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

I don't get how this works either.. at my current weight to lose 1 or 2 lbs a week its giving me 1200 but to get to 9st (another 10lbs lighter) it gives me 1520?

I'm only 3lb off original goal of 9st 7 and taking ages to lose each pound to get there so I can't see how eating more can get me 10lbs lighter??

This method among others fixes the potential problem of you underfeeding your BMR, you basic metabolism. If you made it slower, then ALL daily activities also burn less calories, causing you to have less of a deficit than you think you have, and possibly stall out depending on how bad your exercise is (i say bad because of potential negative effects on body if not fed).

MFP does NOT include exercise in that 1200 suggestion, based on your weight loss goal. And that still may be below your current BMR. That's why feeding the workout is important - you could suppress your metabolism even more.

If you used the spreadsheet honestly, that 1520 includes your known workout routine, so you do not eat back exercise.

It's probably taking ages because your metabolism is slower. Much easier to enter goal weight fully burning, then as you add calories to maintain, no surprises. Or with this method, you are already there. But since stronger and more muscular, probably have to add calories anyway because of faster metabolism! Great!

Daily Goal Calories : 2148
Workout Calories: 500
Real Net: 1648
BMR Current Weight : 1438
Net above BMR: 210

Like I said before I am 5'8 169lbs and aiming for 150-155. I used 150 for the chart.

So....with this being said. Do I need to eat 2148 calories a day and do my walking each day etc and I'll lose weight? And if so, at what rate (ie: .5lb week/1lb week) OR so I need to take that 2148 Daily Calorie goal and subtract 500 (to lose 1lb/wk) and eat 1648 calories a day?

I think I am confusing myself with methods. Ideally I want to manually set my calories on MFP, not log exercise except for 1 calorie and just focus on that daily manually logged number.

Manually setting the daily goal number that doesn't change, unless you change your normal avg daily routine, and logging workouts as 1 cal, is exactly what you would do.

That daily spot check was mainly for the disbeliever that thinks "I can't eat that much". So you throw in a known calorie burn from a big workout and see you go below your BMR usually, and non-workout days is above. You do not go under, that tells me you work out about the same amount almost 7 days a week, and/or have a lot of daily activity. Which is the case for 1hr walking 7 days a week, and running after kids all day.

The weekly spot check was for seeing what could, or does, actually happen in a typical week. So using 2150 and that walking at 4mph burning 500 for 75 min (you said 2 or 3 times every day for 30 min, so just avg), ends up with 100 above your BMR on avg daily.

So the section in the spreadsheet for MFP Settings to Change shows that exactly, and indeed, 2148 if that is correct, though I'm doubting.

Because guess what, I used 8.5 hrs sleep daily, and 1 hr walking 3.5 to 4mph daily, and I get 2150.
You do NO other walking for shopping on regular basis, 1hr weekly perhaps? No regular house cleaning that can be tagged as 1hr weekly or such?
Didn't even include the 30DS time. If truly iffy, then you'd need to eat a couple snacks around that workout to feed it, and leave your NET above your BMR.

There is another section at the bottom Expected Weight Loss (online Google version right now).
It shows underestimated daily non-exercise non-sleep activity calories making your deficit is almost 500 even with this low calc.
That is what is going unfed, creating your deficit. So a pound a week. Probably more since your daily activity is very underestimated.

I'd suggest getting those other levels correct as best you can for things unlikely to change much, like cleaning and shopping at Light level.

And then use the section for MFP settings to change.
Don't worry about the MFP estimate of weight loss now, because they don't know you are eating back exercise calories, so their deficit is less than reality.

@ nebody

I am 39.5 yo, female
mom to 3
other than mild chores at home and some shopping, not very much activity
I am 5'9"
I weigh 270
I would like to weigh 170

I am currently doing the old points plan on Weight Watchers which affords a daily points range. Mine is 28-35. This is NOT the current plan. I lost a ton of weight on this plan after my kids were born and it took me over a year.

With your method, were I to figure the correct amount out, I would lose faster?

According to what I have learned, as you go down in weight, your body which gets used to what you are taking in, now requires less and less, so you have to reduce points/calories. Is that not correct here? Could I figure what my daily calorie intake should be for my goal weight of 170 and use that all the way through to goal?

The bump means it goes on your wall as a topic you posted to, so you can find it later, or find it in list of My Topics.

Very true, as your weight goes down, or your height for that matter, but that would be a scary problem, your metabolism does indeed slow down anyway. Your BMR is about mainly maintaining fluid level in all your cells - got more, higher BMR, got less, lower BMR, and other basic functions of life. If it doesn't get the energy/calories it needs for those functions, it slows down even more.

So this method is indeed about setting final goal, or as close as you can estimate. Most find you'll have more muscle and therefore higher BMR at goal weight, and have to eat more. Or they'll never reach goal weight because they like the extra muscle and have nothing more to lose! Great problems to have.

This method is meant to maximize loss, but protect the BMR, and feed the workout. That means the loss is totally based on all activity not sleeping and not working out, in other words, your total daily activity. Which is the safe activity to NOT feed, because it draws mainly on fat stores and doesn't need to be.

Now, it's that feeding the workout part that mainly causes folks to underfeed their BMR, suppress their metabolism, not get the deficit they thought they should have, eat less/exercise more, make it slower, and stall.

You are not doing any formal workout, and that is fine. If you did too deep a deficit, you would be undecutting your BMR, slowing it down, and it's been shown, muscle breakdown occurs in those cases. You really don't want to lose any extra muscle, because that burns calories all day long, even more when used for your type of daily activity.

So, for you, with no workouts beyond an active day with 3 kids that you need to feed accurately, you actually could use MFP's method. You'll be eating the same amount everyday anyway, so the idea of learning to eat at maintenance weight still applies. You know you have a big dinner Sat night, you eat less on Fri and Sun and Sat other meals, and have your big dinner without problems.

So I'm going to recommend something different than this method. If you start working out beyond running after kids, please come back. It's a Group also - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/3088-eating-for-future-you

So, for you to tweak MFP to still protect your estimated healthy burning BMR of 1959, here's what you do.
Settings - Diet/Fitness Profile
Enter correct current and goal weights.
Activity selection of Lightly Active (yes, lightly active is correct).
Weight loss goal of 1lbs/week.

This should result in daily goal of 2145 about, just slightly above your current BMR.

As your weight goes down and your BMR therefore goes down, MFP will change your goal automatically.

Is that really only 1 lb a week?
The 500 cal deficit that means 1lb a week is subtracted from a daily maintenance figure.
That daily maintenance figure is calculated by taking current BMR times a multiplier based on activity selection.
Does that activity selection of Lightly Active nail exactly how many calories you expend in your daily activities? Not at all. With 3 kids, I'm sure you are well over that 685 cal calc, probably closer to 1000. You'll lose much more.
But whatever amount you do lose - it'll be keeping your metabolism burning at full speed, which means those daily activities are burning at full potential too.

I will comment, this Future You method would have had you about at that calorie level too, depending on other daily activity.

The online Google spreadsheet and the Excel spreadsheet both match now for improvements.

Still requires the explanation to be understood here though.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method

Excel - http://home.everestkc.net/mbales/

Google - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGZlcmNCNmhJWFhtUGl0ZEk1RFd1c0E

so how long would it take to get there? I'm 9st 10 now, but having water retention (+4lbs) for nearly 2 weeks of every month due to peri-menopause, which will slow things down as can't see how much I'm losing on those calories until the water comes off... could I get 10lbs off by June if I started on 1520 today?

Use the section at the bottom for estimated weekly weight loss based on your daily activities at current weight.

5 lbs a month is very possible. At least with full burning metabolism, the last couple pounds you can knock off by cutting straight to BMR level for a week, and know that it won't slow that fast (hopefully) and then eat normal to keep it high again.

But if your daily routine involves lying in bed except for 60 min of exercise daily, that would not work well at all.
Weight loss from deficits created ONLY by exercise usually never works out that well. It leaves people hungry, and they eat more than normal and ruin the deficit.

That's why it smarter and safer to feed the workout, and not feed the daily activity that draws mainly on fat stores.