Unrealistic Goals and Weight Loss timelines - funky tool available

[Emma-Leigh]

Many people grossly underestimate the time it is going to take them to reach their goal weight, which generally results in frustration, disappointment, and a fall from the diet wagon.
So I just wanted to point everyone in the direction of this article: HERE

It points out that a '3500 cal deficit' will NOT always = 1# weight loss... <-- this generic calculation fails to take into consideration the many differences seen in individuals (gender, age, race, starting weight, impact after prolonged dieting, etc).

I encourage you to check out the link, and take advantage of this funky timeline tool here: http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/ which should give you an understanding of realistic timelines associated with weight loss.

Be sure to use the 'advanced tools' when doing so, as these allow you to enter things like your RMR calculations and % carbs calories and bodyfat and what not. Also check out the visual stuff (easier to understand) - as it gives you lots of different options when assessing data (check out the different timeline graphs / tabulated data etc).

Even with that said - at the end of the day it is still just 'another prediction equation' that isn't always going to be accurate. There will always be people who fall outside of these results.
So remember to maintain some common sense!
1/ Use the sticky to roughly calculate your required calorie intake
2/ Be ACCURATE and HONEST with what you are doing
3/ Be PATIENT
4/ Watch your results - if you are not changing, change something!

[PhiSig2298]

1st! Should be good reads!

[thebankcard]

That is the coolest estimator ever!!

[Siafu4Life]

Thanks!!

*Edit* - Cool calculator!

[staunchkg]

Awesome thanks Emma-Leigh

[braggable]

In on Emma sticky. Nice link, really interesting simulator.

[YeomenKek]

In on first page. This is a very cool link, bookmarked and thanks.

Edit: Does it calculate your body fat % based on BMI? I didn't put in any info apart from total weight/height and it's giving me a body fat estimate.

[adamg8504]

Interesting...that program has my maintenance at 3000 kcals. I thought it to be at 2400, maybe I have been in a deficit for too long.

[ispoody1243]

very interesting
would like to see how results vary depending on weight training and if the person is new to weight training or long time participant

[CathyVee]

In on first page. This is a very cool link, bookmarked and thanks.

Edit: Does it calculate your body fat % based on BMI? I didn't put in any info apart from total weight/height and it's giving me a body fat estimate.

If you click the box that says "Advanced Controls" it will allow you to input your bodyfat %.

[uml]

Crazy. It put me at my body fat goal on the day I was aiming for.

[fitnessfreak6]

It doesn't work for people under 18 years of age . :/

[HunterCML]

Just saw this. love it.

[staunchkg]

It doesn't work for people under 18 years of age . :/

That's because you should be in skool chasing chicks and smoking behind the tuck shop......

[GetThatThing]

Crazy. It put me at my body fat goal on the day I was aiming for.

Gov't troll?

[mirwaisalizada]

Very nice and useful. Thanks

[Ashlei]

Hmm, it underestimates my BF% and over estimates my maintenance even on the lowest activity levels...need to speed up metabolism. :/

Super cool though for the timeline info and real people data.

[Emma-Leigh]

Hmm, it underestimates my BF% and over estimates my maintenance even on the lowest activity levels...need to speed up metabolism. :/
Super cool though for the timeline info and real people data.

Nothing to do with 'speeding up your metabolism'... Most data shows that most people actually have very similar 'basal' metabolic rates. It is simply a function of age / sex/ lean mass / hormones etc... So it could also simply mean that your NEAT is very low (sit on your butt for the majority of the day). A few pounds of lean mass shouldn't go astray either (although impact isn't as marked as what people think/ are lead to believe).

And what it means is that based on your weight / height and previous data - your 'body fat' should be lower... And this is going to be the case for the majority of people in todays society - we are, essentially, getting 'fatter' since the data was collected.

For accurate readings of you 'now' make sure you enter things in using the 'advanced' settings tools.

[Ashlei]

Nothing to do with 'speeding up your metabolism'... Most data shows that most people actually have very similar 'basal' metabolic rates. It is simply a function of age / sex/ lean mass / hormones etc... So it could also simply mean that your NEAT is very low (sit on your butt for the majority of the day). A few pounds of lean mass shouldn't go astray either (although impact isn't as marked as what people think/ are lead to believe).

And what it means is that based on your weight / height and previous data - your 'body fat' should be lower... And this is going to be the case for the majority of people in todays society - we are, essentially, getting 'fatter' since the data was collected.

For accurate readings of you 'now' make sure you enter things in using the 'advanced' settings tools.

Thanks Emma!

[beef0270]

Cool thanks Emma. Checking it out now. Will post thoughts later.

[justins870]

Cool thanks Emma. Checking it out now. Will post thoughts later.

the link didnt work for me. guess i was a few days late for the info

[Emma-Leigh]

the link didnt work for me. guess i was a few days late for the info

Not sure why as the link is still valid, and works for me?

[JasonDB]

How do you install/download it etc? The page talks about organizations and such but there is no actual link to the download, then again I am half awake and drinking coffee still so maybe I am missing it.

Edit: Doh my new computer did not have java installed.

Pretty accurate... ran the advanced options for my cutting goals over the next 4 months, and it suggested around 2900 calories. I've been eating roughly 2800 a day, and have been dropping around 1-1.5 lbs a week.

[Ashlei]

the link didnt work for me. guess i was a few days late for the info

Did you try using a different browser, and do you have Java installed?

[Xfaxtor]

In on first page of sticky. Lifecomplete.jpg

[asianstyles]

Saw this a few weeks back. Great tool.

[Finnegan Bell]

Awesome links. You are a very helpful MOD. (no WK) (no Rep beg)

[shanelu]

I've read the article and played with the sim, but I have a noob question:

So right now the simulator is telling me to get from 168-150lb in 180 days I have to eat ~2800kcal a day. So far I've been eating around 2100kcal a day for almost a month now and I'm not only maintaining weight, but actually gaining, albeit very slowly. I keep it protein high, healthy foods. I lift for 30-45min 4-5 times a week and do HIIT/basketball 2-3 times a week. Is it possible to actually gain this weight eating less kcal and should I actually bump it up to 2800kcal a day? I thought I may be gaining muscle, but then I want to see a fat reduction.

My goal is to cut my fat (~18%) to around 13-14% in 180 days without losing the muscle I'm (hopefully) gaining.

Clues?

Thanks guys.

[coolaidml]

This tool seems very inaccurate as I'm eating roughly 2000 calories a day and having a hard time losing fat but this tool would have me eating like 2600 calories to reach my goal....

[Emma-Leigh]

This tool seems very inaccurate as I'm eating roughly 2000 calories a day and having a hard time losing fat but this tool would have me eating like 2600 calories to reach my goal....

You're likely doing something wrong (either with the tool, or with your body or calculations).

1/ did you use the advanced tools?
I used your weight / height / and an estimated BF of ~ 15%
Set your activity to 1.5 (moderately active).
Set your goal to 67kg (- 4.8kg) in 90 days (about 5-6# loss in 3 mnths).
Set your carb intake to ~ 30% [estimating to maintain you need 2500 - with 230g protein and 70g fat = 250g or 40%]
It gave me an intake of ~ 2150 cals for the next 3 mths for you.
Which = 400 cals a day <-- and that can be swallowed up EASILY by small errors in calculation / food.

If you're not as active as 1.5 - then these figure will, of course, be lowered.
If you've been dieting for a long period of time already - these figures, again, will be lowered.
If you're not losing weight on 2000 - lower it by 10%. If you still don't lose weight - lower it again by 10% [1650 cals].
If you're still not losing weight - then you have something seriously wrong with you.... either that, or you're not as active as you think you are. Or your calorie intake is more than you are thinking it is.