I'm going for it...thoughts

Kelly2300

So I decided I am just going to go for it. My BMR is 2048, my TDEE is anywhere from 2817 to 3175. Last week on average fit bit says I burned 3233 a day. I was at 1800 for about 4 months with basically nothing happening, I have been adding 100 calories a week for each day and am now at 2100. No change still. My husband and I would like to start to try for a child in August, so I want to have some time to lose before then....so I don't want to up slowly. So I am going to start eating at 2800 today with the intention of staying there for a month to see what happens.

Thoughts? (by the way I am 5'6" 286lbs, lift twice a week heavy, cardio for 40 minutes twice a week and chasing two small kids when not doing my desk job)

ohiotubagal

I'm a bit too new to offer much advice, but let me say good for you! It's scary to think about not losing, but if you've been at 1800 for a while with nothing happening, what do you have to lose?

I can tell you that by raising my calories, that desperate feeling of feeling deprived is starting to go away. It's really cool. Good luck!

beastmode_kitty

I was really scared of upping my calories, but i'm glad that I did! It has shown some pretty good results so far. Saw a little bit of a loss on the scale, some body fat% loss, just have inches left to lose now. Only been doing it for a week or so steady. It takes time.

Have you looked into the scooby calculator?

Kelly2300

kitten - yes the scooby calculator was where I got my numbers from

heybales

I'd still increase slowly, just not 100 slowly. Like 250 slowly each week.
2350 - 2600 - 2800

If your system is slow in speeding back up - no real need to add actual fat back on during the process during the time you are eating in excess of suppressed TDEE.

So if your activity level hasn't changed - you had about a 45% deficit prior eating at 1800. That's rather major.
But only 4 months? That's not too bad.

But frankly you can't suppress your system that much to NOT lose weight at all. You still should have been close to 1 lb weekly.

So you might investigate food logging being accurate, perhaps wiping out some of that deficit.
Also if you are manually logging exercise on Fitbit/MFP, how are you getting the calorie burns.
And does the distance the Fitbit says you walk correct, since that is ultimately what daily burn above BMR is estimated from.

Kelly2300

heybales - In the past 4 months I bounced around within an 8 lb window but never really lost any weight. My logging was good, but not great. I have really tightened that up. I really only started working out about a month ago, so my activity level has changed. I just get my calorie burns from my fitbit. The only workout I manually log is swimming (once a week). I haven't checked the fitbit for distance, I will have to do that. Thanks for the help.

heybales

You need to log your lifting for accuracy too then. No matter what model.

Kelly2300

heybales - wouldn't my weightlifting be logged by my fitbit with HR monitor?

heybales

Inflated it would be.

HRM formula for calorie burn is ONLY valid for steady-state aerobic exercise, same HR for 2-4 min.
That is the only connection between HR and calorie burn, for the delivery of oxygen to sustain the effort of burning fat and carbs.

Lifting if done right is anaerobic and opposite of steady-state with HR going all over the place constantly, totally falsely elevated related to your level of effort, and false elevated calorie burn too.
Ever watched your HR for 1 min after a lift was stopped?
Is that really the HR required for standing there watching it?

Always manually log lifting.

Weights on Fitbit is based on studies of the traditional sets and rests of 2-4 min and reps 4 - 15.
Circuit Training is rests up to 1 min, reps 15-20, done in circuit style rather than sets.
Calisthenics is rests less than 1 min, reps 15 and usually over 20, usually body weight.

Kelly2300

so this is good information...so How do I get my fitbit to not count my lifting in order for me to log it manually?

So with what you are saying, is the 3300 calories it tells me I am burning a day inflated because I have been wearing my fitbit while lifting?

leooftheyear

log it as exercise, and set your start time and duration

heybales

Still use your activity tracker as that gives you the start and end time.
And then in Fitbit manually enter the workout with same start time, and some math for the duration.
Let Fitbit do the calories.

Since you just manually logged it, you can now delete the activity record since it's showing a snapshot of stats that just had the calories replaced, and steps and distance probably don't matter either, unless just curious.

Kelly2300

ok, going to try it out for a week and see what happens.

Kelly2300

so interesting I tried this today...I put in a workout labeled Weights the one I logged gave me no steps and 328 cals...the one that my fit bit logged said 1332 steps and 237 cals....I didn't expect the one on the fitbit to be lower...does that make sense?

heybales

The HR-models if they don't see enough steps along with higher HR stop doing per second logging and calorie estimating based on HR, and back to step based calorie burn.
You might not have had enough steps, or the HR reading was inaccurate too, not reaching the actual highs or missing spans of time. Many find that compared to EKG accurate chest straps.

Did you see in HR stats if there were blank periods of no reading?

And it's true, manually logging a workout gives no steps or distance unless you are entering in running/walking workout.
But the steps/distance seen/calculated are kept, only calories is overwritten.

I'm surprised you got that many steps during lifting workout, unless pretty long and you walk around.
I get like maybe 1 step doing 15 squats for that time with Zip on my hip. Obviously a 1 step pace in 45 seconds is pretty low calorie burn.
Perhaps wrist mounted it saw the ups and downs better and counted them as step impacts.

So it depends on if it switched from HR-based to step-based calorie burn at some point. And if HR-based, was it accurate HR that was seen to base calorie burn on.