Restarting ...Again

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Usually, 4-6 weeks of data is enough to make an initial adjustment. Once you have enough data, your own results are likely to be a much better estimate going forward than any calorie calculator or even fitness tracker. If you have menstrual cycles, I'd suggest comparing body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different cycles to come up with a weight loss total, since some women can have surprisingly large water retention shifts across the cycle for hormonal reasons. That may work better than just plain weeks.

So, add up the calories logged over the whole period of time. Using your data above as an example, that's 5991+1622+1430+1537 = 6180. Divide that by 4 because that's the number of weekly-ish averages you've given. 6180 divided by 4 = 1545 calories eaten daily, on average. (Theoretically, since you have two shorts week in there, it would be better to add the total number of calories for all the days and divide by the number of days, but this is maybe close enough for an example.)

You've got 25 days of weight changes, you say . . . though if it's the 1st through the 26th for real, it would be 26? Or is that what you mean by a day early? I'm not sure whether it's that, or your time zone differs from mine so we're in different days. Let's say 25 to continue the example.

So, 2.6+3.4+1.8+2.2 = 10, as you say. So, if that's all fat loss, it's roughly 35000 calories worth of fat since a pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories. Divide that by the number of days, 25, we get 1400 calories. That would be your estimated daily calorie deficit, right? If accurate, that's a pretty big deficit for someone with only 45 pounds to lose, IMO.

So, estimated average daily maintenance calories over that time period would be the calories you ate daily on average, 1545, plus the calories you lost daily on average, 1400, for a total of 2945 calories to maintain current weight. The implication is that a pound a week loss rate would mean eating more like 2445 calories daily, since 500 calories a day is roughly a pound a week.

That's an estimate, too, but a more personalized one. If I were you, and wanting to lose more like a pound a week, I'd test drive something closer to that number for another 4 weeks or so, or whole menstrual cycle if that applies, then estimate and adjust again if necessary.

As I mentioned, it might be better at least theoretically to redo the arithmetic to get an daily average of calories eaten for 25 days rather than assuming the 4 not-exactly-all-weekly estimates are of equal impact.

But the above should give you a general idea of what I'm suggesting. It's what I did myself when losing, since I turned out to need hundreds more calories than MFP initially estimated, and accidentally lost too fast until I ran a similar experiment. When I used my personal data thereafter, my weight loss became quite predictable, and maintenance since loss has been similarly predictable.

As you might expect, your calorie needs will change gradually as you lose weight. In theory, they'll gradually be lower because a smaller body requires fewer calories to do the same stuff . . . but some people find they get more lively as they get lighter, so their calorie needs stay close to what they needed when heavier, or in some cases even go up. Redoing the personalized estimate every 10 pounds or so, using multiple weeks/whole cycle of data each time, should take care of that, no matter if your calorie needs go up or down.

I hope that makes sense. If not, feel free to ask questions. Best wishes!

ddsb1111 wrote: »

I didn’t count the first week because it was New Year’s, and the initial water weight loss can be misleading.

From January 5th to 26th, you lost 7.7 lbs, which averages out to 2.56 lbs per week. This suggests you’re in a daily calorie deficit of around 1,280 calories.

If I were you, I’d reduce that deficit to no more than 500 calories per day for a more sustainable approach. So I would raise your average daily calories from 1530 to 2,310 per day. I highly recommend downloading Happy Scale to watch the trend and adjust after 30 days.

With Anne’s est of 2445 (for the month) and mine of 2310 (for 3 weeks), you have some really good data to start with. Keep us posted!

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I can understand how it would be scary. There's so much mythology in the overall culture that ALL women need to eat 1200 calories or less in order to lose weight, that it's delicate and feminine to subsist on mostly salads, eat like little birds, etc. It's true that some women - less active, petite, older, etc. - may need to eat smaller amounts. But not everyone. You're someone who's younger - yes, 47 is younger! - with a very physically active job.

I'm 5'5", was 59 when I started losing weight, retired, truly sedentary outside of intentional exercise, weighed around 155-160 at the time, and I ate back all my carefully-estimated exercise calories on days with workouts, which was most days of the week. I was eating 1700-2000 calories on exercise days a lot of the time, and losing at a good pace. That's unusually high for someone of that age, but it makes me think the numbers for you are plausible at least.

Maybe think of it this way: You're seeming to lose fast so far, consistent with those estimates. That can be risky, as you discovered before, health risks, hair loss, etc.

What's the worst that can happen if you eat 2300 or so for the next 4 weeks? You lose slower. Horror of horrors, you maybe even lose slower than the pound a week you hope for. Super extreme and quite unlikely, you don't lose weight at all.

You collect more data, run another estimate, and fine tune somewhere in between, right? How terrible would that be, really?

Personally, I'd find it not all that terrible, especially as compared to another month with what might be a risky and difficult fast loss rate. It's your call, of course. But that's the question I'd suggest asking yourself: What's the worst that could happen?

Best wishes - I think you're going to do fine. If you feel up to it, come back to the thread and let us know how it's going, eh? I always wonder how these things turn out.