Help!! Calories Goal too high??

mrsbrown322 wrote: »

I am not putting any exercise to see if it drops the calories

Sorry for the harsh reaction then
Not harsh .. glad you saw it 😃

FYI: this is a part of MFP I've always hated because so many people get confused about it: your fitness goals have zero influence on your calorie, they aren't taken into account at all.
Only exercise logged in your diary influences your calorie goal, for that day.

I'm guessing you chose a high activity level to arrive at 2700 calories. Because you're including exercise in that choice? (Which can be fine, as long as you don't add exercise calories on top of that)

The true test of your calorie goal will be what your weight does over one or two months (or menstrual cycles if applicable).
It makes sense to start higher and lower the goal later on if necessary to be cautious regarding muscle loss.

mrsbrown322 wrote: »

My coach just messaged me this afternoon as he may change my training in order to have less Cardio and more Strength training so it will help me lose the weight.

I have done MyFitnessPal before when I lifting weights and it made sense, but now I am just getting confused with it all.. I think I prefer to work with Macros rather than calories. I also want to be able
to have a proper meal plan rather than thinking I am dieting and then put weight back on again

To the first part, weight training doesn’t help with losing weight more than cardio. In fact, it uses less calories than cardio. This is the part we need you to grasp, I think more than anything- A calorie deficit and only a calorie deficit impacts weight loss. Macros and whatever type of work out you do is only for fitness/health/satiation and not weight loss.

Look at it this way:

Calories = weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain (depending on your calorie goal).

Workouts = health, strength, and/or endurance

If you want to lose weight you need to burn more than you eat, so monitor calories.

If you want to be athletic/strong then cardio, weight lifting, or a sport will help. Here’s the surprising part… Many people are over weight and obese while weight training or in a sport due to a lack of calorie balance. If you’re eating more than you burn, no matter what, you’ll gain weight. No clean diet or special sport will save you.

Your diet and your workout are two separate goals that do two separate things.

To your second paragraph, you said you prefer to work with macros instead of calories. You need to understand macros are made up of calories. If you don’t understand how many calories to eat you will over eat your macros and gain weight. This is counterproductive to your goals. Are you really wanting to eat 2800 calories because your math said that’s how many macros you need? You will become obese in no time and hurt your weight loss and fitness goals immensely. We are just trying to help you get your priorities in order to prevent that.

First- find your calorie goal (MFP will give that to you when you enter your stats and goals)

Secondly- decide your macros % for your sport or use what MFP gives you. I, specifically, need lots of carbs for energy and don’t function well on protein/fat. You will learn what works for you.

Third- test your logging and trend over 4-6 weeks and see if the math is mathing. If you’re not losing the amount you think, you need to adjust your logging and make the adjustment to your diet.

I agree with you, don’t “diet” in terms of eating a random menu full of stuff that doesn’t make sense. But, eat your diet of food that is “normal” in your calorie goal. Despite what you think, you absolutely need to know what your TDEE is, how many calories to eat in a deficit, how much to expect to lose on average, how to log that, and how to follow that trend.

If you choose to eat whatever macros you posted then check back in 4-6 weeks with the comparison, and we can go from there.

I agree with those above about calorie goal being the highest-order issue if weight loss is the most important goal. I agree with you and your coach about losing weight slowly if athletic performance generally or strength/muscle specifically are important goals.

I do - I think - feel a little more strongly than some others here that nutrition is very important, and that there are basics that need to be met vs. "it's all flexible". IMO that's especially true in a case where athletic performance is a goal. I believe in using gram estimates for protein and fats needs, not percentages of calories.

I think the methods you outlined for estimating protein and fats are reasonable. In a case like yours, I feel like those are the more important, and that carbs - being not an "essential nutrient" in technical terms - are more flexible.

If I were you, I'd set a protein minimum, a fats minimum, and use carbs to balance calories. If you're substantially overweight now, it's reasonable to use a healthy goal weight to estimate those, rather than basing on a current high weight. (In particular, protein's main importance is to maintain our lean mass. We don't need lots extra because we have excess fat mass.) If you don't know a good goal weight, just use the middle of the normal BMI range. (I know that BMI is controversial. For something like this, it's a close enough approximation IMO.)

I may be wrong (because there's some individualism in all of this), but I doubt that it's essential for you to get 368g of carbs, or maybe not even 268g. (That's even though 268g gives you what could be a reasonable starting calorie level to test-drive as gross intake for a few weeks (at least a full menstrual cycle if you have those, so you're comparing body weight at the same relative point in at least two different cycles).)

Since you plan fairly high activity, timing the carbs you do eat around workouts may help with performance. That could be slow carbs (more complex) in the hours before a longer/tougher workout, or faster carbs (high GI, leaning toward sugars) if shortly before (or during) a longer/tougher workout. It will take some experimentation to optimize for your own personal body.

Admittedly, I'm not a triathlete. I do a short-endurance sport (on-water rowing, mostly). I've worked out regularly and sometimes pretty hard/long, but I don't have anything routine that's as long as the long run days marathoners including in training, for example. More carbs shortly before/on those endurance training days would probably be good. If you want to get fancy, you could look at the (actual) protocols for athletic carb loading before events, which actually involve more nuance than "eat a plate of spaghetti before a race", and apply those principles to long-endurance workout days. But that's a nicety that could probably be left to the longer term.

Just opinions from some random idiot on the internet, though.

P.S. One thing I find weird about that worksheet is that they start by converting your weight to kg. If you usually think in pounds . . . why? Why wouldn't they just convert the formulas to use pounds? That would work fine.

P.P.S. If you want another source, there's an evidence-based protein calculator and guide here, from a site that's generally regarded as neutral (among other things, they don't sell supplements) and attentive to the science:

https://examine.com/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

Somewhere in the guide they do say it can be fine to use a lower (goal) weight in the calculator if materially overweight.

PAV8888 wrote: »

To interject re Ann's (as usual very complete and relevant) post, most people who don't purposefully try to undercut fat to extreme minimums will be hitting the base minimum level of fat she is discussing just by trying to meet their protein needs.

Also, the protein numbers chosen by the OP coming up to 0.7g per lb of current weight are well within the common 0.6 to 0.8g per lb range and even if we assume some loss (but not extreme) they would be unlikely to be "too far" off.

If I recall without losing my position here the target was in the 130g range... which is at about 0.7g per lb for current weight, about 0.75g per lb at 80kg and about 0.8 per lb for 75kg. Even at 70kg it becomes 0.85g per lb so just above the common 0.6g to 0.8g per lb range that takes into account body composition. If the OP is extra lean/lots of muscle that would be biased a tad higher. In any case... good enough. Certainly not too little or extremely excessive.

So... really. This only leaves CALORIES and the carbs vs fats debate. Since minimal fats are almost impossible to NOT take in if you're consuming 130+g of protein..... it leaves fats vs carbs for fuel.

I get close to that protein level and often fall short on fats, unless I pay close attention**. Maybe it's a vegetarian thing. Nonetheless, it makes me feel that it should be made explicit that we need a fat minimum. Beyond that minimum, sure, fine to get more, as preferred. Carbs (IMO) have no minimum, theoretically - and I say that as someone who eats a lot of them.

** (Sometimes I even need to eat chocolate for the extra fat, poor me.)

I know I type way too much, but I mostly don't believe in leaving out facts that are quite relevant to the issues under discussion, but that the OP . . . doesn't need to know? I don't like being treated that way, personally. I'd rather learn more.

I agree with you about the protein likely being fine. I included the Examine link because protein is especially important to athletes, and . . . we're just random people on the internet, whereas the Examine folks are random science-centric experts. I'm reasonably confident their calculator would have her goal in range.

Which is why I said preference in the end. because maybe the OP does want to carb load for her triathlon. Or prefers to be more satiated by fats. But I will leave her to sort it out with her coach... if they ever figure out their goals.

I think that the goal setting here is probably where the game will be played as tanking athletic performance would be a pity.... elephant in the room remaining: how much weight loss is this whole endeavor... endeavoring to achieve????!

Well . . . the intended weight loss rate might be more important than the total amount to achieve.

IIRC, she mentioned a 10% cut off TDEE at one point. That would be quite moderate. Reasonable when a person has athletic goals, and no current significant weight-related health problems.

Your trainer likely has the nutrition side pretty dialed in, in terms of what will help you recover, build stamina, and get stronger for that type of sport. Would it be possible to use his macro % split with the MFP calorie goal so you can have the best of both worlds? I don’t imagine it’s a good idea to have a serious deficit when training, but I can’t see how losing weight would be a problem since it’s less impact on your joints and heart each and every time you’re training. Even something as low as losing half a lb a week could be beneficial, without feeling depleted or experiencing hunger pains.