What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

My Fitness Pal (1 Viewer)

does anyone feel like the net calories are too low.

i put down sedentary since i sit at a desk. i have the same net calories as my wife has to lose weight, 1200 and she only weighs 115..
how many pounds a week did you set it to?
2 a week. this first week i am down to 197 , i know the first week is a big one, i just am worried i am not eating enough. a long time ago a nutritionist put me on 1800 :shrug: eating a lot of granola and fruit and eggs... im good most of the day but find i am starving around 9 especially if i worked out. i have been hitting about 1300 net
If your starving then eat something small. My go to was a Greek yogurt. An extra 100-150 calories won't hurt you if your body is telling you it needs energy.
 
does anyone feel like the net calories are too low.

i put down sedentary since i sit at a desk. i have the same net calories as my wife has to lose weight, 1200 and she only weighs 115..
how many pounds a week did you set it to?
2 a week. this first week i am down to 197 , i know the first week is a big one, i just am worried i am not eating enough. a long time ago a nutritionist put me on 1800 :shrug: eating a lot of granola and fruit and eggs... im good most of the day but find i am starving around 9 especially if i worked out. i have been hitting about 1300 net
If your starving then eat something small. My go to was a Greek yogurt. An extra 100-150 calories won't hurt you if your body is telling you it needs energy.
thats what i do usually a jello or pudding..down 6 ao far only 19 to go...

 
does anyone feel like the net calories are too low.

i put down sedentary since i sit at a desk. i have the same net calories as my wife has to lose weight, 1200 and she only weighs 115..
how many pounds a week did you set it to?
2 a week. this first week i am down to 197 , i know the first week is a big one, i just am worried i am not eating enough. a long time ago a nutritionist put me on 1800 :shrug: eating a lot of granola and fruit and eggs, tuna and chicken im good most of the day but find i am starving around 9 especially if i worked out. i have been hitting about 1300 net
A pound of fat is 5200 calories more or less. You have two choices in dealing with this.

Thermogenesis (and make no mistake about it MFP is TG at it's core)

or

Messing with your macros to burn fat for fuel where it otherwise would burn other things like carbs and protein through glucogenesis.

So if your base metabolism is lets say 2400 and you want to lose 2 a week MFP is going to feed you a diet that sheds up to 1000 calories a day and will do this in the hopes that your macros do the rest of the work to get you home.

Note how MFP gives (I think) everyone a cap on sugars at 50g. This is one way they deal with the gap in the 2# a week for someone moving from a moderately obese weight of 250 to somewhere around 180.

 
Ok I'm starting this back up again. Madshot31 on mfp. My girlfriend and roommate shale be the biggest hurdles in this. I lost the majority of my weight before I moved and meet both of them a while back. My roommate eats 2-3k calories per meal twice a day and always tries and get everyone involved. Not to mentioned the random box of cupcakes, 72oz bag of pretzel m&ms, or 5 pints of icecream he will bring home on any given day. My girlfriend eats fine but loves to sleep. Problem is I need a firm workout schedule to stay committed but she always wants to join me, but she never wakes up until its way past my ideal workout times(early morning). Last but most important, what is your guys go to beer/drink when on this? I'm mostly a beer guy but have been venturing into some gin and tonics lately. I usually stay local and go with Sierra Nevada beer, but they are on the high end of calories so idk.

Lastly, culdeus we need to play some gears 3 again soon, good times always.
Guiness is the go to drink for weight loss imo. Filling and shockingly low calorie/carb plus nobody ever just hammers a ton of it (irish excluded).

In for gears anytime. I just never see anyone on. I'm usually watching mlb.tv at night so just invite me and I'll swap over.

 
does anyone feel like the net calories are too low.

i put down sedentary since i sit at a desk. i have the same net calories as my wife has to lose weight, 1200 and she only weighs 115..
how many pounds a week did you set it to?
2 a week. this first week i am down to 197 , i know the first week is a big one, i just am worried i am not eating enough. a long time ago a nutritionist put me on 1800 :shrug: eating a lot of granola and fruit and eggs, tuna and chicken im good most of the day but find i am starving around 9 especially if i worked out. i have been hitting about 1300 net
A pound of fat is 5200 calories more or less. You have two choices in dealing with this.

Thermogenesis (and make no mistake about it MFP is TG at it's core)

or

Messing with your macros to burn fat for fuel where it otherwise would burn other things like carbs and protein through glucogenesis.

So if your base metabolism is lets say 2400 and you want to lose 2 a week MFP is going to feed you a diet that sheds up to 1000 calories a day and will do this in the hopes that your macros do the rest of the work to get you home.

Note how MFP gives (I think) everyone a cap on sugars at 50g. This is one way they deal with the gap in the 2# a week for someone moving from a moderately obese weight of 250 to somewhere around 180.
yeah i have to check those numbers on my entries to see where i am falling, i thought it was closer to 4000 ro lose a lb but im not arguing, ill take your word :)
 
does anyone feel like the net calories are too low.

i put down sedentary since i sit at a desk. i have the same net calories as my wife has to lose weight, 1200 and she only weighs 115..
how many pounds a week did you set it to?
2 a week. this first week i am down to 197 , i know the first week is a big one, i just am worried i am not eating enough. a long time ago a nutritionist put me on 1800 :shrug: eating a lot of granola and fruit and eggs, tuna and chicken im good most of the day but find i am starving around 9 especially if i worked out. i have been hitting about 1300 net
A pound of fat is 5200 calories more or less. You have two choices in dealing with this.

Thermogenesis (and make no mistake about it MFP is TG at it's core)

or

Messing with your macros to burn fat for fuel where it otherwise would burn other things like carbs and protein through glucogenesis.

So if your base metabolism is lets say 2400 and you want to lose 2 a week MFP is going to feed you a diet that sheds up to 1000 calories a day and will do this in the hopes that your macros do the rest of the work to get you home.

Note how MFP gives (I think) everyone a cap on sugars at 50g. This is one way they deal with the gap in the 2# a week for someone moving from a moderately obese weight of 250 to somewhere around 180.
yeah i have to check those numbers on my entries to see where i am falling, i thought it was closer to 4000 ro lose a lb but im not arguing, ill take your word :)
It depends on the mechanisms. To just do a straight cut you figure higher load because your body will retain it more under no stress. Anything that resembles even a tiny amount of activity has been shown to drop that number. It's for this reason you see that number quoted at an optimistic 3500 calories on occasion.

In reality the number is a bit higher. Though there are obvious macro hacks that can be employed that with a 3500/defecit that can easily accomplish 1# and minimal activity. Mainly just trying to keep carbs from fruit/sugar to 50g and carbs from other sources to less than 100. For some just a straight cut makes more sense in their lifestyle. This goes to the "All diets work" point. You can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 
Ok I'm starting this back up again. Madshot31 on mfp. My girlfriend and roommate shale be the biggest hurdles in this. I lost the majority of my weight before I moved and meet both of them a while back. My roommate eats 2-3k calories per meal twice a day and always tries and get everyone involved. Not to mentioned the random box of cupcakes, 72oz bag of pretzel m&ms, or 5 pints of icecream he will bring home on any given day. My girlfriend eats fine but loves to sleep. Problem is I need a firm workout schedule to stay committed but she always wants to join me, but she never wakes up until its way past my ideal workout times(early morning). Last but most important, what is your guys go to beer/drink when on this? I'm mostly a beer guy but have been venturing into some gin and tonics lately. I usually stay local and go with Sierra Nevada beer, but they are on the high end of calories so idk.

Lastly, culdeus we need to play some gears 3 again soon, good times always.
Guiness is the go to drink for weight loss imo. Filling and shockingly low calorie/carb plus nobody ever just hammers a ton of it (irish excluded).

In for gears anytime. I just never see anyone on. I'm usually watching mlb.tv at night so just invite me and I'll swap over.
Good to know about the Guiness and will do with gears. Usually I text Pete/Uni or they text me and we try and organize something in a afternoon for that night usually so I'll just post in the gears thread giving the heads up I guess.
 
Ok I'm starting this back up again. Madshot31 on mfp. My girlfriend and roommate shale be the biggest hurdles in this. I lost the majority of my weight before I moved and meet both of them a while back. My roommate eats 2-3k calories per meal twice a day and always tries and get everyone involved. Not to mentioned the random box of cupcakes, 72oz bag of pretzel m&ms, or 5 pints of icecream he will bring home on any given day. My girlfriend eats fine but loves to sleep. Problem is I need a firm workout schedule to stay committed but she always wants to join me, but she never wakes up until its way past my ideal workout times(early morning). Last but most important, what is your guys go to beer/drink when on this? I'm mostly a beer guy but have been venturing into some gin and tonics lately. I usually stay local and go with Sierra Nevada beer, but they are on the high end of calories so idk.

Lastly, culdeus we need to play some gears 3 again soon, good times always.
Guiness is the go to drink for weight loss imo. Filling and shockingly low calorie/carb plus nobody ever just hammers a ton of it (irish excluded).

In for gears anytime. I just never see anyone on. I'm usually watching mlb.tv at night so just invite me and I'll swap over.
Good to know about the Guiness and will do with gears. Usually I text Pete/Uni or they text me and we try and organize something in a afternoon for that night usually so I'll just post in the gears thread giving the heads up I guess.
That pos uni has my contact info. I'll slit his throat.

 
It's somewhat interesting seeing everyone's diary that posts it. Several different approaches, but the main common demonimator seems to be some sort of high protein shake for breakfast and then things diverge rapidly.

 
It's somewhat interesting seeing everyone's diary that posts it. Several different approaches, but the main common demonimator seems to be some sort of high protein shake for breakfast and then things diverge rapidly.
When I was more aggressive mine was very consistent:

B: Protien Shake + Egg Whites

AMS: Greek Yogurt

L: Salad with full can of tuna + balsamic vinegar and black pepper

PMS: Greek Yogurt + Fruit

D: Lean Protein + LOTS of steamed veggies and/or black beans

Mine has varied wildly over the last month or so as I've stepped back a little and relaxed (while holding weight though).

 
For those of you who are skipping meals: (FTR they had way too many variables to conclude this, but the effect of IF on lipids is one that bears watching).

Why Is Skipping Breakfast So Bad For Our Heart Health?

Skipping breakfast has pretty consistently been linked to health risks – high blood pressure, overweight, and an unhealthy assortment of blood-fats, among them. But what’s interesting is that the health effects of skipping breakfast – even being overweight – don’t seem to be the result of indulging in extra “make-up” meals throughout the day. So it’s not about just the calories: There seems to be something else at play. The short answer may be that skipping the early meal keeps your body in the stressful state of fasting for longer, which can disrupt your metabolism in considerable and, apparently, life-threatening, ways.

The new study out of Harvard looked at the health records of nearly 27,000 men, all healthcare professionals 45-82 years old when the study began. The team looked for correlations in lifestyle choices – e.g., skipping breakfast – and health outcomes over a period of about 16 years.

Men who skipped breakfast were 27% more likely to experience heart attack or to die as the result of coronary heart disease. The men who skipped breakfast were more likely to be single, smokers, employed full-time, to drink more alcohol, were younger, and were less likely to be physically active than people who ate breakfast. Controlling for a slew of these and other risk factor for heart disease – like alcohol consumption, smoking history, body mass index, regular doctor visits, quality of diet, TV watching, activity level, and sleep habits – did reduce the link between skipping breakfast and heart disease, but didn’t obliterate it. The number of times per day the men ate wasn’t linked to heart risk.

As study author Leah Cahill tells me, the reason that skipping breakfast is linked to coronary heart disease is because it seems to give rise to a group of risk factors that collectively raise heart risk. “Prolonged fasting,” she says, “leads to increases in diastolic and systolic blood pressure, blood concentrations of insulin, triglycerides, free fatty acids and LDL-cholesterol, and to decreases in blood concentrations of HDL-cholesterol.” These are all the textbook risk factors for major heart trouble.

The question then is why skipping breakfast is linked to all of these issues. Cahill says that fasting is a stressful state for the body, so prolonging the fast by not eating when you wake up amplifies the stress. “As we sleep all night we are fasting, and so if we regularly do not ‘break fast’ in the morning, it puts a strain on our bodies that over time can lead to insulin resistance, hypercholesterolemia and blood pressure problems, which can then lead to heart disease.”

She and her team think that it’s all about when that first meal of the day is eaten.

“We believe that it is the timing of how breakfast ‘breaks fast’ in the morning that provides the protection against heart attack that we observed,” says Cahill. “Our bodies need to be fed food regularly in order to maintain healthy levels of blood lipids such as cholesterol, hormones such as insulin, and normal blood pressure.” Perhaps eating earlier reduces the strain on the body that comes of fasting, and/or resets the metabolism.

It’s worth pointing out that this study and others like it seem to question the diets that encourage periodic fasting to reduce weight and/or heart risk factors. There’s also some fairly convincing evidence that calorie restriction can actually help the heart and longevity. But Cahill says that there’s a difference between skipping breakfast and other forms of fasting or restriction, and even the diets that include “fasting days” still make room for breakfast. Additionally, many studies that look at calorie consumption and restriction are done in rodents, which have fundamentally different metabolisms from humans’.

What’s important to note is that metabolism isn’t static – it can change depending on how and when you feed your body. And your cardiovascular health will feel the effects. Of course, eating doughnuts for breakfast probably counteracts the effect somewhat, so choosing reasonable ways in which to break your fast is essential.

 
Some interesting data starts to emerge.

I started very heavy tracking 16 days ago

Was 152.8# and 16.6% BF = 25.3 pounds of fat

Today

149.2 and 12.2% BF :flex: = 18.2 pounds of fat

During this time I was only 6000 calories under my goal of 2100 cals over this 16 day period. I also averaged only 115g carbs during this timeframe #paleo.

This suggests either my net carb metabolism baseline is substantially higher than 2100 (Actually 2900) or that something in my math is off.

My goal is to keep this up to August 7 my 6 day trip to mexico where I plan all hell to break loose.

 
I am going to introduce myself to the "Body for Life" HIIT to see if my body can handle it.

I have a torn rotator cuff, so it will limit anything heavy over my head

Since tracking started, I have lost almost 20 pounds (about 60 days now)

 
are people using fitbit or jawbone up at all?
I have a fitbit. I used it back when I had an iphone. Haven't used it since going to android. It's somewhat useful in that it takes some of the guesswork out of the baseline and it can give you negative calories.

 
culdeus said:
matuski said:
are people using fitbit or jawbone up at all?
I have a fitbit. I used it back when I had an iphone. Haven't used it since going to android. It's somewhat useful in that it takes some of the guesswork out of the baseline and it can give you negative calories.
Polar FT4 here...works well

 
culdeus said:
matuski said:
are people using fitbit or jawbone up at all?
I have a fitbit. I used it back when I had an iphone. Haven't used it since going to android. It's somewhat useful in that it takes some of the guesswork out of the baseline and it can give you negative calories.
Polar FT4 here...works well
polar doesnt' talk to mfp though. fitbit syncs up automatically. I'll use mine tomorrow and look at my log to see what it does.

I take my cals off my polar for my other workouts too, but have to 5key it in. It would be nice if at least ppt would sync in.

 
This thing is so great. I've basically logged with a laser focus since the beginning of June. Now I think I have a handle on my base metabolism (~2400) and what sort of calorie deficit it takes me to drop a pound of fat, which was much closer to the 3500 number quoted earlier than the 5000 number I've always considered more realistic.

Honestly this thing has me pegged at cutting a pound of fat with a 3000 net cal deficit a day, but I've been on a pretty carb restrictive diet so I think that accelerated it a bit.

Now flipping it over to gaining a little bulk. this has always been hard for me. Usually adding bulk ends up as gut. Especially as football season comes around.

Trying to get my wife on it, but she's been cutting lately anyways and is now looking at dropping from size 8 to size 4 inside of this year with just adding some extra workouts and less booze.

I'm also cutting booze to 3 nights a week for awhile. Going to be a real challenge with football, but since that's really just sat/sun I'll be ok imo.

 
i did mention on the status updates on the website that the android->fitbit sync is not as good as the ios->fitbit sync.

You lose some visibility to your exercise with the android model, but you gain more real time data gathering. If someone is curious I can explain this more (doutbtful anyone cares)

 
Back on this too. I thought I could take this lessons learned from my first drop and use it to maintain a good weight, but I've started to creep up and had one of those 'oh ####' days when seeing a picture from 4th of July. Trying to lose another 7 to 10 before vacation in mid-August.
Hey LOOK AT ME. I go on vacation on Saturday and I've booked 10# of weight loss since my post a month ago. Going cold turkey on between meal snacks and increasing the amount of walking/biking I do were the keys. As with last year, I didn't drastically change what I eat, but I did change how much I eat. Allowed myself cheeseburgers, ice cream, funnel cake, fluffernutters, cupcakes and copious amounts of wine.

Now to hit the beach and suck down some beers.

 
are people using fitbit or jawbone up at all?
I have a fitbit. I used it back when I had an iphone. Haven't used it since going to android. It's somewhat useful in that it takes some of the guesswork out of the baseline and it can give you negative calories.
Polar FT4 here...works well
polar doesnt' talk to mfp though. fitbit syncs up automatically. I'll use mine tomorrow and look at my log to see what it does.

I take my cals off my polar for my other workouts too, but have to 5key it in. It would be nice if at least ppt would sync in.
Bodymedia Link is damn good. Tracks calories, sleep, all sorts of stuff.

GF loves hers.

 
Figured I'd check in after a bunch of months relatively away from FBG. I plateaued after losing about 150 pounds, started to creep back into my old horrible habits back in May, put 20 pounds back on, and got frustrated with myself and recommitted. Went back to the gym in July and like you all said I lost a bunch of muscle too because I was weak. I struggled through 5 minutes of treadmill and elliptical; now I'm banging out 45 no problem. August 1 I started working with a personal trainer two sometimes three times a week and got strong quick. Took off what I gained and am at 177.6 pounds lost. 341 feels a lot better than 519! Shooting for 300 pounds lost, not sure if it can happen without skin surgery. I see a few FBGs on here doing their thing, keep it up (and culdeustamu is keeping me honest lol)

 
DawgPoundNJ said:
Figured I'd check in after a bunch of months relatively away from FBG. I plateaued after losing about 150 pounds, started to creep back into my old horrible habits back in May, put 20 pounds back on, and got frustrated with myself and recommitted. Went back to the gym in July and like you all said I lost a bunch of muscle too because I was weak. I struggled through 5 minutes of treadmill and elliptical; now I'm banging out 45 no problem. August 1 I started working with a personal trainer two sometimes three times a week and got strong quick. Took off what I gained and am at 177.6 pounds lost. 341 feels a lot better than 519! Shooting for 300 pounds lost, not sure if it can happen without skin surgery. I see a few FBGs on here doing their thing, keep it up (and culdeustamu is keeping me honest lol)
Lol. Is that you?

Where the hell are you getting those calorie figures

 
It's back on the saddle again. After missing out on the Air Force half marathon, its time to train for the full for 2014. In order to do that I need to shed at least 25 before I start running full time and 40-45 total by race day 1 year from this week. I asked the wife for a FitBit for my birthday next month and wanted to see if anyone has the FitBit One, and how they liked it. I use Endomondo to track my workouts so I know that is comatible with the FitBit. TIA for any FBG reviews on that item. I plan on getting the wristband too to track my sleep patterns as well.

 
Figured I'd check in after a bunch of months relatively away from FBG. I plateaued after losing about 150 pounds, started to creep back into my old horrible habits back in May, put 20 pounds back on, and got frustrated with myself and recommitted. Went back to the gym in July and like you all said I lost a bunch of muscle too because I was weak. I struggled through 5 minutes of treadmill and elliptical; now I'm banging out 45 no problem. August 1 I started working with a personal trainer two sometimes three times a week and got strong quick. Took off what I gained and am at 177.6 pounds lost. 341 feels a lot better than 519! Shooting for 300 pounds lost, not sure if it can happen without skin surgery. I see a few FBGs on here doing their thing, keep it up (and culdeustamu is keeping me honest lol)
Lol. Is that you?

Where the hell are you getting those calorie figures
Yeah, it's me. I noticed that MFP seemed high on the calories burned estimations. The machine (if it had a calories burned function) seems low. This site is the highest http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc so I met in the middle and just used the MFP numbers. I never eat up to my target, I'm usually at 1600 calories if I don't work out, and 1800-2000 if I do work out so I'm not using the calories burned numbers as an excuse to overeat.

And anyone looking for a great low calorie fall snack, look up the recipe for the 2-point Weight Watchers Pumpkin muffins. Out of this world.

 
MFP gives me 1200 calories burned to mow my lawn (2 hours). No way in hell this is right so I usually just put in that I did it for 30 minutes. That 300 calories even seems high to me :shrug:

 
Having a quality HRM is invaluable when trying to calculate calories burned.

Basically doing something like workout cardio machine you will burn somewhere in the 450cal/hr at 200#.

Doing something where you hit your max hr 3-4x an hour you can touch on 600cal/hr at 200#

Any sort of yardwork, kids play, etc. think on the order of 300/hr pretty much regardless of what you weigh.

 
Just curious how everyone is doing. I am down a total of 140 lbs, 10 away from my goal. I had started doing push ups and I went from not being able to do a single one, to doing 100 this morning. I have been on MFP since July of 2012 and tracked my calories religiously however I have decided to see how I will do with out it. This is my second week not tracking what I ate and so far I had zero weight loss last week, with a weigh in tomorrow morning.

Hope everyone is sticking to it, it really can change your life.

 
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay

 
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
2013 formula is below. They change this formula every year to fit current dietary trends. Trend lately is to underweight carbs while giving more allowance for protein.

pp = max {round((p x 16 + c x 19 + fa x 45)/175) - fi x (2/25), 0}, where pp is ProPoints, p is protein, c is carbohydrate, fa is total fat, and fi is dietary fiber, all in grams.

Just for comparison here is the 2000 formula so you can see where they are leaning these days.

points = max(0, round(protein/10.9375 + carbs/9.2105 + fat/3.8889 - fiber/12.5))

Edit: Interesting. The fiber ratio is still the same as year 2000. They tweaked protien and carbs for sure. About 10% more protein and 15% less carbs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.

 
culdeus said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
2013 formula is below. They change this formula every year to fit current dietary trends. Trend lately is to underweight carbs while giving more allowance for protein.

pp = max {round((p x 16 + c x 19 + fa x 45)/175) - fi x (2/25), 0}, where pp is ProPoints, p is protein, c is carbohydrate, fa is total fat, and fi is dietary fiber, all in grams.

Just for comparison here is the 2000 formula so you can see where they are leaning these days.

points = max(0, round(protein/10.9375 + carbs/9.2105 + fat/3.8889 - fiber/12.5))

Edit: Interesting. The fiber ratio is still the same as year 2000. They tweaked protien and carbs for sure. About 10% more protein and 15% less carbs.
New twist is you can eat as much fruit and non starchy veggies that you want . This is huge for me

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.

 
culdeus said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
2013 formula is below. They change this formula every year to fit current dietary trends. Trend lately is to underweight carbs while giving more allowance for protein.

pp = max {round((p x 16 + c x 19 + fa x 45)/175) - fi x (2/25), 0}, where pp is ProPoints, p is protein, c is carbohydrate, fa is total fat, and fi is dietary fiber, all in grams.

Just for comparison here is the 2000 formula so you can see where they are leaning these days.

points = max(0, round(protein/10.9375 + carbs/9.2105 + fat/3.8889 - fiber/12.5))

Edit: Interesting. The fiber ratio is still the same as year 2000. They tweaked protien and carbs for sure. About 10% more protein and 15% less carbs.
New twist is you can eat as much fruit and non starchy veggies that you want . This is huge for me
This is a strange twist. http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=59781 They always have said non starch veg are free. If you look at the formula above they actually count negative, but they don't give you negative integers to feed in.

For someone on a hardcore cut there might be a limit to what you would want to do fruit wise. I mean a banana has about as many carbs as you might want to take in all day long and they count that as free. In my you can sabotage any weight loss plan having one daily. Berries, apples, whole citrus should be the targets.

I realize WW doesn't want to split hairs, but counting bananas as free and sweet potatoes as a starch is really absurd to me. You will absolutely metabolize those two foods completely differently.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%

 
Fewer calories in vs calories burned is much easier to remember and track. As long as you get enough protein, I'm pretty sure just our regular eating habits will take care of the rest (carbs, fats, etc). There have been enough studies and experiments to prove this (twinkies diet, mcdonalds diet, etc).

And while I feel that calories in vs calories out is the most important aspect to dieting, macronutrient levels do play a role as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, not to make this about WW however, I can understand how that diet is absolutely not sustainable as a lifestyle. It would be for a pure cut only. Too much carb, not enough fat to make weight loss stick.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.
I just translated their formulas into the implied ratio. I agree with you totally.

Carbs and Protein should be both g = desired weight. Fat should be moderated on kcal to the maintenance level of where you wish to get.

For every minute of exercise entitle yourself to 1 extra g of carbs, or bank those for beers (This is what I do).

This is fantastically easy to manage with MFP.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.
I just translated their formulas into the implied ratio. I agree with you totally.

Carbs and Protein should be both g = desired weight. Fat should be moderated on kcal to the maintenance level of where you wish to get.

For every minute of exercise entitle yourself to 1 extra g of carbs, or bank those for beers (This is what I do).

This is fantastically easy to manage with MFP.
Very interesting. I'm heading to Disney World in 3 weeks, so I'm not quite ready to start back..But I'm already planning for Day one after I get back. This time, I'm going to do MyFitnessPal religiously. I've tried primal, I've tried no carb, and the thing that keeps hurting me is that it's not sustainable to not eat carbs, or to only get carbs out of veggies.

But I'm trying to soak in the points you are making above. If my goal weight is 180 lb..you are saying that I should eat around 180G carb / 180G protein per day? That would be about 1440 calories. Then I would eat fat that equals the rest?

I've kind of thought of My Fitness Pal as something I should use just to track calories, but tracking macros of protein/carb/fat seems like the next level.

Have you (or anyone else) noticed any discernable difference in just tracking calories, as opposed to keeping the three macros in the proper proportion?

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.
If most of us older gents were hardcore into exercising, this thread wouldn't be 30 pages long.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.
I just translated their formulas into the implied ratio. I agree with you totally.

Carbs and Protein should be both g = desired weight. Fat should be moderated on kcal to the maintenance level of where you wish to get.

For every minute of exercise entitle yourself to 1 extra g of carbs, or bank those for beers (This is what I do).

This is fantastically easy to manage with MFP.
Very interesting. I'm heading to Disney World in 3 weeks, so I'm not quite ready to start back..But I'm already planning for Day one after I get back. This time, I'm going to do MyFitnessPal religiously. I've tried primal, I've tried no carb, and the thing that keeps hurting me is that it's not sustainable to not eat carbs, or to only get carbs out of veggies.

But I'm trying to soak in the points you are making above. If my goal weight is 180 lb..you are saying that I should eat around 180G carb / 180G protein per day? That would be about 1440 calories. Then I would eat fat that equals the rest?

I've kind of thought of My Fitness Pal as something I should use just to track calories, but tracking macros of protein/carb/fat seems like the next level.

Have you (or anyone else) noticed any discernable difference in just tracking calories, as opposed to keeping the three macros in the proper proportion?
Lets just say this, if you want to push your macros around such that fat takes away from carbs you won't get many arguing with you. Well, the US Government will, but that's a different story and the reason why the entire country is ####ed.

You don't have to push carbs to like 50g a day to lose weight. But when you eat more than your target, especially when it's grain heavy you do alter your metabolism. Slowly. So a guy eating 250g carbs a day and maintaining a 165 weight over time is going to have to lower the total calories to maintain that 165 if they want to keep eating all those carbs. This effect is much worse for menstruating women and now seemingly for some reason black and latino women especially are sensitive to this issue.

Sure, you can lose weight through thermogenesis (Calories in < Calories out) and for those that need to cut 100 pounds a hardcore thermo cut IS BEST FOR THEM PERIOD AND WHY THIS APP IS THE BOMB.

The trick is keeping it from returning, or if you only have an addl. 10-15 left and can't figure out how to shed it. THAT is when you have to #### with macros.

 
Bull Dozier said:
Tiger Fan said:
I made a switch to Weight Watchers b/c I think it's more practical than just counting calories. Downside, is that you have to pay
The most success I've ever had was on weight watchers, and I didn't pay a dime. Once you get the info (my wife was a member at the time, we still have all the info to do it ourselves), you can do it on your own.

It's a more restrictive system, and I found myself having to do a lot more planning, and really figuring out which foods gave me the most bang for the buck (ie, kept me the most satisfied for the longers based on point value). I did go from 185ish all the way down to 159 (as light as I've been since college). The point allowance was so low at that point, I just couldn't maintain it.
Yeah, luckily i get reimbursed from work, so the cost is not a big deal to me. I had great success on it in the past, and it's just an easier program for me to follow that MFP. But whatever works for each individual.

I wasn't posting that as a negative to MFP by any means.
If you want to follow WW then just punch in their macros and set your calorie goals based on what you want. The WW macro goals are as follows:

Protein = 32%

Carbs = 55%

Fat = 12%
That's a really high level of carbs. For someone who's a mesomorph (which I think most of us older gents fall into the ratios I typically see are around these levels:

P 35%

C 25%

F 40%

You only really need that many carbs if you're hardcore into exercising.
I just translated their formulas into the implied ratio. I agree with you totally.

Carbs and Protein should be both g = desired weight. Fat should be moderated on kcal to the maintenance level of where you wish to get.

For every minute of exercise entitle yourself to 1 extra g of carbs, or bank those for beers (This is what I do).

This is fantastically easy to manage with MFP.
Very interesting. I'm heading to Disney World in 3 weeks, so I'm not quite ready to start back..But I'm already planning for Day one after I get back. This time, I'm going to do MyFitnessPal religiously. I've tried primal, I've tried no carb, and the thing that keeps hurting me is that it's not sustainable to not eat carbs, or to only get carbs out of veggies.

But I'm trying to soak in the points you are making above. If my goal weight is 180 lb..you are saying that I should eat around 180G carb / 180G protein per day? That would be about 1440 calories. Then I would eat fat that equals the rest?

I've kind of thought of My Fitness Pal as something I should use just to track calories, but tracking macros of protein/carb/fat seems like the next level.

Have you (or anyone else) noticed any discernable difference in just tracking calories, as opposed to keeping the three macros in the proper proportion?
Lets just say this, if you want to push your macros around such that fat takes away from carbs you won't get many arguing with you. Well, the US Government will, but that's a different story and the reason why the entire country is ####ed.

You don't have to push carbs to like 50g a day to lose weight. But when you eat more than your target, especially when it's grain heavy you do alter your metabolism. Slowly. So a guy eating 250g carbs a day and maintaining a 165 weight over time is going to have to lower the total calories to maintain that 165 if they want to keep eating all those carbs. This effect is much worse for menstruating women and now seemingly for some reason black and latino women especially are sensitive to this issue.

Sure, you can lose weight through thermogenesis (Calories in < Calories out) and for those that need to cut 100 pounds a hardcore thermo cut IS BEST FOR THEM PERIOD AND WHY THIS APP IS THE BOMB.

The trick is keeping it from returning, or if you only have an addl. 10-15 left and can't figure out how to shed it. THAT is when you have to #### with macros.
This is a great posting. Culdeus really knows his nutrition. His recommendations above for 1 gram of protein/carbs per pound of ideal body weight is spot on as well. MFP makes the tracking of all this simple and easy. Don't forget to mix in some strength training as you lose weight in order to maintain as much lean muscle as possible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HIt my goals in Mid May of last year. Have since leaked 15lbs or so back on via laziness. Back on the wagon after the Superbowl. Taking a month off from booze will also help jumpstart for the month of February.

 
I'm still using it but because I put my goal as 2 pounds a week, it's only giving me like 1340 for calories. That's comical.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top