Can someone clever explain this? (Calories and maths)

[RoryGlory]

Going by the table below I need -410 calories a day to get to my goal.

If my resting metabolic rate is (I believe) 1800

So if I eat 1200 calories a day I have a deficit of 600.

So 1200 - 600 = 600

So to get to -410 ... I would need to burn a further 1010 calories? Is that right?

^ No sorry came off rude,

I’ve trued using MFP multiple times and it just hasn’t helped.

I also can’t get it to sync with my Fitbit

Ah well that would be a problem alright! I think it works brilliantly (obviously) but since I’m going for a slow but steady approach I can be a bit laid back over accuracy of course. And runtastic is great too since my calorie burning exercise is mostly long walks so it copes well with that... sorry I couldn’t be more helpful, the actual maths was beyond me a bit

So how was today Rory?

Fitbit over estimates calories burned OP. Just so you know.

But drastic weight loss plans are ridiculous. And you’ll fuck your metabolism up and gain double back when you stop starving yourself.

Fitbit over estimates calories burned OP. Just so you know.

I’ve clearly stated that I know its a rough guide.

So why don’t you suggest a different way to count my exact calories.

But drastic weight loss plans are ridiculous. And you’ll fuck your metabolism up and gain double back when you stop starving yourself.

So incorrect.

ANY diet fails if you go back to eating more calories than you burn,

Such a ridiculous thing to say.

Unfortunately, not at all ridiculous (ok gaining ‘double’ may be an exaggeration). There’s the simple fact the fact that typically with fast weight loss you lose more muscle, (which burns more calories than fat) but also we have an ‘adaptive response’ - the way our body attempts to maintain its ‘set point’ weight by becoming more efficient at storing fat/burning fewer calories, which also influences our hunger hormones.

I'm not convinced about this "fuck up your metabolism" claim. At least, I'd like to see some decent evidence on that. I'm tired of fake health news.

It just sounds unsustainable, OP. But am keen to hear how you get on.

I think that OP has made the assumption that because something is possible by changing the numbers on an internet calculator, that it is therefore possible to replicate this in real life.

Most of us who have lost weight over a period of time know that there are periods when your body readjusts to the weight loss and you plateau. I once slimmed down nearly two dress sizes over six weeks without losing any weight at all, although we did have a very old and inaccurate set of scales at the time.

There is a poster on this thread who does actually know what she is talking about, and has issued a warning about some possible serious health risks, yet the OP has taken umbrage and is wilfully misinterpreting what she is saying. She really should take more notice of these warnings, and settle for a more realistic regime. She could well lose 12lb within her time frame, which would be no mean feat!

There is no actual way to 100% accurately calculate your calorie intake or your calorie burn. Food calories are based on averages, so everything you eat is allowed a potential (i think) 10% leeway from what's published on the packaging. All natural foods will have some natural difference, a more ripe plum will have different calories per gram than it's less ripe counterpart for example. Mfp or other calorie trackers are not that detailed.

For your calorie burn, well that's impossible too. (At least to the degree of accuracy you require to get these exact numbers you want). Time of day, time of the month, what you've eaten, where your fuel is coming from (eg glycogen stores, or stored fat), how hard you're having to work to keep cool- these will all affect your calorie burn and are impossible for a £100 fitness watch to even begin to calculate. You can get a chest strap heart monitor that is slightly more effective.

For people who think long term metabolic damage is created in 44 days. Then wow,

I’ve claimed time and time again it’s all guess work. Due to never being able to 100% say I burnt x amount of calories or ate x amount ... or even that 3500 calories is equal to 1lb loss,

To whoever said there’s a poster on here who knows what she’s talking about - LOL. You’re very silly to make the assumption based on the fact you know nothing about them.

(Just because someone said something on the interest it doesn’t make it true)

If I drop dead then oh well - without getting too heavy or emotional I really wouldn’t care.

Article to say that "metabolic damage" doesn't exist.
It's rather long-winded read, though... zzzzz.

I think they are saying that any 'metabolism' damage is rectified after 3 days of normal diet; the 'damage' or hyper-efficiency doesn't last any longer.

It's naive of you to think you can't do long term damage to yourself in 44 days

It's been proven that poor sleep affects your metabolic function overnight

What makes you think that effectively starving yourself in negative calories for 6 weeks wouldn't or couldn't do similar? Even if not permanent, it could take longer than 44 days to recover.

Never mind the damage to your knees, muscles, joints, from vigorous exercise with no rest and recovery, or adequate fuel.