In a deficit but…
ajacksphotos
Posts: 3 Member
I’m so confused. I have recently started tracking calories (and macros) and used a standard tool to calculate my caloric deficit for weight loss. I’m hitting most of my macros almost perfectly, and came in 200 calories UNDER my allowance today, but when I closed my diary for today, MFP said if I continue like today it will take me 5 weeks to lose ONE POUND. 😭 Is this right?!?
1
Replies
-
MFP is not a giant prescient artificial intelligence that has knowledge of what you're actually doing.
It just spits out numbers according to population averages and the information you enter.
You probably told it that you are not very active/ sedentary which establishes according to some broad parameters what it expects you to be burning every day.
If I understood correctly what you said you then used a different tool to decide how much you were going to eat. Not sure if that was to eat to maintain weight or to eat in order to lose at a certain rate
And then you logged an amount slightly below that.
Which based on what you're saying was 100 calories below what MFP believes is your maintenance level based on the activity level you told it you were engaging in. Because 35 days times 100 equals 1 lb
Not sure how many cooks are in this kitchen but I would pick one method of doing things at least in the beginning
Then I would Log inputs and outputs as accurately as I could for a good three to five weeks.
And then I would compare my personal weight trend results to the expectations from my logging and use my own results to come up with further decisions.
Too slow of weight loss may be discouraging. Too fast is not necessarily always great. Goldilocks endures for a reason! 😉9 -
I think we need more information here. How much calories does MFP give you? And what are your current stats and weightloss goal? Something clearly is very off here so please help us to help you.
2 -
I agree with PAV in the first post.
Also I would add that the little "In five weeks" thing is a gimmick. It has no idea how accurate the numbers you are using are for your situation.
You don't have to click "Complete this entry" (or whatever it says) - it doesn't affect anything important. I haven't closed the day since 2009.
5 -
My goal is to eat in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
To calculate my daily calorie allowance I have used the formula of current body weight multiplied by 15 and then subtract 500. I’ve also used another calculator that was recommended which is goal body weight times 12 (the first formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,350 calories. The second formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,040 calories.)
I went with the second one…so I have that my daily allowance is 2,040 calories…yesterday I was 200 under that and I have MFP connect to my Apple health so that it can track my activity levels (I go to the gym 3-4 times per week for cardio and strength, and I walk 2-3 miles a couple of times a week)
I am currently 5’5 and weigh 190 lbs. My first goal is 170 lbs2 -
So - stick with that plan (which sounds reasonable if you keep up your activity.)
Learn to log food as accurately as you can by using a food scale and checking the database foods you use to be sure they're correct.
Log food for a month to six weeks using your chosen calories.
Not UNDER them, stick as close as you can to them.
In six weeks, adjust if your weight loss is not keeping track with your Goal. It's an experiment we all have to run, no one can do it for you nor can we choose your daily calories.2 -
ajacksphotos wrote: »My goal is to eat in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
To calculate my daily calorie allowance I have used the formula of current body weight multiplied by 15 and then subtract 500. I’ve also used another calculator that was recommended which is goal body weight times 12 (the first formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,350 calories. The second formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,040 calories.)
I went with the second one…so I have that my daily allowance is 2,040 calories…yesterday I was 200 under that and I have MFP connect to my Apple health so that it can track my activity levels (I go to the gym 3-4 times per week for cardio and strength, and I walk 2-3 miles a couple of times a week)
I am currently 5’5 and weigh 190 lbs. My first goal is 170 lbs
Neither of these formulas take into account how active you are, your height, your age, your sex, your desired rate of loss; they're both very 'basic' in that way. Is there a reason why you're not using MFP's goal set-up, which does take into account those elements? 2000 calories is fairly high for someone your weight and height, unless you're quite active and young (and/or have a fast metabolism). I lost weight at 208lbs starting weight eating 1700 calories +exercise calories. And that was for a fairly slow loss.
1700 calories was the goal MFP gave me for the slowest rate of loss, at activity level 'sedentary', so I see why MFP would project a slow rate of loss at your current intake.3 -
That’s strange….I’m 11 stone 10…and mine yesterday said if I carry on eating like today..I’ll be 10 stone 5 in 5 weeks..
I had a bad day though yesterday and was a bit naughty and didn’t eat much because I have a rotten cold and all my food tastes really bland so I’m finding it hard to eat…plus I have calories left over too..I think about 300 yesterday… xx
0 -
ajacksphotos wrote: »I’m so confused. I have recently started tracking calories (and macros) and used a standard tool to calculate my caloric deficit for weight loss. I’m hitting most of my macros almost perfectly, and came in 200 calories UNDER my allowance today, but when I closed my diary for today, MFP said if I continue like today it will take me 5 weeks to lose ONE POUND. 😭 Is this right?!?ajacksphotos wrote: »My goal is to eat in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
To calculate my daily calorie allowance I have used the formula of current body weight multiplied by 15 and then subtract 500. I’ve also used another calculator that was recommended which is goal body weight times 12 (the first formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,350 calories. The second formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,040 calories.)
I went with the second one…so I have that my daily allowance is 2,040 calories…yesterday I was 200 under that and I have MFP connect to my Apple health so that it can track my activity levels (I go to the gym 3-4 times per week for cardio and strength, and I walk 2-3 miles a couple of times a week)
I am currently 5’5 and weigh 190 lbs. My first goal is 170 lbs
There is a conflict between MFP and the other calculator. I agree with the other posters who say to pick one. I am biased towards MFP.2 -
All of these calculators are just a starting point and not meant to be the last word in what will ultimately work, also your counting and tracking of calories will be off so that’s a whole other factor.
As far as where to start, the best approach if your weight has been fairly stable for a month or 2 is to spend a week and eat how you normally do and use that as your current maintenance calories and deduct from there for your deficit. In the long run this will be more accurate than throwing darts at the calorie calculator target board.2 -
There's a lot to unpack from the OP and subsequent post.
1. You don't know you're in a deficit unless you're consistently losing weight.
2. Many users have complained about MFP's 5-week predictions after closing their diary. Simple solution: never close your diary. I never have.
3. A much better BMR/TDEE calculator than "bodyweight * 12" or whatever is here.
https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
4. All TDEE calculators are estimates. As you can see in the link above they (and MFP) take your input estimating how active you are and put you in one of a handful of buckets where each bucket is a different multiplier of your BMR, which is also an estimate. If you are actually more or less active than the input you give, that can produce a difference of 20% calories easily.
As others said, log your progress after a month, but I would add the caveat of ignoring your first week, since the water weight loss will skew the results. If you've lost X pounds in weeks 2-5 say, that gives you a good idea what your current deficit is. To know your TDEE, you'll have to log everything you ingest as carefully as you can, and provide reasonable exercise calorie burning estimates too.
To start, go through the Goals process in MFP and enter your appropriate daily activity estimate (not incl workouts) and desired weekly rate of loss. The number it gives you (if you choose maintenance goal) should be a bit lower than the link above, which includes your planned workout schedule. As you add workout calories to MFP, your calorie allowance goes up.2 -
The little blurb that you are referring to is probably not accurate. Even estimates of caloric needs/deficit, etc. are all just estimates and this little function is using multiple numbers that are estimates to calculate this....basically an estimate of estimates. It's not accurate or reliable at all. So it's really not useful at all. I don't even 'finish' my diary, there's no need to. The only thing that matters is that you start with a calorie goal and then make adjustments as you go as you gather data regarding your weight --- are you losing? Then you are in a deficit. Are you staying the same or gaining...then you aren't.1
-
ajacksphotos wrote: »My goal is to eat in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
To calculate my daily calorie allowance I have used the formula of current body weight multiplied by 15 and then subtract 500. I’ve also used another calculator that was recommended which is goal body weight times 12 (the first formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,350 calories. The second formula gives me a daily allowance of 2,040 calories.)
I went with the second one…so I have that my daily allowance is 2,040 calories…yesterday I was 200 under that and I have MFP connect to my Apple health so that it can track my activity levels (I go to the gym 3-4 times per week for cardio and strength, and I walk 2-3 miles a couple of times a week)
I am currently 5’5 and weigh 190 lbs. My first goal is 170 lbs
Neither of these formulas take into account how active you are, your height, your age, your sex, your desired rate of loss; they're both very 'basic' in that way. Is there a reason why you're not using MFP's goal set-up, which does take into account those elements? 2000 calories is fairly high for someone your weight and height, unless you're quite active and young (and/or have a fast metabolism). I lost weight at 208lbs starting weight eating 1700 calories +exercise calories. And that was for a fairly slow loss.
1700 calories was the goal MFP gave me for the slowest rate of loss, at activity level 'sedentary', so I see why MFP would project a slow rate of loss at your current intake.
I had already calculated my calorie intake before I started using MFP. So that’s what I put in…but just for reference I did go ahead and reset it to what MFP ‘s default would be for me and it was in the high 1900’s so apparently it doesn’t think 2,000 a day is that far off for someone my size. The tool I used originally was one that was recommended by a trainer I follow online (like I said, I used his formula before I signed up for MFP…not long before but when I decided to try and lose a little weight I started with this fitness guy’s advice for figuring out my calorie deficit and then once I did that I went searching for some type of app/tracker and that’s when I downloaded MFP).
1 -
Well, whatever tool you're using, whether it's MFP or another calculator, they're all just calculations based on statistical averages.
They're a starting point, but the key is in monitoring your real life results, because we all have different metabolisms, we may not have selected the right activity level in the calculator, etc.
So:
- follow your weight trend for one or two months (or, if applicable, menstrual cycles)
- add up the total number of calories consumed during that period
- if you lost weight during that period: for each lb lost, add 3500 calories to that total
- and then divide by the total number of days in the period you tracked
Hey presto, that's your average daily TDEE: subtract 250kcal per day for a weight loss rate of 0.5lbs per week, or subtract 500kcal per day for a weight loss rate of 1lb per week,...1 -
Like the others said , MFP's 5-week predictions are often off the mark.
I'm in the opposite situation, it usually predicts a loss of almost 4kg/5kg (8lbs/11lbs) in 5 weeks, and guess what, that never happens either. It doesn't take into account my extra-slow metabolism. Well, II've only got a few kilos to lose, so it goes more slowly, obviously.
As a result, I get the "what am I doing so wrong that it can't work as predicted" effect, which just brings negativity.
So the better is not to close your diary and ignore its predictions.
Just compare your weight in 5 weeks and adjust if necessary. If you see that the loss isn't significant enough, it's because you're consuming too many calories.
As a comparison, for what it's worth, when I started my diet I was at around 1700 kcal and losing at a decent rate, nothing crazy (we're practically the same height and weight when I was at my heaviest).
Today my maintenance is 1700/1800. But if I listen to those online calculators, they often give me 2000 or even 2300. Simply because most of them don't make the distinction between your physical activity and your daily activity. I have an extremely sedentary job, but I compensate with a lot of physical activity, but I never know where I stand according to their very simplistic list, and so the results are not accurate at all.2 -
Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
This info is from a James Smith book.0 -
craigneal42 wrote: »Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
This info is from a James Smith book.
WHUT!?! Ok, you're quite new here, but whoever came up with this is certainly peddling bro science. Why would so much protein be necessary? For my size, that would be a massive, totally unnecessary amount, and just as an example very difficult to achieve as a vegan.
On that note: a calorie is a calorie. If you've read this thread you might have realized. Macros are for general satiety and being happy, provided enough protein and fats are included (no, not that much).3 -
craigneal42 wrote: »Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
This info is from a James Smith book.
I think you're mistaken, what's generally recommended is between 1.5g and 2.5g of protein per kilo of body weight, not per centimetre, and it's when you want to build muscle. So even less for someone who doesn't have that kind of goal, I think it's around 0.8g. A calorie is a calorie. But some foods will satiate you better than others and are better for the body too.
Edit : I forgot to mention that these recommendations are for people who are already at or close to a healthy weight, obviously, not for overweight or obese people (this would result in unnecessarily high protein quantity per day).
0 -
I have seen the "protein per cm" before, but as noted, it tends to run high for nearly all scenarios.
The problem with "X grams per pound" is it doesn't account for obesity. Hence the ranges people tend to post, like in the post above mine, or 0.7g-1g per pound is also commonly used, so if you're obese use the lower amount per pound, or if you're lean use the higher amount per pound. The "per cm" method is simpler, though as I said, quite flawed by itself.
Those estimates are for people doing resistance training and seeking to add muscle, or if in a deficit to at least maintain muscle. People not lifting do not need that much.0 -
craigneal42 wrote: »Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
This info is from a James Smith book.
Wait.
What?
I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".
It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/0 -
Ugh, what?cmriverside wrote: »What?
I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".
It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/
I just tried that calculator. That's the worst calculator I've ever seen. I'm maybe 10-15 pounds from a level I'd be happy to maintain at. If I enter a goal of fat loss it tells me to have 2.9g per pound, which is INSANE. If I choose maintenance it tells me 1.6g per pound, which is RIDICULOUS. And if I choose muscle gain it gives 2.2g per pound, which is not only ABSURD, it's far less than if I choose a fat loss goal!!
Total garbage.
Btw, just going with the 1g per cm presented earlier, that would give you 172g.0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »
Ugh, what?cmriverside wrote: »What?
I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".
It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/
I just tried that calculator. That's the worst calculator I've ever seen. I'm maybe 10-15 pounds from a level I'd be happy to maintain at. If I enter a goal of fat loss it tells me to have 2.9g per pound, which is INSANE. If I choose maintenance it tells me 1.6g per pound, which is RIDICULOUS. And if I choose muscle gain it gives 2.2g per pound, which is not only ABSURD, it's far less than if I choose a fat loss goal!!
Total garbage.
Btw, just going with the 1g per cm presented earlier, that would give you 172g.
It was reasonable for me....don't know what you're doing (?)
Regardless, it is James Smith, which is who the guy I quoted was referencing - THAT WAS MY POINT - THAT JAMES SMITH IN HIS CALCULATOR USES MORE PARAMETERS THAN JUST CENTIMETERS OF HEIGHT.
I used "Maintenance" and "Moderately Active." Result was 102g.
...And, yes, I'm aware that 5'8" = 172 cm = 172g according to that guy I quoted. That is way too high regardless of which calculator I use i.e. Examine.com or NIH. At my age, weight (22 BMI,) gender and activity level I should top out at 126g, max.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »
Ugh, what?cmriverside wrote: »What?
I just used one of James Smith's protein calculators and I got a very reasonable 102g. That's about exactly what I had already calculated - and I'm 5'8".
It isn't *just* your height in cm, he uses other factors such as age, weight, activity level, gender, weight goals/maintenance :
https://jamessmithcalculator.com/james-smith-protein-calculator/
I just tried that calculator. That's the worst calculator I've ever seen. I'm maybe 10-15 pounds from a level I'd be happy to maintain at. If I enter a goal of fat loss it tells me to have 2.9g per pound, which is INSANE. If I choose maintenance it tells me 1.6g per pound, which is RIDICULOUS. And if I choose muscle gain it gives 2.2g per pound, which is not only ABSURD, it's far less than if I choose a fat loss goal!!
Total garbage.
Btw, just going with the 1g per cm presented earlier, that would give you 172g.
It was reasonable for me....don't know what you're doing (?)
Regardless, it is James Smith, which is who the guy I quoted was referencing - THAT WAS MY POINT - THAT JAMES SMITH IN HIS CALCULATOR USES MORE PARAMETERS THAN JUST CENTIMETERS OF HEIGHT.
I used "Maintenance" and "Moderately Active." Result was 102g.
...And, yes, I'm aware that 5'8" = 172 cm = 172g according to that guy I quoted. That is way too high regardless of which calculator I use i.e. Examine.com or NIH. At my age, weight (22 BMI,) gender and activity level I should top out at 126g, max.
I take your point about it being his calculator, but . . .
FWIW, I get insane results, too. (I also resent how many times I had to hit the "+" to get to 67 y/o.)
Swapping around activity levels and goals, the lowest one I got was 144.1g (for sedentary maintenance), which is still unnecessarily high. (I target 100g minimum, a bit over 1g per pound of estimated lean body mass.)
Here's the one with what I consider to be accurate entries: What do you think I'm doing wrong?
0 -
This calculator is even worse! If I chose maintenance I get 75gr protein. For weight gain I get 120. Ok, that's fine. If I say fat loss I get 230gr! As a woman. So now lets say one of those 'I want to lose 2lbs per week' ladies uses this and gets 230gr of protein. What is she going to eat? Nothing but lean chicken?1
-
craigneal42 wrote: »Hi, not all calories are equal, have you adjusted your macros to ensure enough protein. Roughly 1 gram for every cm in height daily. So say 5ft 8 is 173cm. So 173g of protein daily. Thus less carbs and fat in a day. Makes a big difference on weight loss.
This info is from a James Smith book.
To the bolded, no. Not accurate.
Nutrition is important, but calories are simply a measure of the energy in the food, not a complete story. Foods have not only a calorie level, but varying amounts of nutrients, and varying effects on satiety (which may be quirkily individual), among other attributes. All of that can matter directly or indirectly when it comes to weight management and health.
Protein has a slightly higher TEF. That may have a small effect on weight loss rate, but it's truly pretty small in a normal mixed-foods, balanced macros kind of context. (We need things other than protein, after all.)2 -
Btw Ann, you can click the age or other numbers to type yours in.2
-
@AnnPT77 I have no idea. I suspect it may be a conversion problem in the calculator's programming...Here's mine (172 cm) :
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »@AnnPT77 I have no idea. I suspect it may be a conversion problem in the calculator's programming...Here's mine (172 cm) :
Ah. At least in part, it's that the imperial version is . . . um, flawed - it seems. This is still a little high, but not insane:
I don't have a high level of confidence in a "calculator" that can't even handle imperial vs. metric.
1 -
Thanks. That wasn't obvious until I saw the arrows on Riverside's, but I did type the next time.Retroguy2000 wrote: »Btw Ann, you can click the age or other numbers to type yours in.0 -
I don't have a high level of confidence in a "calculator" that can't even handle imperial vs. metric. LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.
Apparently. Or something...1 -
cmriverside wrote: » LOL, Right? I was just tryna make the point that height is not the only determinant in James Smith's world.
Apparently. Or something...
🤣
Perhaps Americans are assumed to need more protein? 😉4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions