Somebody help me wrap my head around this.

124

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe, based solely on my experience, that a sedentary day of 8k steps = 3100+ cals. That's a full 1000 calls more than my gain gives me and what my logging/experience suggests.

    Could there be settings on his fitbit that are causing that? AFAIK it's just height and weight which I'm pretty sure he accurately logged.

    We determined his 2100 calorie TDEEE goal (not NEAT, thus, he doesn't eat exercise calories. Ironically I do, but maintenance) on https://tdeecalculator.net, which gives him a TDEE of 2550 (light exercise) to 2875 (moderate exercise) and I would call our exercise level moderate (heavy exercise, weights and HIIT for 1.5hr), so I'd assumed 2,800-2,900 would be a good average. That makes 2100 a pretty steep deficit.

    Is 3100 that far off from 2875?

    He did some work outside in the heat on Saturday (the 3100/8K day) so his heart rate may have been heat elevated.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe, based solely on my experience, that a sedentary day of 8k steps = 3100+ cals. That's a full 1000 calls more than my gain gives me and what my logging/experience suggests.

    And by "Sedentary" I mean no gym, no house work, no excessive work. He's still doing childcare, chores, and "normal life".

    And I rescind what I said about sedentary, he apparently takes more steps during the average day than I do.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,242 Member
    8k is at the top of lightly active/beginning of active when converted to an activity factor
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    8k is at the top of lightly active/beginning of active when converted to an activity factor

    Yes but a TDEE is an average though, not a daily. It includes 3 days of heavy exercise in the weekly calorie allowance, which is why I'd calculate him at moderately active and not lightly active. If it were soley based on his step level on a "normal" day and not including the intentional exercise, I'd call him lightly active.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    edited July 2019
    He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.

    So you are saying, he eats 2100 calories and burns 2700 calories? And you don’t see anything troublesome about that?

    IMO it’s too aggressive with where his is at...
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    He doesn't eat the exercise calories, he eats 2100.

    So you are saying, he eats 2100 calories and burns 2700 calories? And you don’t see anything troublesome about that?

    Yes. I do. It makes my head hurt because the math isn't lining up. Which is exactly why I posted this thread, to see if anyone know of any medical conditions that might affect it. It doesn't seem like anything is likely, a thyroid condition would probably be evident in his energy levels. Given his age (29) and no apparent other health issues, I don't think it's a testosterone issue.

    We tried lower calories, 300 lower, at 1800 he had no energy and found it difficult to work out, so I don't think fewer calories are sustainable. I mean I guess we could try varying values between 1800 and 2100, but.....

    I'm just going to help him stay on top of his weighing and logging, making sure he weighs things and logs them correctly. My assumption is that the margins are tight because he's getting close to his goal, and although he is logging the most likely culprit is failure to log accurately. It is the most likely explanation, given that he appears to be maintaining his deficit. Either the calorie calculation is wrong (which could be slightly, but between TDEE calculation and the fitbit I doubt it is terribly inaccurate) or the calories in calculation is wrong. So I guess it must be the latter.

    For calorie-dense foods, a few grams one way or the other each day over the week could be adding up and just making his deficit much lower, and thus his slower gain. Although I haven't seen it, it's the most likely explanation, and with the easiest fix - if he wants to lose faster, he needs to be sure his logs are 100% scale based accurate.

    I'm still going to encourage him to see his doctor for a checkup in the near future, and we will continue to work out. I've also encouraged him to set his step goal to 10,000 and try to reach it each day. He's close already, just a little bit more will just give him that extra edge.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.

    It uses the Mifflin-St Jeor Formula. I don't know anything about that.

    I'll look into adjusting his stride length. I'm not sure how to know he's using 2mph or 1.8 or 2.4 etc etc. We don't have a handy walking track or anything. I guess you could do it on the treadmill?
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Better off downloading an app that measures both time and distance. Something like Strava or Map My Walk.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited July 2019
    heybales wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.

    It uses the Mifflin-St Jeor Formula. I don't know anything about that.

    I'll look into adjusting his stride length. I'm not sure how to know he's using 2mph or 1.8 or 2.4 etc etc. We don't have a handy walking track or anything. I guess you could do it on the treadmill?

    So better TDEE calc to start with better BMR, but if still "workouts 1-3 days (or hours)" weekly, 3-5, ect, then it's the 1919 study calc. MFP uses more recent study results for instance.
    It least it gives a number to compare the Fitbit to. At least to 5 rough levels.

    Treadmill can work - hopefully a gym one is calibrated - you can ask them if they do it during normal maintenance intervals like every treadmill manufacturer says to do.

    Otherwise high school track - just have to confirm if US or metric markings, and if metric know what the mile one is.

    And 2 mph will feel so slow, hence treadmill may be better.
    Start the walk, when it flips to 0.1 distance start the Fitbit workout to log it.
    At 1.1 stop the workout and save it.
    Now you have steps, you have 1 mile known walked, and math for stride length can be done to get feet and decimal inches.
    Unless Fitbit said you did 1 mile right on. Then it's good.
  • ssurvivor
    ssurvivor Posts: 142 Member

    He has not. I am glad you recognize your perspective might be skewed.

    Are you sure? I may not know a lot about men's weights, but I know, from my own experience (and years of ED counseling), that everyone gets to a point where the scale stops being important. You mentioned that he's losing a bunch of inches. Don't you think that is more important than the number on the scale?
  • kimondo666
    kimondo666 Posts: 194 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    2% BF% Actually, is BFP was measured using a caliper.

    You make some interesting points.

    But either through simple misunderstanding, a typo, or perhaps just incorrect recollection you keep referring to a 2% body fat figure which you keep associating with a 195lb man.

    2% body fat is at OR BELOW the lowest level of ESSENTIAL fat for a man. It is a level of fat availability at which death becomes imminent and a level to which maybe some pharmacologically enhanced body builders have dipped to for a short period of time during competitions...

    So you can perhaps understand why making and supporting such a claim detracts from your points.

    Aye, at 5% bfp, he would have like abs on the stomach and so on.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    edited July 2019
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    CICO works to a certain point. 5'10" 195 is pretty low for an adult man. It could be that he is already at an optimal weight for his constitution. The fact that he has lost inches speaks volumes.


    5'10" at 195lbs is overweight for an adult man.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    My BF is 5'11" (179cm) 198 and wears a S/M. Now that I think about it, his BFP is usually around 2% so maybe that's why he looks so small.

    5'11", 198lbs at 2% body fat? Are you sure? I would recheck that...