Understanding staying within your calorie goals, and under the calorie goals

TexasBlaze
TexasBlaze Posts: 9 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have been using this app 8 years and have had great success. In 8 years I have bounced from 185 to my goal of 132 ( I have now changed that number to 126)

60 yr old, female, 5’4

I am all of a sudden confused if the under weekly goal is a good or bad thing? My input is sedentary therefore mfp as always sets 1200 calories.

Replies

  • TexasBlaze
    TexasBlaze Posts: 9 Member
    I also want to add, that I realize as your weight drops, so do your calorie needs. So maybe a brain glitch…. But seeing a low weekly calorie deficit makes me think that may be why my weight loss has stalled. I also understand plateaus ( I have gone through many) But I was hoping someone could further explain the weekly under calories, versus staying within in your calorie limit.

    Thank You to anyone who can explain this. 😁
  • penguinmama87
    penguinmama87 Posts: 1,155 Member
    TexasBlaze wrote: »
    I have been using this app 8 years and have had great success. In 8 years I have bounced from 185 to my goal of 132 ( I have now changed that number to 126)

    60 yr old, female, 5’4

    I am all of a sudden confused if the under weekly goal is a good or bad thing? My input is sedentary therefore mfp as always sets 1200 calories.

    You probably want to be pretty close overall, under a little or over a little is fine - what you're looking for is to get close enough most of the time. 1200 is the minimum number the MFP setup formula will spit out for women. It might be fine for you if you are sedentary, but if you do additional exercise, you should eat at least some of those calories back. Or, with such a small amount to lose, you might be able to eat more with a slower rate of loss (say 0.5 lb/week instead of 1 or 2); that depends on your settings.

    The best thing to do, IMO, is to just stick with it for 4-6 weeks and then readjust as needed. Calculators are based on averages and most people are close to average, but after those 4-6 weeks you'll have your own data set. If the weight is coming off reasonably and you aren't absolutely miserable, then you're good.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,221 Member
    I like the fact that there is a weekly report. It shows how important weekly calories are. As far as being a bit under that is usually a good thing. You’ll never be exactly right where you need to be so a bit under is commendable. It depends on your goals though. I think most people in a fat loss mode would love to see they’re under.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Your calorie goal is your "goal"...it's already the cut from your maintenance calories. That's why you put all of that info and stats into your profile and set a weight management goal...so the calculator can calculate. At 5'4" and 132 you are at a perfectly acceptable weight and at a healthy weight and it's going to be far harder to lose weight because you don't have the fat stores available that you would have when overweight when losing weight is easier. It's way harder to get leaner when you're already lean...and it also isn't often the best look. My wife did similar at your same stats in her early 40s and started to look sickly.
  • TexasBlaze
    TexasBlaze Posts: 9 Member
    I am not trying for the sickly look 😀 I have gotten back into the treadmill and although I am within the healthy weight range, I could stand to drop the last 5 or 6 Lbs.

    I think what confused me was reading some others post discussing calorie deficits and mentioning 7k calorie deficits. Then I wondered if they we’re talking about weekly or daily.

    My weekly usually ranges from 2k to only a couple hundred below. It always levels out as the week progresses. I tend to eat lighter during the week to save for extra on the weekends while spending time out with family.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    edited March 2023
    3500 calories is generally accepted as one pound of loss. A two pound loss per week would translate to a weekly 7000 calorie deficit (1000 per day,) so yes. You are reading about a weekly deficit. (7 X 1000 per day.)

    With 6 pounds to lose, a WEEKLY 1000-2000 deficit would be your best bet.
  • TexasBlaze
    TexasBlaze Posts: 9 Member
    Thank You All for the replies. I have a clearer understanding about the weekly goals now, and I feel better about being under. I am not trying to cut ridiculous amounts of calories to hit a number on the scale. I think I will try to keep it between the 1-2k range under weekly goal.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    TexasBlaze wrote: »
    Thank You All for the replies. I have a clearer understanding about the weekly goals now, and I feel better about being under. I am not trying to cut ridiculous amounts of calories to hit a number on the scale. I think I will try to keep it between the 1-2k range under weekly goal.

    Like the poster above me said, your weekly goal already includes the deficit. So you want to be very close to the goal, and in no way aim for 1-2k under weekly goal.
  • TexasBlaze
    TexasBlaze Posts: 9 Member
    That is what I had originally understood. But then I became confused about wether or not being under weekly goals were a good or bad idea. I will stick with my 1200 calorie goals, as I am still losing weight albeit very slowly 😉😁
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,743 Member
    As a somewhat short older sedentary female, your maintenance calories are probably only about 1300-1400, if you fit the averages. That means you have to be very careful to measure and weigh everything you eat since small errors can easily put you over your goal. Your weight loss is also likely to be really slow.

    I am 5'6" and MFP told me at 60 that my maintenance calories were 1400. In order to lose weight without sacrificing good nutrition, the program has a minimum calorie goal of 1200. When I was losing weight, if I put in 1 lb. a week, I was told to eat 1200, if I put in .5 a week, I was told to eat 1200. That meant I had a choice of exercising so that I could afford to eat enough to satisfy my nutritional needs and my hunger and desire to not be too restricted in my foods or being very strict in what I ate so I lost weight and didn't regain it afterwards. I'm not good at being strict. I prefer to be active so I can eat more. It turns out, I am not an average calorie burner and I maintain at more than 1400 calories a day (more like 1600-1800). I also exercise about 1.5-2 hours a day which may be why my metabolism is more active.
  • StaciInGa
    StaciInGa Posts: 60 Member
    edited March 2023
    Understanding how & why your body uses a certain amount of energy per day is useful, in my opinion. It helps you to know/relate to the goas that MFP gives you, what they mean and such.

    Your body uses energy from 3 sources. (This is my interpretation, by the way.)

    The first is BMR or Basal Metabolic Rate. This is estimated based on established formulas and is based on age, gender, height and weight. THis is the energy your body uses for bodily functions, to keep you alive. Things like maintaining body temperature, breathing, digesting food, brain functions, circulating blood & heart beating. Essentially you are using energy without any intentional movement at all, just because you are alive.

    Then there is your daily activity. You use energy to move thru your day, literally. If you are sitting alot you would use less energy than if you're on your feet alot. This depends on your job, hobbies, habits and such.

    Last there is exercise, with intentional movement of multiple major muscle groups for an extended period of time.

    MFP calculates the BMR when you enter your stats, an the activity when you state your activity rate. Let's say your BMR is 1300 and you're not active at all, and MFP estimates you would burn a total of 1560 in a day. Note this is WITHOUT exercise. You say you want to lose .5 pounds per week, which requires a deficit of 250 daily. MFP does the math, 1560-250, and tells you to eat 1310 daily. If 1310 is your goal and each day you log 1260, at the end of the week you'd be 350 calories (50 x 7) under your calorie target. You do not want to be significantly under your calorie target daily. Your deficit does not show in the weekly over/under because it is already part of your calorie goal.


    If you do exercise you can log that, and decide to eat some of the extra calories because you are burning more. Keep in mind if you are walking idly for 15 minutes a day, you probably don't 'need' more for it. On the other hand if you walk a half marathon you'd perhaps burn an extra 800-1000 calories and probably would want to eat at least some of those.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,242 Member
    edited March 2023
    Where you are in your weight loss (fat available to lose) matters.

    With less then 10lbs to lose a half lb a week would be a good result. A lb would probably still be ok for most.

    This puts the total weekly deficit at between 1750 and 3500 Calories

    When MFP assigns you to 1200, a deficit is already included.

    This included deficit is part of the 1750 to 3500 I mentioned. And no additional deficit would be needed to achieve targets.

    There is a complication because 1200 is a floor on MFP to ensure health. And usually an indication that things have to go slow for your because of your (in)ability to torch enough calories to go faster given your physical make up

    Think about it. You're a 5ft 6" 220lb guy in your 30s heading out for a run to the gym. You're my 85 year old 220lb father who has trouble walking across the street. Regardless of who needs more to lose some weight.... the 30s guy can easily hit 4000 Cal burns and a 1000 Cal deficit a day for a 2lb loss a week using a within reason 25% deficit. My dad has a daily burn of less than 1900 Calories. Where would a 1000 Calories deficit leave him? In unrealistic land.

    So. A few calories above or below target is probably ok for most. A lot would indicate to me a goals adjustment issue. And expected results have to be cross referenced with reality!🤷‍♂️

Categories