An easier way to setup goal calories - eating for who you wi

Options
13567…29

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I've been following the MFP guided process and eating back my workout calories and hitting my goals (give or take a pound or 2 over the last 3 months. I don't see a great reason to do something else and wouldn't want to lose the progress tracker as it's one of the most motivating pieces for me. Also, when starting the journey, your body needs more calories to maintain the current weight so using the end weight could result in losing "too fast" for it to be sustainable.

    You should read how many do NOT have success with the system, and are confused about the whole exercise calorie thing, or big jumps in activity level, or inaccurate exercise calories estimates, or not being able to eat them all back in the same day, ect.
    Keep reading, you'll see.

    Also, my original comments point out you still get the Progress Tracker, that's the whole point to keep that.
    And, only in obese cases was the future maintenance calories below the current BMR calories, so never too big of a jump to be too fast.

    But it does allow for the fact that the more you have to lose, the more you can deficit safely.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    Well, it is noted that when you get closer to goal weight, the amount to lose each week should be smaller, which this method automatically does.

    Now, if your BMR is healthy, it may just be honestly less than calculated BMR, and that's what you discover as you get closer to goal weight.

    You'll be eating your goal calories, your activity level is very honest for exercise and such, and you stop losing 5lbs from goal.
    Well, you just discovered that fully operating BMR got you to this point, so BMR must be lower than calculated. No problem, drop goal calories about 100.

    But if you operated the opposite direction, feeding under your BMR from the start, you'll just cause it to slow down to match what you are giving it.

    So this method also takes care of the potential that your actual healthy BMR is really higher than the calculated, which it could be.
    In which case you'll get to goal weight and keep losing when you don't want to. Time to increase the goal calories about 100 perhaps.
    I never said I was eating under my BMR. The point is that if I ate the maintenance calories for my goal weight, that's a deficit of THIRTY CALORIES A DAY. First of all there's no way I could count my calories that precisely. ONE BITE of food could send me over goal without knowing it. And even if I could be that exact, it would take literally TWO YEARS to lose the rest of the weight. (Or more, if I kept adjusting that deficit as I went along.) That is unacceptable and absolutely pointless. Half a pound per week is perfectly reasonable, safe, and easy to do. Your method may work for people with a larger amount to lose, but once you approach goal weight, it doesn't work.
  • FlabulessFam
    FlabulessFam Posts: 31
    Options
    I need help to really understand this. My goal weight is 160 - I went to the site that you mentioned and typed everything in and it comes up with 2163 total calories. So this is what I should be eating each day to LOSE weight??? I am currently 242 lbs.
  • carolemack
    carolemack Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    Bump to come back to.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I never said I was eating under my BMR. The point is that if I ate the maintenance calories for my goal weight, that's a deficit of THIRTY CALORIES A DAY. First of all there's no way I could count my calories that precisely. ONE BITE of food could send me over goal without knowing it. And even if I could be that exact, it would take literally TWO YEARS to lose the rest of the weight. (Or more, if I kept adjusting that deficit as I went along.) That is unacceptable and absolutely pointless. Half a pound per week is perfectly reasonable, safe, and easy to do. Your method may work for people with a larger amount to lose, but once you approach goal weight, it doesn't work.

    You didn't actually read my post, I can tell.

    I was agreeing with you. ;-)
  • jbdowns35
    jbdowns35 Posts: 352
    Options
    bump for later
  • MrsFelton2010
    MrsFelton2010 Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    Thx for the info
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    Options
    I need help to really understand this. My goal weight is 160 - I went to the site that you mentioned and typed everything in and it comes up with 2163 total calories. So this is what I should be eating each day to LOSE weight??? I am currently 242 lbs.
    thats about my stats (currently 243ish, goal weight possibly 160) and it says to eat 2704 to lose. just for ****s n giggles, i entered my current weight and it says i would need 3336 to maintain @243.
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    Bumping for later and I hope I can figure it out. My current weight is 181.6, and goal = 138. I'm 5'6" ... if anyone wants to figure it out for me, haha :wink:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I need help to really understand this. My goal weight is 160 - I went to the site that you mentioned and typed everything in and it comes up with 2163 total calories. So this is what I should be eating each day to LOSE weight??? I am currently 242 lbs.

    If you were honest about your activity levels and planned accomplished exercise, yes.

    For instance, a test example of female 5 ft 250 lbs with sleep 8 and sitting 16 hrs, no exercise. 140 lb goal.
    Current BMR 1849 and maintenance 2465.
    Future BMR 1376 and maintenance 1835.

    So daily goal would be 1835.

    So she would currently be eating just a tad under current BMR, so still pretty safe. But using up all available deficit of 630 calories.
    So slightly over 1 lb/ week, keeping energy needs meeting the BMR needs.
  • PaulaP22
    PaulaP22 Posts: 17
    Options
    bump!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I used the calculator link you provided and I entered my goal weight (not too far off from my current weight), about 8 hours for resting, and then the rest (16) as "light," because I work a sedentary job and wanted to see the estimates without considering exercise. (I don't really know what my exercise level is going to be, because I haven't decided if I am going to train for another long-distance race, etc.)

    The maintenance level it gave me for this lower weight -- about 10 lbs below my current -- is higher (1944) than what MFP is giving me right now for its maintenance settings at my current weight (1820ish). (My comparison, that site gives me a current maintenance level of 2001 for my weight.)

    To what would you attribute that difference? Do you think MFP's calculator is just inaccurate?

    MFP's 4 level of activity aren't as specific.
    They do BMR x 1.2 for sedentary (which most sites use, it's the accepted method for just 4 levels). This calculates in a certain level of sleep automatically, which may be more or less.

    This other calculator is based on more recent studies, and:
    sleep is BMR x 1
    very light is BMR x 1.5
    light is BMR x 2.5
    moderate is BMR x 5
    heavy is BMR x 7

    So that's the difference.
  • FlabulessFam
    FlabulessFam Posts: 31
    Options
    I need help to really understand this. My goal weight is 160 - I went to the site that you mentioned and typed everything in and it comes up with 2163 total calories. So this is what I should be eating each day to LOSE weight??? I am currently 242 lbs.

    If you were honest about your activity levels and planned accomplished exercise, yes.

    For instance, a test example of female 5 ft 250 lbs with sleep 8 and sitting 16 hrs, no exercise. 140 lb goal.
    Current BMR 1849 and maintenance 2465.
    Future BMR 1376 and maintenance 1835.

    So daily goal would be 1835.

    So she would currently be eating just a tad under current BMR, so still pretty safe. But using up all available deficit of 630 calories.
    So slightly over 1 lb/ week, keeping energy needs meeting the BMR needs.

    Ok, so I did all that - here it is and tell me what you make of it: 160 lbs - 1494 BMR, 669 activity, 2163 total..... my weight 242 - 1847 BMR, 827 activity, 2674 total - my goal weight total is more than my current BMR - so I should lower it to that right?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options
    You beat me to it, lol. I was planning on writing a basics to losing weight on MFP thread. Guess I don't need to know.
  • peaceinside
    peaceinside Posts: 272
    Options
    bump
  • TerraGirl17
    TerraGirl17 Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Ok, so I did all that - here it is and tell me what you make of it:
    ...................160 - 1494 BMR, 669 activity, 2163 total.....
    my weight 242 - 1847 BMR, 827 activity, 2674 total
    - my goal weight total is more than my current BMR - so I should lower it to that right?

    Nope. Current goal is 2163 to keep it simple, no updating of goal calories unless your activity level changes.

    Keep in mind exactly what your stats point out, you are eating at future estimate of activity calories, but currently burning more because it takes more.

    Also, that site's estimate of activity calories is underestimated for most exercise, if you pick the right level. Notice the speeds and such noted.

    You could test by entering an extra hour of whatever type of workout you normally do, and see how the activity level increases by. That is what it is estimating for an hour of exercise. How does that compare to what you have been seeing with other estimates for an hour of your favorite workout?
    Now remember to put it back to accurate estimate.
  • LadyoftheDisc
    LadyoftheDisc Posts: 136 Member
    Options
    Bump for later :)
  • thesarahsundae
    thesarahsundae Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    This looks good to me. I'll take a look at it later so I can really figure it out. :smile:
  • ernurse77
    ernurse77 Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    I have a mental defecit when it comes to understanding this whole thing. I do believe that it comes from years of being told "to loose weight, you need to only eat X amount of calories and work out." When I have been truthful with this sight, I very rarely ate back my exercise calories and just ate the original goal of 1700ish calories. I never really understood WHY it gave me calories to eat back for exercise...again, goes back to the old school of thought. The first time around I lost only 13lbs using MFP doing that plan, then plateaued for MONTHS, got pissed, and started eating crappy again.

    I still am having a block when it comes to understanding why the website is telling me that I can eat 2516 calories!

    I feel I was honest with my activity level, maybe even a little underestimate of activity as far as the moderate/heavy categories go.

    I am 35 years old 5' 7 3/4" (yes I had to put the 3/4 in there!) currently weigh 180lbs and have a goal weight of 150lbs.

    To make sure that I understand this correctly, this formula tells me that in order to maintain a weight of 150lbs I need to eat 2516 calories with my current activity level? If I wanted to maintain my unhealthy weight of 180lbs I would need to eat 2739 calories per day? I am having a mental block thinking that a 223 calorie defecit isn't going to be enough to loose the weight.

    My BMR at 180lbs is 1584, activity is 1155
    My BMR at 150lbs is 1455, activity is 1061

    When I entered the new calorie goal of 2516, MFP calculated my weight loss to be 0.5lbs per week??????? :noway: :frown:

    Thank you for posting such a thought provoking topic!!!

Categories