (eating more on exercise days), generally.

If you want the same eating goal every day, use a TDEE calculator to get an estimate, and keep both non-exercise activity and exercise activity in mind when you set it. The Sailrabbit one linked above is pretty good, as a publicly available one.

Maybe even better is this spreadsheet, from a fellow MFP person, heybales:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing

Or, if you want the variable eating goal depending on exercise, set up your MFP profile as accurately as you can, with a sensible loss rate requested, and base your activity level on pre-exercise life. Synch your tracker, eat back that adjustment.

Not to make things overly complicated, but in either scenario, you can vary from calorie goal somewhat daily, and look at weekly average, to include (who knows) higher eating on weekends or whatever, if it pleases you.

Follow a routine for the 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles), then check results against expectations, then adjust if necessary.

I hope that makes sense?