An easier way to setup goal calories - eating for who you wi
Replies
-
bump0
-
I REALLY want to try this since my weight hasn't moved in a while. I put in resting for 12 hours and sleeping for 12 hours, just to get an underestimated number. It's still a lot! It's hard for me to do it without being worried. What I've done today is set my goal to around maintenance; I'll try that for a week and then go back down to 1300. Even now, with the higher number, I can't hit it. I have leftover calories. I guess I just can't eat as much as I used to.0
-
I REALLY want to try this since my weight hasn't moved in a while. I put in resting for 12 hours and sleeping for 12 hours, just to get an underestimated number. It's still a lot! It's hard for me to do it without being worried. What I've done today is set my goal to around maintenance; I'll try that for a week and then go back down to 1300. Even now, with the higher number, I can't hit it. I have leftover calories. I guess I just can't eat as much as I used to.
Yep, and this method is to exactly protect someone from pre-maturely lowering their metabolism and BMR before they reach their goal weight.
Because otherwise, you get the effect you have. Stalled and no appetite.
Just in case the concept of BMR is not understood, my first post provided the link to read up on it, and snippet how it's the basic functions of human life.
More on that, taking care of all the cells in the body is part of that function, fat and muscle cells, and everything else.
You cannot get the BMR calories from fat, they must be taken in from outside. (well, the fat comes out to supply energy all the time, energy to take care of the fat cells, so just a tad lost in the inefficiency of that arrangement, but that must be made up from external sources).
If the needs of a healthy BMR are not met, the body has to lower the metabolism and basically set a new BMR to deal with lack of energy.
So lets say the healthy BMR calc was at 1600.
And as you set activity level, no exercise, sleeping all day basically.
And then you eat at just 1300 calories.
Your body needs 1600, you gave it 1300. it will lower the metabolism over a short time to 1300.
You just lost out on a free 300 calorie burn everyday of mostly fat energy. That is 2100 calories a week, or 2/3 of a pound.
If you are actually exercising and not being honest about sleeping all day, say 300 cal worth of exercise on avg daily.
You are now netting 1000 calories for your body to take care of those basic functions. It will slow down. You will not be hungry for more. And weight loss will stall.
And now you are missing out on a free 600 calories of burn each and every day. That is now 4200 calories a week, 1.2 lbs a week.
Are you sure you want to continue this journey with a hampered metabolism that has been slowed down by underfeeding it?
Now while this method I've presented does have you ending up with the lower BMR and metabolism you will eventually reach, eating at maintenance that includes honest evaluation of avg daily activities including exercise protects it from lowering the BMR early.
Only a very obese person would see that not be true, and I contemplated perhaps saying to estimate 1 yr out. But it is also estimated that obese can handle a slight dip below BMR without harm, because their BMR is already high for supporting the extra weight.0 -
Well, my bmr (according to MFP) is 1359. My most recent daily goal was 1400 (before I switched to maintenance), so I wasn't going that far under it. I am kind of worried now - I really don't want to stall my weight loss more than I (potentially) have already.
Thanks for the tips - I hope my new plan works out.0 -
bump to do when I get home from work, thanks for the advice worth trying out0
-
I've emailed my nutritionist about this - I have been thinking a lot lately about how I've been eating at a deficit for almost 8 months now . . . doesn't seem smart. The timing of this post is perfect! Thank you universe (and OP!).
I've done the calculations and it gives me a daily intake of 2080. The exercise calories look low to me - based on what I usually give myself (don't have a HRM yet), so I feel like it's still a safe "loss" plan.
I have ten pounds to lose (maybe 20, we'll see) and I've been thinking more about building muscle mass, and I think that eating at a significant deficit is going to impede that progress.
I'll get back to you with my nutritionist's response0 -
Well, my bmr (according to MFP) is 1359. My most recent daily goal was 1400 (before I switched to maintenance), so I wasn't going that far under it. I am kind of worried now - I really don't want to stall my weight loss more than I (potentially) have already.
Thanks for the tips - I hope my new plan works out.
That is much safer than, good for you for goal having been over the BMR.
Now, for every person that claims eating under their BMR is just fine (and it may be because that is an estimate), there are also people whose BMR is over the estimate. And it would suck just as bad to be missing out on those free calories burned.
If you exercise on current method, that would put you under your BMR too unless you ate back decently accurate exercise calories.
This method should include exercise if done in your maintenance calories. So if you do have a real schedule that you are good at keeping, get it in there. And if the calories really seem too high to eat, eat a snack before and after that workout.
If you used resting for 12 hrs (and you do sleep for 8 and watch TV for 4), then that is right.
By your reference to sleeping 12, I'm guess you mean Very Light. Which if you don't workout may indeed be right.
If you do, you would be best served to figure out your weekly workout totals and divide by 7.
I don't want this method putting you under your BMR either, or you won't see any results.
Example: let's say you are 25, 5 ft, 125 goal.
So the activity on 12 sleep/12 very light has you at say 1700 maintenance calories, with that BMR of 1358.
But you actually do an avg of 500 calories of exercise every day you don't want to include to eat back, then you just went under your BMR to 1200 net. So not much, but enough to potentially slow it down if consistent.
But if you entered in your time correctly, say avg 1hr day of Heavy, running at 150 HR.
Then maintenance would be at 2010 (up 310 cal) for Daily Goal, but in reality you are burning 500 day avg, so back to net 1510 - ah ahhh - slightly above your goal weight BMR, and above current weight BMR.
The benefit is you don't have a surprise day of bigger eating, you don't have to estimate your exercise exactly, there is safety, called your non-workout day, you don't have to record the calories and deal with credit calories.
And your BMR was protected.
Sorry I used your example to show the effects of what happens if honest daily activity is not input, hoping others find it useful.
Old saying goes, which really applies to dieting too - "Garbage in, garbage out".
Or one of my favorite quotes, nothing to do with your questions - "On two occasions I have been asked,—"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."0 -
bump0
-
ok so if I want to be 160....I should plug that into my weight as of current and see what it tells me to log for my calories. My current weight is 194
Yes, on the ExRx site, use goal weight, and honest daily activities including exercise. Easiest to just add up what normally happens in avg week, and divide by 7 for daily avg.
Then following the other steps, change MFP to manual.
Only changes needed on MFP are if activity level changes, then back to ExRx for re-calc. But your ever decreasing weight needs no changes to anything.
May also be a better inspiration for exercise if you estimate a certain level. Many comment they fill in the day's exercise early for support to do it.0 -
According to this calculator I maintain on 2700 calories a day. That is completely wrong- even with my activity levels factored in: 8 rest, 15 light, 1 moderate.
MFP gives me 1800 for "active" which is 900 less than that- how could there possible be such a huge difference. I would gain from eating 2700 a day without question.0 -
thanks0
-
Bump...:blushing:0
-
HELP! I am now confused! I have calculated that my BMR + activity at goal weight (140lbs) is 1985 calories!! I am currently set at 1270 net cals and only ever eat about half (of not less) of my exercise cals back and not getting anywhere. MFP says my maintenance at goal weight 140lbs would be 1600 + activity/exercise calories.
So should I be eating between 1600 and 1985 cals to lose the weight??
I really need all the help I can get so when I stumbled upon this thread I got excited but now confused.
Fat to Fit radio shows I should be eating 1893 cals per day (including exercise cals) for my goal weight.
Does this all sound right? I'm worried I could be setting myself up for a fall and gaining more weight!0 -
My estimated cal intake to maintain at my goal weight is 3,000. This is more than double what I take in now. How can this be right?0
-
Why not? Because I only have a few pounds to go. Do you realize how small that calorie deficit would be? It would take years to lose the last 5 pounds.
Yup, this is me too. And a slight under or over calculation on exercise makes a huge difference to calories.0 -
Just to confirm though - I do think this is a very good way of going about things. It makes sure your calories intake is always in a healthy range (of which I would like to see much more on MFP!) and helps you plan for the same number each day. Having (finally! ;o) got through all the posts though, I would say there are two sets of people for whom this method wouldn't be so good - 1) those with very unpredictable activity levels like shift workers (or parents of small children!) because it's impossible to estimate a weekly expenditure and 2) those near their calorie goal. I say this because I've spent aaaaaages trying to figure out the 'right' calorie intake:
I'm female, 32, 5 ft 3 1/2, small build, at 124-6 lbs currently. I only want to be able to fit into my trousers again without a muffin top, so all I want to lose is about 8 lbs. I sleep 8 hours a night, slob on the sofa most evenings and sit at a desk all day - my only real exercise is walking half an hour quite hard each way to work. By this calculation I should be eating 1994 calories a day! That's only 6 calories less than the RDA for an average woman. And that's assuming I'm spot on with my activity levels.
Whereas the method I've gone down with MFP is - current BMR of 1351 (using the calc on fat2fitradio) which then adds in my sedentary lifestyle to get 1579. Take a number in between those (say 1450) and eat back my exercise calories (about 400 a day). That's 1850, still healthy, but considerably lower than 1994 (which by this method would put me OVER maintanance). And then if I work from home, take a day off or simply feel too tired to walk all the way, it won't bump me over because I won't log it and won't eat it back.
So I think the OP method can be very helpful in helping people understand, but it's not going to work for everyone. The whole draw of MFP for me was a place where I could log (and then eat back) my exercise cals, unlike every other diet site which just estimates activity.
It's been interesting reading everyone's comments and there's definitely some food for thought, plus anything that get's people eating over their BMR is good in my book :flowerforyou:0 -
Bump to check back often0
-
BUMP! Thank you!0
-
Thanks for posting. I'm going to check into this. MFP says 1200 is my caloric intake to lose the weight I want but I'm fearful I'm eating too little and will lose and then gain back as I have in the past.0
-
Bump0
-
bump. thanks for the info!0
-
Bump////Ive been intending to do this for sometime now...0
-
I'm really confused reading this. I'm new to this site (about 30 days in) and feel so good about losing 15 lbs already. I feel great because I'm eating really healthy (lots of vegtables and fruit) and working out 5 days a week. I can't Imagine eating 2500 calories a day and still losing weight. I basically feel like I'd be eating exactly like i was eating before, the only difference would be me working out. I was not losing at all before! Weight loss is so confusing with so many different plans. It just seems like the best way would be to eat less, healthy food and excersise. Just wish it could be kept simple!0
-
Bump - Im intrigued...0
-
bump0
-
I need to come back later too!0
-
This looks interesting...I am trying the MFP preset plan for a set period of time and then evaluating my progress at that point. I will definitely consider making these changes if I am not happy with my progress or feel as though my current plan is not working the way I want it to. Thanks for sharing!0
-
i have seen in many posts where people have changed their goal calories. i cannot, for the life of me, find where you can do that. if i eat the recommended daily calories plus my exercise calories, i gain weight. can anyone give me step-by-step instructions on how to change your daily calorie goal? MFP has set it at 1580
thanks!0 -
If you'd like a whole lot of information on how this works, check out fat2fit radio. They are currently on podcast #138 of using this exact method. Lots of great information, explanations and easy to listen to.0
-
bump to read through and work out later0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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