Weirdly maintaining ... at TDEE-25%

DapperKay

26 year old dude - 6ft. Been monitoring this very closely for over 6 months. I eat 1900-2000 cals a day on average and I am super active (3 * 8k runs a week + gym + constant walking etc)

Should I:

a- assume that this is just my new TDEE and deal with it? If so, does that mean I might have a metabolic issue that needs sorting out?
b- tweak things and eat more and see how my body would respond?

Bit of background:

- My baseline is Mifflin-St Jeor's formula (2340 cals)
- Been in some sort of deficit since 2012 more or less (at varying degrees)
- Lost 50kg+ (110 lbs) in that period
- Maintained all that I lost so far
- Gained muscles through rigorous strength training at the gym

butlersoft

43yr old - 6ft here ...... maintaining on 1800 kcals a day average.

I've lost over 85lbs since Jan and run around the same amount as you ....

I've always found the MSJ formula to show higher (for me) than I could comfortably eat without gaining.

I've maintained (fluctuations of +/- 1lb) for the last 3-4 months so think I probably need to cut another 100kcals to start losing again (I'm probably only looking at shifting another 7-10lbs so I accept the last bit is going to be tough!!).

sijomial

So using your estimated average TDEE, your estimated calorie intake from food and your estimated calorie burns you find your numbers don't add up.

Three estimates of anything put together are fairly unlikely to be accurate, my numbers always seem to be out by c. 300cals a day both when losing and when maintaining. It could be I'm an outlier or it could be my estimates are off.

If you are maintaining weight over time with your current calorie allowance then that's the best data you are going to get.

flumi_f

I have seen documentaries on studies, which state that people that have lost weight, need to stay lower than their calculated TDEE to maintain.

A body that has lost weight, wants to gain it back. Thus the lower TDEE of people that have lost weight in comparison with someone, who was always at a normal weight.

I also agree with Sijomial, all of our calculations and entries are an estimation. But I also think, peoples metabolisms differ. Trial and error will show, where you need to be to maintain.

LivingtheLeanDream

You guys should have a much higher maintenance figure that that, I maintain at 2000 cals and I'm only a wee poppet lol
my husband maintains on an average of 2600 cals, he's 6ft 2 and 194 lbs- he doesn't work out, but has an active job.

DapperKay

flumi_f wrote: »

I have seen documentaries on studies, which state that people that have lost weight, need to stay lower than their calculated TDEE to maintain.

A body that has lost weight, wants to gain it back. Thus the lower TDEE of people that have lost weight in comparison with someone, who was always at a normal weight.

I also agree with Sijomial, all of our calculations and entries are an estimation. But I also think, peoples metabolisms differ. Trial and error will show, where you need to be to maintain.

Adaptive thermogenesis.

It's controversial but I see its effects everyday. Can't refute pure data.

Debbjones

sijomial wrote: »

So using your estimated average TDEE, your estimated calorie intake from food and your estimated calorie burns you find your numbers don't add up.

Three estimates of anything put together are fairly unlikely to be accurate, my numbers always seem to be out by c. 300cals a day both when losing and when maintaining. It could be I'm an outlier or it could be my estimates are off.

If you are maintaining weight over time with your current calorie allowance then that's the best data you are going to get.

So true! And said so well! I have been in a maintenance mode where MFP calculated I should consume approximately 1350 calories a day. I estimate (I don't weigh or measure my food intake I simply estimate) I consume 1000 - 1100 calories a day (after I subtract my estimated daily exercise)... I have been maintaining my weight with little fluctuation +/- 2 maybe at the most 3 pounds... for two years now.

The quality of the information you put in the system, denotes the accuracy the system provides...

Unlike many people, I understand everything is an estimate. Even the nutritional information on nutritional labels is an estimated number (I work in this field, I know this to be a fact).

I do not have a metabolic issue that needs to be sorted out... the numbers are an estimate.

DapperKay

sijomial wrote: »

So using your estimated average TDEE, your estimated calorie intake from food and your estimated calorie burns you find your numbers don't add up.

Three estimates of anything put together are fairly unlikely to be accurate, my numbers always seem to be out by c. 300cals a day both when losing and when maintaining. It could be I'm an outlier or it could be my estimates are off.

If you are maintaining weight over time with your current calorie allowance then that's the best data you are going to get.

I tend to agree thought I would say I am quite strict in logging everything I eat (including things like chewing gum lol). I also use my kitchen scale to the gram!

On the whole though you do make a point, and if the data is saying 1900-2000 is maintenance I am leaning towards just accepting this and using that as my new TDEE. Might as well!

erickirb

If you don't weigh all of the solid foods you eat and measure liquids you may be eating 10-50+% more than you think you are.

sijomial

DapperKay wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

So using your estimated average TDEE, your estimated calorie intake from food and your estimated calorie burns you find your numbers don't add up.

Three estimates of anything put together are fairly unlikely to be accurate, my numbers always seem to be out by c. 300cals a day both when losing and when maintaining. It could be I'm an outlier or it could be my estimates are off.

If you are maintaining weight over time with your current calorie allowance then that's the best data you are going to get.

I tend to agree thought I would say I am quite strict in logging everything I eat (including things like chewing gum lol). I also use my kitchen scale to the gram!

On the whole though you do make a point, and if the data is saying 1900-2000 is maintenance I am leaning towards just accepting this and using that as my new TDEE. Might as well!

But you can only be strict in logging accuracy for weight and volume - the calorie amounts for food are also only estimates or averages. Ripe fruit versus not so ripe fruit, meat will vary depending on fat content even for same cut of meat etc. etc.

You can only take the pursuit of accuracy so far, as long as you are consistent and prepared to make adjustments that's really good enough IMO.

DapperKay

sijomial wrote: »

DapperKay wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

So using your estimated average TDEE, your estimated calorie intake from food and your estimated calorie burns you find your numbers don't add up.

Three estimates of anything put together are fairly unlikely to be accurate, my numbers always seem to be out by c. 300cals a day both when losing and when maintaining. It could be I'm an outlier or it could be my estimates are off.

If you are maintaining weight over time with your current calorie allowance then that's the best data you are going to get.

I tend to agree thought I would say I am quite strict in logging everything I eat (including things like chewing gum lol). I also use my kitchen scale to the gram!

On the whole though you do make a point, and if the data is saying 1900-2000 is maintenance I am leaning towards just accepting this and using that as my new TDEE. Might as well!

But you can only be strict in logging accuracy for weight and volume - the calorie amounts for food are also only estimates or averages. Ripe fruit versus not so ripe fruit, meat will vary depending on fat content even for same cut of meat etc. etc.

You can only take the pursuit of accuracy so far, as long as you are consistent and prepared to make adjustments that's really good enough IMO.

Agreed again. This is a universal problem unless everyone has a bomb calorimeter at home. I think if you are accurate and methodical about this you can reduce error down to say 10%. It is still big relatively speaking and might go to explaining my (and other people's problem).

Science is getting there though - it is in its infancy, but we can get readings on calories in liquid through this really cool cup:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/12/vessyl-smart-cup/

eruntalon84

DapperKay wrote: »

Adaptive thermogenesis.

It's controversial but I see its effects everyday. Can't refute pure data.

That's called Anecdotal Evidence, a very very far cry from pure data.

DapperKay

eruntalon84 wrote: »

DapperKay wrote: »

Adaptive thermogenesis.

It's controversial but I see its effects everyday. Can't refute pure data.

That's called Anecdotal Evidence, a very very far cry from pure data.

Your opinion. But I wasn't just referring to myself - I speak to people day in day out with the same issue.

Anyways, it isn't just a theory anymore, many in the science community are starting to accept it as a fact. Studies back it up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/.

ana3067

I'd say open up your diary in case there ARE issues with logging - eg. you weigh things, but do you use the correct nutritional info/entries? do you use generic entries and recipes or make your own?

Otherwise, I would personally recommend calculating your estimated maintenance needs from a few calculators and slowly working your way up to that number (I'll assume that you might wind up increasing upwards of 500 calories, due to you being male and your activity levels). When you increase calories you do gain some scale weight, so just monitor the general trend for a few months. If you are slowly gaining, scale it back a bit and monitor for a month and if you just see normal fluctuations then keep it there.

Because otherwise, I'm also female and eating 2150 calories to lose weight, I only strength train 3x a week and walk around on campus a bit. I'm 165lbs.

But FYI you haven't gained muscle. You've likely helped maintain it, but you didn't gain. you need to be in a caloric surplus to gain, and even if you do get newbie gains they aren't substantial.