calories too low on mfp

Options
1235»

Replies

  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    Im 45, 5' 1.5" and at 163 right now. I use the bmr/tdee calculator and my calories are set at 1646. I manually enter my desired calories in my goals because MFP is not accurate for me, either. Doing this has been working well for me. The link is
    http://calorieline.com/tools/tdeee

    Awesome job!!

    I checked out the website. It is pretty cool.
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options
    Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?

    Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.

    For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.

    Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.

    Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.

    So, just to clarify -
    smaller deficts are more sustainable, because
    you're less likely to give up,
    you're less likely to binge

    losing at a slower rate is healthier, as you're more likely to lose fat and not muscle, and it's an easier transition to maintenence.

    and you are a dietician, not a random keyboard warrior.

    Cool :flowerforyou:

    yes to all of the above with one exception. We actually prefer the spelling 'dietitian' rather than 'dietician'. Minor technicality, I know but important to us. This is actually a very useful tool in determining a 'dietitian' vs. 'a random keyboard warrior'!

    thanks

    Ah, I'm a Brit, we spell things weirdly :)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    We actually prefer the spelling 'dietitian' rather than 'dietician'. Minor technicality, I know but important to us. This is actually a very useful tool in determining a 'dietitian' vs. 'a random keyboard warrior'!
    It may be useful for determining if English or US English is your native language, to be honest, though both spellings are used in both cases.

    The UK Immigration Service for example says....

    "REGISTRATION WITH A PROFESSIONAL BODY
    The job title of Dietician is protected by law. Anyone, wishing to practice as a
    Dietician in this country must be registered with the HPC. Only EEA workers will be
    offered a period of adaptation training. Non EEA workers must submit their
    qualifications to HPC to apply for registration."
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    It does really matter because people are confused. Adding the misinformation that "you can't eat below your BMR" just confuses them more. MFP tells them 1200 is a safe lower boundary, which it is. That part is pretty accepted (everywhere but here).


    It's important to me because the spread of misinformation contributes to the confusion about health, and the confusion about health contributes to people not bothering, giving up, or going to extremes to lose weight because no one can get it all figured out. America has a disordered relationship with food (generalized statement, I know). You can't fix a disordered relationship through misinformation.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Options
    The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.

    There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.

    We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.

    I totally agree about exercise and eating back.

    Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.

    Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.

    The only reason I have been able to come up with why MFP so often gives women a calorie range of 1200 is to suggest that they should not go below that. Eating less calories is not always synonomous with weight loss. You can go too low below your recommendations and possibly gain weight. This is because your body is not being fed sufficiently enough to prevent deficiencies (vitamin, protein, etc) therefore, your metabolic rate slows down to prevent weight loss if possible. We all know that you can 'starve' your body into weight loss (anorexia nervosa) but most of us do not go to that extreme.

    It is not a good idea to go too low below the recommended BMR. A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies; a male 1600-1800 calories. So it is not always about the amount or rate of weight loss. It is about being healthy and fit at a healthy weight.

    When someone tells me they only consume about 800-900 calories a day because they gain weight on1200 calories, I tell them to increase their calories to a number that better fits their needs. Most people do not want to do it, but find that they start losing weight on the higher calorie intake. You have to feed your body if you want your body to work for you.

    Well said!
    *clapping*
    Bookmarking this today.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.

    There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.

    We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.

    I totally agree about exercise and eating back.

    Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.

    Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.

    The only reason I have been able to come up with why MFP so often gives women a calorie range of 1200 is to suggest that they should not go below that. Eating less calories is not always synonomous with weight loss. You can go too low below your recommendations and possibly gain weight. This is because your body is not being fed sufficiently enough to prevent deficiencies (vitamin, protein, etc) therefore, your metabolic rate slows down to prevent weight loss if possible. We all know that you can 'starve' your body into weight loss (anorexia nervosa) but most of us do not go to that extreme.

    It is not a good idea to go too low below the recommended BMR. A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies; a male 1600-1800 calories. So it is not always about the amount or rate of weight loss. It is about being healthy and fit at a healthy weight.

    When someone tells me they only consume about 800-900 calories a day because they gain weight on1200 calories, I tell them to increase their calories to a number that better fits their needs. Most people do not want to do it, but find that they start losing weight on the higher calorie intake. You have to feed your body if you want your body to work for you.

    Well said!
    *clapping*
    Bookmarking this today.

    Also bookmarking. Yarwell are you really telling a dietitian how they can spell thier professional title?? Dude, get a life! Really! lol

    A refreshing amount of common sense regarding effective strategies for weight loss and health here! Thank you ArmyRD!
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    Thanks for you're posts ArmyRD. Just a question on the maintenance cals of BWx11.36. That one seems quite low from all the data I've seen. Does this factor in the overestimation of exercise and underestimation of intake that you mentioned earlier?



    Remember people, there is no magic number. (and if the number you choose is too low to begin with what do you do do when weight loss stalls?)
  • Jme2012
    Jme2012 Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    :glasses:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Thanks for you're posts ArmyRD. Just a question on the maintenance cals of BWx11.36. That one seems quite low from all the data I've seen. Does this factor in the overestimation of exercise and underestimation of intake that you mentioned earlier?

    Remember people, there is no magic number. (and if the number you choose is too low to begin with what do you do do when weight loss stalls?)

    Ditto's.

    If you come in too low, you could cause the metabolism to meet what you are giving it - meaning slower weight loss after some time, or none as so many have commented.

    Or you can come in too high, metabolism stays high, but slower weight loss the whole time.

    Hmmmmm.

    And then the end game, reaching goal weight.

    If you came in too low, there may be little movement to add on calories, because almost at maintenance. If exercising, your body probably never got the means to really improve as much as it could have, because it didn't have the energy to do so.

    If you came in too high, and you were losing say 1/2 lb the final 4 weeks, you know to add on exactly 250 cals and you'll be at maintenance, and you likely never had to reduce calories as much for smaller body like the other method, because your workouts actually made a beneficial change in your body.

    Eating at bare minimum recommended for safety reasons for basic nutrient levels, or eating enough to feed your body for the level of activity you are trying to accomplish with new lifestyle?
    Or just walk as part of new lifestyle. That should see major future changes that will prevent it from happening again.

    Hmmmmm.

    A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
    A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
    A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.[
    An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
    After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

    Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
    32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
    Consume 5-6 small meals per day
    Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
    Choose high fiber starches
    Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
    Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
    Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
    Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

    After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
    The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

    Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.