Calories in vs calories out

[dnourie]

My weekly report for this week says I burned 14,904, and that I ate 9004. Yet, for Calories in vs Calories out it says -2400 deficit. Not by my math. I get -5900. My plan is to have a deficit of -3500. I don't get how they are coming up with -2400. Do you know? Am I misunderstanding? All days I eat 1200-1300, and I burn 1800-2100. Seems like I met the -3500 and then some.

Thank you!

Dana

[Hi_Dare]

@Mary, first of all, sorry I seem to always be disagreeing with you, per our completely opposite experiences with Fitbit.

You make a helpful observation, but that just tells me that it should be optional because to you certain features are completely worthless with it, and to me those same features are completely worthless without it.

For me, I am wired for details like precise measurement of food. I have not, however, figured out how to track the increase from the BMR that is simply normal life - thinking, gesturing, talking, typing, doing table activities, weeding, murdering garden pests with passion, etc. I also suspect that mine is considerable different than most, owning to some divinely tailored nutrition advice.

[Hi_Dare]

@Heybales You too bring up a good point, but can't that at least in part be addressed by body fat percentage. I know not every one has a fancy Fitbit Aria scale, myself included, but many, including the one my family happens to own do calculate this.

Once again, though, the evidence simply suggests that this feature should be optional.

[dnourie]

1200-1800 is a HUGE breakfast. We're you just kidding? My breakfast is never over 300 calories.

I find fitbit tracks my calorie burn fairly well, but I'm also interested by the mention that it is being too generous with calorie burn.

[Heybales]

---

@Hi_Dare wrote:

For me, I am wired for details like precise measurement of food. I have not, however, figured out how to track the increase from the BMR that is simply normal life - thinking, gesturing, talking, typing, doing table activities, weeding, murdering garden pests with passion, etc. I also suspect that mine is considerable different than most, owning to some divinely tailored nutrition advice.

---

You are correct, if you have a bunch of upper body stuff that didn't include matching steps, you'd be burning more than it gives credit for.

That's why over-estimate is very unlikely in my book, either with daily or exercise activities.

They may be assuming what is normally found in people logging food - underestimating amount eaten, and hoping to balance that out somewhat.

Only thing you can do is go for several weeks eating at higher level (too big a deficit for reasonable and you can suppress your own metabolism) and then do the math with accurate food logging and weight loss to see what the true TDEE daily burn was, on average.

Average eaten daily + (lbs lost x 3500 / days) = TDEE based on results

You could then see what Fitbit thought your TDEE was during that same period, divided by what it used for BMR. In activity chart during non-moving time in a 5 min block, what is burned / 5 x 1440 = Fitbit BMR.

Fitbit reported TDEE average / Fitbit BMR = Activity Factor

Now take your calculated TDEE based on real world results, divide by same activity factor (we are assuming here it was at least calculating decently moving time and your manual entries were decent estimates), and there is your BMR based on same results.

Results based TDEE / activity Factor = results based BMR

Now, you can adjust your height in Fitbit so that their used BMR matches what you came up with.

That way the weight for moving activities doesn't change, but the BMR used for all non-moving stuff does.

Formula for that using metric kg is (taken from a spreadsheet on my profile page, Fitbit tab):

height in cm's =if(gender="m",(Fitbit BMR - 5 - (10 * CurrentWeight) + (5 * age)) / 6.25, (Fitbit BMR + 161 - (10 * CW) + (5 * age)) / 6.25)

Now just adjust the height in Fitbit (cm / 2.54 = inches) and it will start using BMR closer to what you came up with.

That's why my height is much taller than reality - higher BMR due to higher LBM than average in Mifflin BMR estimate.

[Ukase]

@Hi_Dare  The "over" calculation I refer to is basically the tendency for my Fitbit to suggest I burned X calories for a given activity, when in fact, I have only burned X -Y.

Specifically, there's no real way for me to know how many calories I've burned on a treadmill, an elliptical or swimming a lap or ten in an olympic pool. But, I've noticed that several people who post have suggested that their fitbits overestimate the number of calories they burn throughout the day.

In my own case, I've basically adjusted my fitbit settings so it will lower the estimate to be closer to what my results say the true value of my caloric burn is.

As for 1200-1800 calorie breakfasts, I try to do those once a week.

Eat breakfast like a king,

lunch like a prince

dinner like a pauper.

When you eat can indeed have an impact on several factors, but for the most part, math is math.

Eat less, move more and the weight will drop.

As for God telling you that when you ate was more important than how many calories you ate....well, who am I to suggest God hasn't? The good Lord blessed me with pancakes and peanut butter this morning. And a nap! Now, He's about to bless me with a run around the block where I do push-ups until muscle failure when I run out of breath.

Hope He carries me home if I push myself too hard.

Blessings to all!

[ac7ss]

---

@Hi_Dare wrote:

... God told me that 'when' I ate was more important than how many calories I ate in response to my protests when He directed me to eat food that equated with 1,200-1,800 calorie breakfasts. ...

---

I am glad that my gods have never told me to that.

My breakfast is rarely over 300 calories. The midday meal for me is usually the topper at 1,000, and ~600 at night.
I am 6'3" and 280#. my BMR is around 2,500 cal/day plus excercise. I try to keep my intake at 2050 or less and maintain a 10,000 step daily goal.

Edit:
I should add that a large breakfast is fine, it's the total daily goal you need to be mindful of. I just cannot run after having ANY breakfast, much less a large one.

[Mary]

---

@Hi_Dare wrote:

@Mary, first of all, sorry I seem to always be disagreeing with you, per our completely opposite experiences with Fitbit.

You make a helpful observation, but that just tells me that it should be optional because to you certain features are completely worthless with it, and to me those same features are completely worthless without it.

For me, I am wired for details like precise measurement of food. I have not, however, figured out how to track the increase from the BMR that is simply normal life - thinking, gesturing, talking, typing, doing table activities, weeding, murdering garden pests with passion, etc. I also suspect that mine is considerable different than most, owning to some divinely tailored nutrition advice.

---

The 'simple normal life' you refer to is often called NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) in the studies and is pretty much a big part of what Fitbit is attempting to estimate calories for.  You believe you burn more NEAT calories than most?  Or it could be that your BMR is higher than the estimate for you?  In either case, why don't you tweak your Fitbit settings so it thinks you burn more?  Tell it you are much younger and larger than you are and it will adjust your BMR accordingly.  You might want to play with an online Mifflin-St. Jeor BMR calculator first and see what rise in BMR appeals to you, and what settings result in it.  (If you change your height here and your stride setting isn't manually input, it also will change, so you may want to stick to age and weight embellishments).  

[Hi_Dare]

@dnourie Not kidding a bit. Believe me it was a huge change for me, as until a couple years ago I normally ate a 300 calorie breakfast. It took God for me to make such a change, but I sure feel better for it. I think my tiny breakfasts are why I felt like a zombie for most of my teen years and I never seemed to have any energy until bedtime (Our culture seems to emphasize dinner as the biggest meal). This advice was tailored to my physiology, not necessarily everyone elses, but I highly recommend the need to frontload the day be considered since it has really helped me. By the way, there is a saying among nutritionists to eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper. Who better than God to show me that I am one person this applies to.

[Hi_Dare]

@Heybales Thanks for the equations to work with. I thought I might do something like that at some point but I hadn't thought as far as how.

[KelleyLA]

I have my defecit to be 750 calories on the "kind of hard" plan.  So today I have 1987 caloreis burned. 1642 calories eaten.  So that leaves 345.  I went over my calories alloted by 186.  SO I think by what you are saying if I add the 345 + 186, that should equal my 750???  But it doesn't.  

I guess it is saying I was alloted 1642-186 (oeverage) = 1456

So does that mean the 1456 + 750 = 2006 is what I could eat to NOT lose weight?

It just doesn't seem to add up....

[Heybales]

---

@KelleyLA wrote:

I have my defecit to be 750 calories on the "kind of hard" plan.  So today I have 1987 caloreis burned. 1642 calories eaten.  So that leaves 345.  I went over my calories alloted by 186.  SO I think by what you are saying if I add the 345 + 186, that should equal my 750???  But it doesn't.  

I guess it is saying I was alloted 1642-186 (oeverage) = 1456

So does that mean the 1456 + 750 = 2006 is what I could eat to NOT lose weight?

It just doesn't seem to add up....

---

If truly burned 1987 calories as shown on Calories tile, Calories In/Out gauge tile, Activities tab, ect.

1987 - 750 deficit = 1237 goal eating level, as shown on Food plan tile.

You ate 1642, over goal, but under what you burned, you still lose weight! Ya!

And yes you could have eaten 345 more to maintain weight today.

Eaten 1642 - 1237 goal = 405 over goal eaten.

Where are you reading your figures from, and does it say it's updated everything recently?

BTW, does it sound scary to you that your deficit is 38%?

People in just the overweight category of BMI eating at 25% deficit have slowed their daily metabolism down by 20-25%, meaning they have to eat even less to keep losing, and maintenance is 20-25% less than it could have been.

I guess if you want that, just get used to eating much less, you'll be doing it for awhile.

[SunsetRunner]

i love it  i loass 5bls  on the fit bit

 the way i did it by the not eat a lant jast eat 1/2 of food and woking log

barb

Spoiler

grat

• ---

  @MoodyFoody wrote:
  

  I agree.  I always eat under but still don't lose any wieght.

  ---

  trid  to do that

  ---

  @MoodyFoody wrote:
  

  I agree.  I always eat under but still don't lose any wieght.

  ---