In place of a road map!

Options
1…1617192122…39

Replies

  • jamkat
    jamkat Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    bump
  • SweetAzn
    SweetAzn Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    Bump to reread later ^_^
  • cjack19
    cjack19 Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    bump
  • TonnaJai
    TonnaJai Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    thank you for the information very useful :))
  • swenard
    swenard Posts: 101
    Options
    Bump
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    I don't know why, but I'm completely confused on how exactly to figure out how many calories I should be eating in order to lose weight. The calculator on that website actually said that my goal weight was too low (and it is at the top of my "healthy" weight range), and I'd have to eat below the suggested calories. That makes no sense.
    I've been losing consistent weight so far doing Weight Watchers and following the suggestions that MFP gives me. I think I'll just stick with that.
  • Reeny1_8
    Reeny1_8 Posts: 277
    Options
    Bump
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.

    Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
    I completely agree!!
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.

    Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?

    Because MFP has me on 1,200 cals a day -- which was fine for me in the start, because I have a lot of weight to lose, but now my weight loss has stalled. I've just worked out my BMR and it's a LOT higher than MFP has set me to eat.

    then you must have it set to lose more than 1 pound a week. Change it to 1 pound a week and it will give you more calories.. and I bet you'll still lose more than 1 per week.
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    Also, am I missing something. Where do you find this Katch-MaCardle BMR?
    When I use the BMR tool, it says the BMR is based on the Harris Benedict formula. I see nothing about Katch-MaCardle anywhere on the Fat 2 Fit website whatsover.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Also, am I missing something. Where do you find this Katch-MaCardle BMR?
    When I use the BMR tool, it says the BMR is based on the Harris Benedict formula. I see nothing about Katch-MaCardle anywhere on the Fat 2 Fit website whatsover.

    Then you failed to put bodyfat% here on the page starting the BMR calc:

    Your body fat percentage (if known):
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I don't know why, but I'm completely confused on how exactly to figure out how many calories I should be eating in order to lose weight. The calculator on that website actually said that my goal weight was too low (and it is at the top of my "healthy" weight range), and I'd have to eat below the suggested calories. That makes no sense.
    I've been losing consistent weight so far doing Weight Watchers and following the suggestions that MFP gives me. I think I'll just stick with that.

    you read the paragraph that it was basing the table on goal weight?

    If ANY of the totals in that table fall under your current BMR with exercise, it gives that warning.

    So you go back and give a goal perhaps 20 lbs heavier, or split your total loss desired by half.

    That way the table has all values above your current BMR by enough to include the exercise.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.

    Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
    I completely agree!!

    If you appreciate the purpose of not NETTING below your BMR, and you can eat back your exercise calories, then you can use MFP.

    Just adjust the activity level and weight loss goal until MFP suggests a daily goal above your BMR.

    Take the TDEE figure calculated from other site (remember to add 20% for current TDEE) minus daily NET goal, that is your more true deficit compared to what MFP may be saying.
  • Nath07
    Nath07 Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • janjan369
    janjan369 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • whoiskat23
    whoiskat23 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    :flowerforyou: Be back later.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Also, am I missing something. Where do you find this Katch-MaCardle BMR?
    When I use the BMR tool, it says the BMR is based on the Harris Benedict formula. I see nothing about Katch-MaCardle anywhere on the Fat 2 Fit website whatsover.

    Its just below the Harris Benedict paragraph
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Not to add too much confusion to it, but wouldn't it be more accurate (and perhaps easier for people to log on MFP) to use the "sedentary" number and then log exercise using a heart rate monitor, and then eat those calories? I mean, I can say I exercise 3-5 days/week, which I do, but if I only exercise for 30 minutes versus 1 hour, obviously I'm burning fewer calories.

    Again, not to make it too complicated, but just wondering if you think that might be easier for some/more accurate for calorie tracking?
    I completely agree!!

    You can do that too - pick the sedentary activity level and 'eat your calories back'. Note however, that the calories for execises in MFP are rough estimates and can be pretty far off what you actually expend.
  • Mia2891
    Mia2891 Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    bump
  • random_20
    random_20 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    sorry just found what i was looking for

Categories