help me understand "calorie goal"...
kolenovicarianna
Posts: 7 Member
Ok, I did lose the wanted weight and now I want to maintain it. I'm pretty active, I really walk a lot, usually I do at least 20 km daily (over 30000 steps)... I also do exercise sometimes. I track "exercise" (movement) with my Samsung galaxy watch (connected with Samsung health). Ok my daily calorie goal should be 1610 cals. I usually do eat a little more, I track every single thing... Should I also consider my "exercise/activity" calories...? I attached my weekly report (any comments?) and from today - I don't understand why I have so many calories remaining, does this mean I could eat more or...? I really don't want to gain weight, that is kinda one of my biggest fears.
0
Replies
-
In theory, you can eat back all of the synched exercise calories and maintain, assuming that all of the estimates (Samsung's especially) are correct, and you have the negative calorie adjustment turned on in MFP.
But it would've been good to figure out during weight loss whether your device is accurate for you or not. Basically, it's spitting out an estimate that ought to work OK for the statistically average person who has your demographic characteristics, and who moves about as much as you do (as the tracker sees movement). Are you statistically average, or close? Probably, but we have no way to know.
You might want to take a look at this thread, see if you can glean something useful from it:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10638211/how-to-find-your-maintenance-calorie-level/p1
Beyond that, I don't really know what to suggest, based on the limited info in your OP here.4 -
@kolenovicarianna
Fear of gaining back your hard-fought-for-loss is a valid fear.
I was about to reply to your question, but then I read @AnnPT77's link and found she put everything there and more than I would have written. It is good advice.3 -
Well I do think my Samsung watch is accurate. Otherwise like I already wrote I'm really active person, on my feet almost all day long and I also do at least 4 hours only brisk walk daily. I almost never go under 20 km daily.0
-
Thank you both for your answers0
-
kolenovicarianna wrote: »Well I do think my Samsung watch is accurate. Otherwise like I already wrote I'm really active person, on my feet almost all day long and I also do at least 4 hours only brisk walk daily. I almost never go under 20 km daily.
If you believe it's accurate, eat all of the calories for 4-6 weeks, and get confirmation of that. That includes all of the activity calories.
If you have an unusually active day, and get more calories than you feel like eating right then, it's OK to eat them on another day. (We call that "calorie banking"). If you're averaging out around the goal calories over a few days or a week, it's fine if you're somewhat under some days, over on others. MFP may reset at midnight, but bodies don't.3 -
That is exactly what I would do as well. As long as you are tracking carefully and precisely, you should be able to obtain a really good quantification of your energy use. Once you have that, the whole process remains the same, but with a lot less stress and uncertainty, so it is definitely a Good Thing.kolenovicarianna wrote: »Well I do think my Samsung watch is accurate. Otherwise like I already wrote I'm really active person, on my feet almost all day long and I also do at least 4 hours only brisk walk daily. I almost never go under 20 km daily.
If you believe it's accurate, eat all of the calories for 4-6 weeks, and get confirmation of that. That includes all of the activity calories.
If you have an unusually active day, and get more calories than you feel like eating right then, it's OK to eat them on another day. (We call that "calorie banking"). If you're averaging out around the goal calories over a few days or a week, it's fine if you're somewhat under some days, over on others. MFP may reset at midnight, but bodies don't.
1 -
You have to consider your activity/exercise calories...they aren't some special magical kind of different calorie, they're part of your total daily energy (calorie) requirements just like your BMR and daily humdrum. In your screen shot, if your exercise amount is correct, you're netting 525 calories after exercise. This would be the same thing as not exercising and just eating 525 calories which is extremely low and basically at starvation levels and certainly nowhere close to your daily needs for weight maintenance.2
-
That is of course assuming that weight maintenance and not weight loss is desired. I would also add this nuance: whether you ingest less energy by eating less or expend more energy by exercising more is, as far as weight management is concerned, indeed irrelevant as long as the numbers are the same. However, from a health standpoint, there is something to be said for maintaining or –in rare cases– increasing energy intake while increasing exercise. But strictly speaking, your message is absolutely correct.cwolfman13 wrote: »You have to consider your activity/exercise calories...they aren't some special magical kind of different calorie, they're part of your total daily energy (calorie) requirements just like your BMR and daily humdrum. In your screen shot, if your exercise amount is correct, you're netting 525 calories after exercise. This would be the same thing as not exercising and just eating 525 calories which is extremely low and basically at starvation levels and certainly nowhere close to your daily needs for weight maintenance.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
That is of course assuming that weight maintenance and not weight loss is desired. I would also add this nuance: whether you ingest less energy by eating less or expend more energy by exercising more is, as far as weight management is concerned, indeed irrelevant as long as the numbers are the same. However, from a health standpoint, there is something to be said for maintaining or –in rare cases– increasing energy intake while increasing exercise. But strictly speaking, your message is absolutely correct.cwolfman13 wrote: »You have to consider your activity/exercise calories...they aren't some special magical kind of different calorie, they're part of your total daily energy (calorie) requirements just like your BMR and daily humdrum. In your screen shot, if your exercise amount is correct, you're netting 525 calories after exercise. This be the same thing as not exercising and just eating 525 calories which is extremely low and basically at starvation levels and certainly nowhere close to your daily needs for weight maintenance.
OP specifically said "I did lose the wanted weight and now I want to maintain it", plus this post is in the "Maintaining Weight" part of the MFP Community. No assumptions involved.
It's possible that the tracker is off by 1000+ calories, but not extremely probable. Eating 1000+ calories less than estimated maintenance calories is not going to accomplish OP's goal, even without reference to the health impacts of undereating. What Wolfman said is literally true.4 -
I stand corrected. I should have verified the post one more time. Thank you for correcting that. And yes, I see it now. That'll teach me for not double checking.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
That is of course assuming that weight maintenance and not weight loss is desired. I would also add this nuance: whether you ingest less energy by eating less or expend more energy by exercising more is, as far as weight management is concerned, indeed irrelevant as long as the numbers are the same. However, from a health standpoint, there is something to be said for maintaining or –in rare cases– increasing energy intake while increasing exercise. But strictly speaking, your message is absolutely correct.cwolfman13 wrote: »You have to consider your activity/exercise calories...they aren't some special magical kind of different calorie, they're part of your total daily energy (calorie) requirements just like your BMR and daily humdrum. In your screen shot, if your exercise amount is correct, you're netting 525 calories after exercise. This be the same thing as not exercising and just eating 525 calories which is extremely low and basically at starvation levels and certainly nowhere close to your daily needs for weight maintenance.
OP specifically said "I did lose the wanted weight and now I want to maintain it", plus this post is in the "Maintaining Weight" part of the MFP Community. No assumptions involved.
It's possible that the tracker is off by 1000+ calories, but not extremely probable. Eating 1000+ calories less than estimated maintenance calories is not going to accomplish OP's goal, even without reference to the health impacts of undereating. What Wolfman said is literally true.
As for "not extremely probable", I would say it depends. Food-wise, it seems almost a given that you are correct. Exercise-wise, I'd be a lot more hesitant. I have myself never seen an exercise tracker that was even remotely correct. It doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means I have never seen one. So far, I have always had to learn the hard way to simply ignore them. That said, my case is, sadly, somewhat abnormal. While current North American standards say my weight is normal, a BMI of 23, and Asians concur, even if only by a hair, it is obvious to even the most casual of observers that I am grossly overweight. While there is no causal relationship I can think of, it may well mean that my energy consumption is lower than many even at equal activity levels. That does not mean, of course, I cannot lose weight. I most definitely can, and have. It's just taking a bit longer and I have to be a lot stricter, nothing else.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I stand corrected. I should have verified the post one more time. Thank you for correcting that. And yes, I see it now. That'll teach me for not double checking.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
That is of course assuming that weight maintenance and not weight loss is desired. I would also add this nuance: whether you ingest less energy by eating less or expend more energy by exercising more is, as far as weight management is concerned, indeed irrelevant as long as the numbers are the same. However, from a health standpoint, there is something to be said for maintaining or –in rare cases– increasing energy intake while increasing exercise. But strictly speaking, your message is absolutely correct.cwolfman13 wrote: »You have to consider your activity/exercise calories...they aren't some special magical kind of different calorie, they're part of your total daily energy (calorie) requirements just like your BMR and daily humdrum. In your screen shot, if your exercise amount is correct, you're netting 525 calories after exercise. This be the same thing as not exercising and just eating 525 calories which is extremely low and basically at starvation levels and certainly nowhere close to your daily needs for weight maintenance.
OP specifically said "I did lose the wanted weight and now I want to maintain it", plus this post is in the "Maintaining Weight" part of the MFP Community. No assumptions involved.
It's possible that the tracker is off by 1000+ calories, but not extremely probable. Eating 1000+ calories less than estimated maintenance calories is not going to accomplish OP's goal, even without reference to the health impacts of undereating. What Wolfman said is literally true.
As for "not extremely probable", I would say it depends. Food-wise, it seems almost a given that you are correct. Exercise-wise, I'd be a lot more hesitant. I have myself never seen an exercise tracker that was even remotely correct. It doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means I have never seen one. So far, I have always had to learn the hard way to simply ignore them. That said, my case is, sadly, somewhat abnormal. While current North American standards say my weight is normal, a BMI of 23, and Asians concur, even if only by a hair, it is obvious to even the most casual of observers that I am grossly overweight. While there is no causal relationship I can think of, it may well mean that my energy consumption is lower than many even at equal activity levels. That does not mean, of course, I cannot lose weight. I most definitely can, and have. It's just taking a bit longer and I have to be a lot stricter, nothing else.
I'm not arguing that activity trackers are perfectly accurate: Far from it. All I'm saying is that 1000+ calories is an unlikely-big number for it to be entirely off. Not impossible. Just unlikely.
If that's the result of synching a tracker to MFP, it's not just exercise; it's the total reconciliation between MFP's activity estimate and the tracker's activity estimate (daily life activity as well as exercise). 1323 calories worth of intentional exercise would be unusual, though not absolutely impossible. 1323 calories of discrepancy between the MFP estimate and the tracker's is a bit more plausible, if MFP activity level is lowballed.
If I walked 20k, that alone would be reasonably estimated at 800-some calories (net of BMR). IF OP's set at sedentary/not very active in MFP (a thing we don't know), an adjustment that big is plausible, at least. Not guaranteed accurate of course.
FWIW, my activity tracker materially underestimates my all-day calorie expenditure (by hundreds of calories), as compared with 7+ years of calorie-counting experience, so I'm well aware that trackers are doing statistical estimates, but not all individuals are close to average. Most people are likely to be close to average, because that's kind of the nature of statistical estimates, especially those with relatively small standard deviations. I don't know the guts of the Samsung algorithms, but most use BMR/RMR estimates as a significant part of the basis, and the standard deviation for those isn't huge. Yeah, there are outliers . . . but outliers are uncommon by definition.
Quite a few people here on MFP have said, over my time reading posts here, that their tracker was close enough to be useful, for them. I don't have a reason to disbelieve them. Some have found the same brand/model of tracker I use to be usefully close for them, even though I don't (to say the least!).
Overall, I'd still argue that the best starting point for OP's experiment is the tracker estimate: Based on statistical estimates, somewhat personalized based on movement estimates. She'll know in a month or so if it's correct. If she gains or loses over that time, she'll have an idea how far off it is for her, and it's unlikely to be a huge discrepancy.2 -
You didn't, and I wasn't trying to say you did. I think we agree on this one. It is not hard to find out what the real numbers are, it just takes some patience and the only real problem with that is that most of us happen not to have an abundance of it ^_^I'm not arguing that activity trackers are perfectly accurate: Far from it.
And yes, there are outliers, and outliers are exactly what it means: exceptions. Unfortunately, one is an exception or one is not. When one is an exception, that is only true in comparison with the rest of the universe under study. One is highly normal and not an outlier when compared to oneself (obviously). It is an undesirable (usually) and unpleasant (usually) situation, but reality is what the facts are.
In my own case, if the numbers were accurate, I'd probably already have melted down into oblivion by now. I have even had days with more calories burned by exercise than taken in with food. If that were true, I'd be losing weight faster than Angus Barbieri and I am most certainly not him.2 -
@kolenovicarianna
Did you keep records of how quickly you lost your weight? Can you go back and compare that rate with the rate you would have estimated based on how far under your calorie goal you were during that time? Accepted conversion is 3500 calories per pound. That would be a reasonable personalized estimate for how well your device estimates your energy expenditure.
Someone mentioned how you might have your profile set. I played around on Sailrabbit to see what combinations of age, height, weight, gender, and activity level would spit out a TDEE around 1610 calories. Seems like most likely you have your MFP profile set as slightly active or sedentary. I think that works best if you want to use a watch to estimate your daily energy expenditure. If you do have your profile set to more active, then MFP would assign you a higher goal, and if you add exercise on top of that, it would give erroneous goals that are higher than they should be.
I have a Garmin device, and I find if I use it to track my energy expenditure and I log my food accurately, I get a reasonable estimate of my actual gain/loss/maintenance. I seem to recall that Apple Watch users have reported less accuracy. I don't know about Samsung. My base calories in MFP are set about 150 higher than yours are set, and I don't walk as far as you do, and I have seen days when my goal was well over 2500. That wouldn't surprise me.
I definitely think it would be useful to look at some old data from your weight loss. Compare actual losses to what you would expect using the 3500 calories per pound formula. I'd also recommend going to Sailrabbit to see what your TDEE would be under different activity levels at your current weight and height. Also, from here forward, keep track of how your weight changes with respect to what you'd expect based on your calorie balance. You can make adjustments as necessary.
Please let us know what you figure out.0 -
That is precisely why I like using a spreadsheet. I can always go back and check something, including things I did not think about earlier, or lost sight of.Did you keep records of how quickly you lost your weight?
I also like to record my weight several times a day, usually just before mealtimes, because that's when I think of it. What that teaches me, is my "minimum weight of the day" and my "maximum weight of the day". In my case, the difference between the two is about 2 kg, but it can be as little as 1 kg and as much as 4 kg.
In addition, I weighed my clothes. That way, I don't have to undress to weigh myself and get comparable results. I merely subtract the appropriate weight. That makes it also easy to get independent verification: if I go somewhere where I will be weighed, I subtract the weight of what I am wearing and can easily see whether or not the results are plausible or if they should be double-checked.
0 -
I did not know Sailrabbit so I checked. Although it is more of a coincidence than anything else, the daily intake it suggests is 12 g higher than what I am actually using. That means it is astonishingly close. That said, I cannot tell it anything about exercise, because when I do that, it grossly overestimates my energy consumption. That is not much of a criticism, all energy estimaters I have tried, have the same issue. My conclusion is simply that I am a bit of an outlier which, while –by definition– unlikely, would be consistent with other facts that also confirm me as an outlier, most notably BMI, although I should add there that BMI ranges are not usually used to indicate ideal weight or lean weight, only to indicate normal weight, and that is significantly higher.Someone mentioned how you might have your profile set. I played around on Sailrabbit to see what combinations of age, height, weight, gender, and activity level would spit out a TDEE around 1610 calories. Seems like most likely you have your MFP profile set as slightly active or sedentary. I think that works best if you want to use a watch to estimate your daily energy expenditure. If you do have your profile set to more active, then MFP would assign you a higher goal, and if you add exercise on top of that, it would give erroneous goals that are higher than they should be.0 -
Was this your activity level during weight loss as well? How fast did you lose how much weight, and how many calories did you eat on average? that could give you an idea on your maintenance calories, including activity. I mean, lets be honest: if your tracker is correct and you burn some 1000 calories per day from walking and eat 1600 calories, then this comes down to being inactive and only eating 600 calories. You'd lose weight like crazy, burn out, get sick. Totally not recommended.1
-
Actually, my posts are banned when I get more precise, so in order to stay on MFP, I have learned not to be precise while trying to indicate that averages are just that, there are deviations in both directions.Was this your activity level during weight loss as well? How fast did you lose how much weight, and how many calories did you eat on average? that could give you an idea on your maintenance calories, including activity. I mean, lets be honest: if your tracker is correct and you burn some 1000 calories per day from walking and eat 1600 calories, then this comes down to being inactive and only eating 600 calories. You'd lose weight like crazy, burn out, get sick. Totally not recommended.
That said, I have never lost weight like crazy, not even in weeks(!) where my supposed energy used for exercise outstripped my energy intake. If calculators were correct, that would mean a weight loss of at least 200 g a day. Even on MFP, which actually overestimates my weight loss because of the way it operates, that is not the case.
An obvious (and very reasonable and plausible) explanation would be that I grossly underestimate what I consume. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The other (also very reasonable and plausible) explanation would be that I grossly overestimate my exercise. Unfortunately again, that is not the case. While trackers are almost by definition inaccurate, chronometers and clocks are quite precise. A four hour walk is not an overstimate of a 30 minute walk when you leave at 1413 and return at 1819 and have been on your feet walking all the time (I "invented" the timing here, but it is the type of thing I routinely do, i.e. almost every day, not today because it is raining and I hate that ^_^).
That said, honestly, it is all unimportant distraction. Reality does not change because measurement systems and estimates have flaws. I *am* losing weight. Slower than predicted, slower than desired, but since my energy intake is lower than my expenditure, I am losing, not maintaining and not gaining. It is impossible for me not to lose weight doing what I am doing. I was at 127 kg almost 10 years ago and entered a value of 68.2 kg this morning. According to a popular German "standard" that would mean I have 6.8 kg to go. My best guess right now is that this will be sometime in the first quarter of 2023. I have no "target weight". My target is my ideal weight, and I will only know that when I am there. Target weights are more about psychology than about physical reality, and they are a game I have learned not to play anymore years ago.
I should perhaps add that I am using a spreadsheet. I use MFP for fun, but it is not my go-to instrument. The reason for that is that spreadsheets are much more versatile than MFP could ever be. MFP is totally great for people who are not nerds and don't like numbers, but I am a nerd and I do like numbers ^_^.0 -
@BartBVanBockstaele
I am pretty sure that @yirara was asking the original poster (@kolenovicarianna) about rate of loss and deficits. @yirara asked some of the same things I did, and that would be a good place for the OP (and anyone with similar concerns) to start considering.3 -
I completely agree with you on this. We have to start somewhere, and the average is simply the best place to start when one has no clue yet.@BartBVanBockstaele
I am pretty sure that @yirara was asking the original poster (@kolenovicarianna) about rate of loss and deficits. @yirara asked some of the same things I did, and that would be a good place for the OP (and anyone with similar concerns) to start considering.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I did not know Sailrabbit so I checked. Although it is more of a coincidence than anything else, the daily intake it suggests is 12 g higher than what I am actually using. That means it is astonishingly close. That said, I cannot tell it anything about exercise, because when I do that, it grossly overestimates my energy consumption. That is not much of a criticism, all energy estimaters I have tried, have the same issue. My conclusion is simply that I am a bit of an outlier which, while –by definition– unlikely, would be consistent with other facts that also confirm me as an outlier, most notably BMI, although I should add there that BMI ranges are not usually used to indicate ideal weight or lean weight, only to indicate normal weight, and that is significantly higher.Someone mentioned how you might have your profile set. I played around on Sailrabbit to see what combinations of age, height, weight, gender, and activity level would spit out a TDEE around 1610 calories. Seems like most likely you have your MFP profile set as slightly active or sedentary. I think that works best if you want to use a watch to estimate your daily energy expenditure. If you do have your profile set to more active, then MFP would assign you a higher goal, and if you add exercise on top of that, it would give erroneous goals that are higher than they should be.
This is a semi-digression from OP's question, for which I apologize.
Just as a point of possible entertainment value, @BartBVanBockstaele, you might want to play with the part of Sailrabbit that uses formulas that adjust for body fat percent (BF%). That's assuming you have a rough estimate. IIRC from other threads, you've mentioned appearing as if you have a higher BF% than one might expect from your BMI. Here and elsewhere, you mention being an outlier with respect to calorie needs.
I've played with this concept - how BF% affects BMR/TDEE estimating algorithms - a bit, and it's interesting IMO.
https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
will give you a couple very simplistic BF% estimates, one of which is based on BMI. (Other so-called calculators are available that use more measurements and offer more estimates.) As a higher-calorie-needs semi-outlier, I think that for me some of the discrepancy between non-BF% BMR/TDEE estimates and reality is that my BF% is very likely lower than my BMI predicts for a woman my age/weight.
This is not some deep or profound idea, just sort of a fun toy. I think mentioning the concept is potentially interesting in context of OP's question - as one possible confounding issue with some standard BMR/TDEE estimating methods may be inaccurate for an individual - though it's not fully on-point. If you want to discuss it further, that should be on some other thread where it's more appropriate, I think.2 -
Thank you very much for the suggestion @AnnPT77 , I like the calculator you mentioned quite a bit and it is one I have been playing with a while ago. You are completely correct, by the way. I have higher than normal body fat. It is one of the reasons I am contemplating a scan (DXA/MRI) to estimate how far I can/should go. My current plan is to wait until I reach the "ideal weight" according to the old Broca index (which is the lowest one of the ideal weight formulas that have been proposed over the years) or the newer German standard of a BMI of 21. I forgot its exact name, but I think there is an American association of anesthesiologists that uses a BMI of 22. In my case, that is definitely an overestimate, given how obviously overweight I still am at slightly less than 23.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I did not know Sailrabbit so I checked. Although it is more of a coincidence than anything else, the daily intake it suggests is 12 g higher than what I am actually using. That means it is astonishingly close. That said, I cannot tell it anything about exercise, because when I do that, it grossly overestimates my energy consumption. That is not much of a criticism, all energy estimaters I have tried, have the same issue. My conclusion is simply that I am a bit of an outlier which, while –by definition– unlikely, would be consistent with other facts that also confirm me as an outlier, most notably BMI, although I should add there that BMI ranges are not usually used to indicate ideal weight or lean weight, only to indicate normal weight, and that is significantly higher.Someone mentioned how you might have your profile set. I played around on Sailrabbit to see what combinations of age, height, weight, gender, and activity level would spit out a TDEE around 1610 calories. Seems like most likely you have your MFP profile set as slightly active or sedentary. I think that works best if you want to use a watch to estimate your daily energy expenditure. If you do have your profile set to more active, then MFP would assign you a higher goal, and if you add exercise on top of that, it would give erroneous goals that are higher than they should be.
This is a semi-digression from OP's question, for which I apologize.
Just as a point of possible entertainment value, @BartBVanBockstaele, you might want to play with the part of Sailrabbit that uses formulas that adjust for body fat percent (BF%). That's assuming you have a rough estimate. IIRC from other threads, you've mentioned appearing as if you have a higher BF% than one might expect from your BMI. Here and elsewhere, you mention being an outlier with respect to calorie needs.
I've played with this concept - how BF% affects BMR/TDEE estimating algorithms - a bit, and it's interesting IMO.
https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
will give you a couple very simplistic BF% estimates, one of which is based on BMI. (Other so-called calculators are available that use more measurements and offer more estimates.) As a higher-calorie-needs semi-outlier, I think that for me some of the discrepancy between non-BF% BMR/TDEE estimates and reality is that my BF% is very likely lower than my BMI predicts for a woman my age/weight.
This is not some deep or profound idea, just sort of a fun toy. I think mentioning the concept is potentially interesting in context of OP's question - as one possible confounding issue with some standard BMR/TDEE estimating methods may be inaccurate for an individual - though it's not fully on-point. If you want to discuss it further, that should be on some other thread where it's more appropriate, I think.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions