Random Acts of Questioning
Replies
-
Connie you've asked about activity labels a few times.
I am not sure what you're using as a step source. But if you're using a Fitbit type device, 6000 steps usually correspond to a lightly active setting on MFP. And, if you were using lightly active, you would NOT log anything that is part of the 6000 steps as a separate exercise.
The way I translate activity labels to steps goes along the lines:
2500-3500 mid sedentary / not very active
5500-6500 mid lightly active
10000 well into active
13500 well into very active0 -
Connie you've asked about activity labels a few times.
I am not sure what you're using as a step source. But if you're using a Fitbit type device, 6000 steps usually correspond to a lightly active setting on MFP. And, if you were using lightly active, you would NOT log anything that is part of the 6000 steps as a separate exercise.
The way I translate activity labels to steps goes along the lines:
2500-3500 mid sedentary / not very active
5500-6500 mid lightly active
10000 well into active
13500 well into very active
If I walked 6000 steps and I kept swimming the way I am, would you get to eat a portion of those calories burned?....I love swimming but I do it so I can eat more!....right now to lose 1.5 lbs a week, I get 1370 calories a day....but when I burn between 700 to 900 calories exercising, I eat around 1550 to 1600 calories..
..but today I took a break from exercise and I only used about 300 calories doing various activities....
...I don’t think I ate enough yesterday and I had a huge calorie burn so I ate some extra calories today....it usually averages out in the week...
Thanks!1 -
I think I will keep myself set at sedentary because it is easier to figure out the calories you can have!1
-
conniewilkins56 wrote: »Ok, so you still eat back some of your exercise calories....I currently eat back 25% of the calories MFP and FitBit says I burned.....what if you lose weight on maintenance?...does this mean you aren’t doing it right?
I am really going to plan this break out better than my last two or three....I want to allow for a few food items I might not usually eat but I mostly want the extra calories to come from protein and extra fruits and calcium which I do not get enough of....
After this break, my plan is to continue losing weight at 1.5 lbs a week calorie goals until I get to 235 ( I am now at 241 )... at 235 I want to go to 1 lb a week loss until I reach 215 and then .5 until I am under 200..... eventually easing into maintenance....if I continue losing at that point I am happy and if I maintain at that point, that is ok, too!....anything under 200 is all good!
Does this sound like a good plan or not?...all suggestions are appreciated!
the plan of easing into maintenance that you describe is **THE** way that I would suggest you go including planning to continue doing what you've been doing a good 2-5 years into maintenance (hey you can always adjust as time goes on!)
For now I don't know why you would be putting so much pressure on yourself and trying to "nail" things. Close is good enough!
How much have you been losing over the past, say, 3-4 weeks? How many calories did you eat? Add 500 Cal * lbs lost to what you have been eating and make that your first goal for your "maintenance" week(s).
Whether you maintain on the dot, or lose a tiny bit, or gain a tiny bit... there is no magic formula that will yield the only correct number, especially since your energy level can change.
What you probably shouldn't do is view the break as on opportunity to go wild! If you're thinking that you're looking for an opportunity to go wild... that becomes something to work on separately!
But, if you eat normally with a few extra carbs (an extra potato or two), or a couple of indulgences... well, that should add a few calories and bring you close enough to maintenance to benefit from a bit of a break!
One of the mistakes I have made in viewing breaks was as an opportunity to eat food that was not as easy to fit. Well, I say mistake, it probably was not a mistake in the beginning when I needed the mental break more than the physical break. The mistake was that it didn't evolve from there, at least not enough. I blame some of my fatigue on my practice last year of delaying breaks to coincide with trips or special occasions. It seemed like a good idea at the time but it was because I didn't value the physical break as much as I should. I understood that I needed it but I didn't think the schedule mattered as much as it did. I am not saying one needs to be super rigid about it but delaying a break 4 weeks or more is not a good idea.
But that is the value of learning from mistakes instead of being crushed by them. My protocols in the past were based on rigid adherence to more rules than I needed which led to failure. My tendency this time has been to be more liberal and have less rules and more guidelines. It has worked more than it hasn't but progress in life, at least my life, is often about rebalancing. It is like hanging a picture (without a level). It is crooked one way, then the other, then it is almost there a few times until that final nudge puts it where it needs to be. Then a few years go by, the foundation settles, and you need to adjust it again. Sigh. Always a work in progress...3 -
oh @pav8888, your words are so reasonable and wise. Why oh why is it so freakin' difficult to add only a couple of indulgences or an extra potato or two? I guess why doesn't matter. It just is. And maybe if we simply recognize that and keep working at it without beating ourselves up we'll get there?3
-
Laurie, I sure hope so!....this is the longest I have ever eaten healthy and sensibly in my entire life....when our son was born (10lb 9 oz ) I gained a ton and was checked for diabetes....when our
“ small “ daughter ( 9. Lb ) came along, I lost 50 lbs while I was pregnant!...from the time I was 16 at 145 lb (5’7”)...to my highest at 68 ( 5’9”)...over 350 lbs and climbing, my weight has been all over the place!...up and down through the years...MFP was going to be my last effort at losing weight because I had given up on everything!...
What would we do without PAV and Novus to give us advice, guide us, teach us, and mostly listen to us?2 -
Resurrecting this thread to ask a really controversial question...@Pav8888 and @psychod787, I'm hoping you both will chime in with your reasoned, sensible arguments that annihilate my foolish(?) question.
OK, the question. Accepting that adaptive thermogenesis and leptin/ghrelin meltdown are unavoidable side-effects of losing a substantial amount of weight and last somewhere between 6 months and 7+ years, what are the benefits of taking your time to reach your goal weight and starting on maintenance?
Isn't there benefit in just pushing on until you've lost all the weight you want to lose, then bracing yourself for the metabolic onslaught and its attendant hunger? So that you can get through the 6mths/7+years faster and (hopefully) find yourself in the sunny uplands of post-onslaught hormone stability sooner rather than later?
Using myself as the example...I've always failed at maintenance, because I was unprepared for the side effects. I thought I'd get to goal and everything would be plain sailing. How wrong I was.
But this time around, I know better. I've already seen my TDEE drop by 230 calories/day since March 2021, and I know that by the time I finally reach my goal weight that it'll have dropped by a further 200-ish calories/day (presupposing I maintain the same activity level).
But if - as anticipated - my activity level drops due to that darn adaptive thermogenesis, I'll have even fewer calories a day to live the rest of my life on...so realistically, I'm looking at a maintenance calorie budget of around about 1800 cals/day. 2000 cals/day if I'm really lucky. While at the same being hungry enough to gnaw off my own arm due to the darn ghrelin/leptin issue.
OK, knowing and being mentally prepared for that - and knowing the importance of protein and fibre to optimise satiety - and the importance of daily weighing, tracking trend weight, logging and weighing all food/drink intake - and the importance of plenty of sustainable intentional exercise - and the importance of NEAT - and the importance of keeping active in sites like this one to promote accountability....is it so bad just to crack on to goal rather than really slamming on the brakes and inching along for the last 20 lbs or so of weight loss?
What does the slow-down achieve? Doesn't it just delay the inevitable?
Or are there real, indisputable benefits in slamming on the brakes?
You can see I'm wavering about my decision to be sensible and take the slower approach. I'm trusting you guys to make me see the error of my ways before I make a really silly mistake....2 -
I await input alongside you, Bella. After losing 120 pounds, I was 18 from goal, and chose to "slam on the brakes" but that didn't work for me. I'm not sure what will work. There is something to be said about the psychological benefits of seeing that scale drop at a decent pace to keep you going. I'm not sure I have the patience to tolerate a very slow rate of loss and still apply the discipline necessary to keep losing? But then again - going to have to do it come maintenance. But I'm hoping a different head set will appear once I hit the ideal weight and the motivation will come from the pleasure I'll find in defending the new me - and new goals I'll make up?1
-
I think I agree….I had 40 pounds to go and I was hitting it hard, exercising, etc….I let off the gas and now I have 80 to lose….not as bad as 150 but still….I have yet to succeed at a 2 week maintenance break….what do I do?1
-
I’ve pretty much decided that my last 25 lbs. will have to come off by eating at my goal maintenance calories. That means very, very slowly. I can’t do 1200 calories a day. My goal maintenance is 1550 which is fairly low but at least doable. Maybe “practicing” goal weight eating will result in some success without losing my mind trying to fight hunger.3
-
@psychod787 ?
I am not going to take a good stab at answering because I am preparing for a short time back home before coming back to dad for the end of the month. And you guys will have to remind me to try to assemble my thoughts a longer answer.
Here are some random thoughts.
The most important issue is the DEGREE of impact and adaptation. You're not stacking for a win by ignoring the issue and just deciding to handle it later. hopping off a half meter ledge is not the same as jumping off a 1 meter ledge or the same as trying to let yourself down a 3 meter drop or the same as jumping off the roof of an 8 meter warehouse.
Minimal impact is probably best achieved via re-feeds and diet breaks. Time at slow loss already gives you some recovery from your harsher cuts, or in any case doesn't continue to make things even worse.
Don't blend Adaptive Thermogenesis and change in BMR due to weight loss. The total calories-in mostly change because you're smaller sized not because of AT. Degree of AT would be very hard to calculate. If you knew your average core temperature over the years that would be your strongest indicator for AT. You may lose a 5% or 10% or a 20% as compared to a person of your final weight who was weight stable and never lost weight. But it is extremely unlikely we're talking much larger numbers unless you really go larger loser.
Question? Do you ever tap your foot or feel more energetic when you've slightly over-eaten? move your legs around? tense a bit? Some of these you can consciously emulate too (have a look at Ann's increase your NEAT thread).
Your exercise and activity are controlled by you subject to health. You're not obligated to have a lower TDEE than your sedentary previously obese self. Note that since your sedentary obese self was increasing in size, it is likely (s)he wasn't eating at maintenance. So it LOOKS like a bigger intake difference but had (s)he been eating at maintenance you may have a marginal difference given your probable increase in activity (some of which comes about just because you FEEL better).
errr.... if you did not maintain during your diet break(s) why are you going to maintain at goal? How will it be different? --- This is not a defeatist statement.
It is an ALERT that the figuring out has to continue and intensify and changes made NOW if things haven't worked out so far (what didn't work? why? can some of it be fixed? mitigated? what habits or changes or impediments to regain can you put in place to stop it from happening? Sure. Goal does come first (buy the ticket to the draw). But tilting the odds and getting the most tickets you can is an important goal too!
Long term maintenance without any backtrack is the exception not the rule. All the people who fail are not weaklings that had no willpower. Knowledge is not enough to secure a win. The "beauty" of hormones is that they affect you in spite of you knowing they're affecting you.
I'm essentially advocating the slide into maintenance and continue doing exactly what you were doing when that equilibrium was reached... for years. Thus ensuring you're still applying the impetus you need till things resolve. This requires several things to work. Primarily? That you're losing in a way that you can continue with.
"way" is a general term with multiple meanings. to me It doesn't just mean what I had for dinner.
Knowing does not make you immune. Stack the odds any which way you can. Multiple layers.2 -
Bella: if you're having an "easy" time as compared to past times and you've been successful throughout both in losing when you want to and maintaining when you want to (i.e. you didn't have trouble maintaining when you took your breaks)... then you can, of course continue at a fast pace, then maintenance break for a bit, then fast pace etc.
I am more worried about the ones of us who are "I'm on the game and losing" OR "I'm off the game and gaining". And THAT is where the change the amplitude of the wave comes from seeking slow movements up and down that take a long long time. This forces *US* to adapt to achieve that, right?
There is no clear cut win or guaranteed ways you know. I've seen at least a couple of studies where WITH SUFFICIENT SUPPORT (dietician, counseling, led groups, etc), people who lose fast have equal likelihood to maintain their loss with people who lose slower.
BUT... I sort of had to go at it the "ghetto" way (without the support) and having failed (many times) when going the "lose as quickly as I can so I can maintain at goal) way... I went for the open ended continuous long term management (so things have to be as easy as possible) method. OF COURSE when starting for Category 3, a period of faster loss is beyond fine. IMHO almost all the way to high overweight it makes sense to be talking up to 20% deficits out of actual (not out of expected) TDEE. But, by BMI ~27 or so. At that level, with reduced health risk and in the mid to low overweight category, THAT's when setting up maintenance, adding to the total time spent at a lower weight, flattening the wave... that's when all this comes into play and deficits reduce to 10 % ish of ACTUAL tdee (I stress *actual* because it may be, as you mentioned, lower than expected TDEE)
In the end though we all have to find our own reasoning and what we can each live with.3 -
I so appreciate you taking the time to respond. You clearly demonstrate that you're advising me from a perspective of genuine concern for my chances of long term success. It means a lot.
The thing is, I'm torn. I've been doing some research, and there doesn't appear to be any scientific consensus that there is a better long term outcome from slower vs faster weight loss. The main determinants of successful long term maintenance following significant weight loss appear to be social and behavioural. The folks who are the most successful at maintaining share some or all of the following behaviours:
They:- continue to weigh regularly and monitor their trend weight
- measure and log their food/drink intake
- exercise modestly but regularly
- interact with a support group either virtually or IRL
- follow a balanced diet that isn't too restrictive
- adapt their environment to promote NEAT
Now, I'm loath to say I've been having an 'easy' time, because it sounds arrogant and complacent, and it's also pretty insensitive when other folks are struggling. But, to be brutally honest, I guess I have been cruising a bit so far. As at today. I'm 306 days in (almost 44 weeks), and I've lost 65lbs, without any cravings, temptation, dysfunctional/obsessive behaviour or physical side effects. I'm not feeling cold, hungry, lethargic, irritable or bored. My hair is thick and strong; I have to cut my nails every two weeks because they're growing like the clappers; I'm sleeping well; my digestive system seems to be working fine; I'm fizzing with energy.
That 65lbs equates to a weekly average loss of 1.48 lbs a week - so at the high end of the 'sensible' weekly weight loss recommendation. I keep expecting it to slow down, but it's holding steady.
Most days, with my routine exercise and usual levels of NEAT activity, I eat 1500 +/- 5% cals/day. On days when I do more exercise (e.g.a turbo ride) or I'm unusually active (e.g. spring cleaning or digging the garden) I'll eat back some/all of those additional calories. My TDEE is around 2,162, so I'm running a deficit of about 660 cals/day. I have the occasional day when I eat up to 2000 calories without any additional exercise to 'justify' it....that's fine. I don't worry about it. It doesn't happen that often - once of twice a month maybe.
So far I've had three deficit breaks - the first for 14 days at week 26, the second for 10 days at week 34, and the third for 10 days over Christmas. On all those breaks I've successfully maintained.
My tools for keeping me accountable include:- membership of this group and the 'Lose 1lb Per Week And Keep It Off' group (where I'm a group leader)
- My MFP food log (which I complete religiously, and I'm super-careful about measuring and picking the most accurate entries from the database)
- a pocket-sized digital kitchen scale with a tare function. that measures 3kg in 0.1g increments
- a set of good digital bathroom scales which I use every day to monitor my trend weight
- my 10 year 'weight management' journal which I write in every day
- my Excel spreadsheet, which is a data geek's wet dream
- A husband, sister and best buddy who are hugely supportive, and who are all at various stages of their own weight management journey, and who are committed to long term maintenance for health reasons (husband because of his numerous other health complaints, sister because she's determined to control her type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis through diet and weight control, best buddy because she has a serious auto-immune condition and has to be hyper-careful about everything she ingests). The four of us are in a WhatsApp group and provide mutual non-judgmental motivation and support on a daily basis.
- Forms of exercise that are sustainable because they're part of my invariable routine (dog walking) or that are more than 'just exercise' because they're also part of a wider hobby (i.e. cycling, which forms the basis of many of our adventure days out/our holidays/our TV viewing/our book & magazine purchases etc...we love all cycling disciplines, and it's an absorbing hobby)
- My vow to join the National Weight Control Registry, as soon as I'm eligible by virtue of having maintained my loss for 12+ months
I'm detailing all this to explain why I am hesitantly beginning to think that I may have the tools and support network in place to help keep me accountable once I reach goal.
I'm not at all complacent, because I've reached goal before and then immediately reverted to old habits and rapidly regained...but this time around I have better support, better tools, better knowledge and (being retired) more time to devote to food prep, cooking, exercise, NEAT, updating my geeky spreadsheet etc.
Indeed, being retired is one of the key factors why I think I'm finding it so straightforward this time...no more hugely demanding job; no more 14 hour (sedentary) days followed by a stressful commute; complete control over what food surrounds me; the leisure to move more and exercise mindfully whenever I feel like it; the ability to walk/cycle in daylight during the winter; better sleep patterns etc.
When I mull all this over, and think about the last 25lbs that I have to lose (14 to get to a 'healthy' BMI, a further 11 to get to my target weight), I'd be lying if I didn't say that I think I have a fighting chance of being more successful at maintenance this time around, and that I'm tempted to press on and lose those 25lbs and see if I'm right....3 -
Bella, honestly, your presence here has been a ray of sunshine. Your success - which I can see is not because you are having an "easy" time, but because of your thought and all the work you are putting into this - and the insight you bring to the table (lol) every time you visit is truly inspiring.
And you express things so well! (I've just about given up on language...lol)
And mostly because of the sense of positivity you radiate.
Thank you.1 -
@Bella_Figura Ill do my best to get my thoughts out. I would say that we all tend to have a body fat "settling" range. One where our bodies will go towards, according to our lifestyle. Can we go above it, sure. Below it, sure, just not very comfortably. As far as AT, yes I think it exist, but after reading "burn", by herman pontzer, and Kevin Hall's (Hallowed be his name) work on the season 8 biggest losers, I think that one can only "burn"so may calories, before the body slows down certain processes to counter the energy output. That is why we see folks that kept off the weight the longest, and were more active, had the highest degree of AT. Can we compensate for this AT? I think yes, most of the AT does not come from RMR, but from skeletal muscle fuel efficiency. Basically the muscle burn less energy than would be predicted for a certain motion. One promising way of counter acting it is resistance training. Seems to help counteract this. The next is a higher protein diet while losing and after. Some research shows that RMR stays "normal" after weight loss with a higher protein diet. Walking also might help counteract some of the issues. There might be sensors in the long bones that help our brains determine our size, so walking, or standing might help that as well. As far as the other on hunger and how I think losing weight is best, I will post later.2
-
Thank you, Bella for asking this question, and PAV and Psycho for your responses. I'm thinking I'll be close to worrying about this soon and it is good to be thinking about it again.2
-
psychod787 wrote: »Can we compensate for this AT? I think yes, most of the AT does not come from RMR, but from skeletal muscle fuel efficiency. Basically the muscle burn less energy than would be predicted for a certain motion. One promising way of counter acting it is resistance training. Seems to help counteract this. The next is a higher protein diet while losing and after. Some research shows that RMR stays "normal" after weight loss with a higher protein diet. Walking also might help counteract some of the issues. There might be sensors in the long bones that help our brains determine our size, so walking, or standing might help that as well. As far as the other on hunger and how I think losing weight is best, I will post later.
Dalon I would seriously like to see the rest of it when you get a chance.
RMR AT is the hardest to compensate for. Even if you try to remember to tap your leg. or get up. or this or that or the other. You can't elevate your core temp.
BUT. Dalon help out if I am stating "untruth":
You can bike further, harder, stronger. Even if your super trained and weight reduced thigh muscles are not burning as much as those of a person who had fully fuelled their biking all along.
AND. NOVEL impetus still plays in at a full(er) value. So if you stop biking daily and start rowing for a bit instead and then get back into biking you will have lost some of the adaptation.
BUT
Again.
There is no reason not to try and minimize it in the first place, is there?
AND...
While being respectful and not "silly", and not giving any advantages you can keep for yourself away, let's not give AT infinite power.
It is A concern. But not the end all.
For many of us the problem is not the size of a couple of extra ghirardelli squares a day. The problem is dealing with half jars of nutellas plus fixing if you know what I mean Mr Bean!
And that's hunger plus emotional work and/or coping strategies and techniques.2 -
Right, my mind is churning all this over.
Just for clarity, I'll explain what I think I understand, so that I can be corrected if I'm wrong. This will be long, so for those who can't be bothered to plough through my verbosity, I'll summarise in one sentence at the end.
The long, verbose version:
Identical twins Ada and Bella are separated at birth, and Ada is adopted by the Outdoorsy-Adventurer family, while Bella is adopted by the Couch-Potato family. Ada spends her infancy, childhood and youth kayaking down the Amazon, trekking in the Himalayas, mountain-biking across Australia, and dog-sledding to the poles. Food is fuel. Dieting never crosses her mind. This behaviour continues into adulthood, and Ada maintains her lean physique and her splendid metabolism.
Bella spends her infancy, childhood and youth leisure hours sitting on a sofa reading and watching telly. She and her family get great joy and pleasure from their shared buckets of KFC and tins of Quality Street. They create happy memories from shared feasts and indulgent treats. Food is ever-present and has great emotional resonance. Exercise is shunned. Periodically Bella and her family try to lose some excess weight, but the pull of food is too strong. This behaviour continues into adulthood, and Bella gets larger and larger despite her efforts to diet. However, after one particularly determined episode of weight management, Bella finally reaches a healthy weight.
At this point, Ada and the newly-slim Bella are joyfully re-united and decide to live together for what remains of their lives. They're inseparable, and Bella adopts Ada's outdoorsy lifestyle. They do everything together. Both weigh 125 lbs.
Right from the get-go, they notice some differences. They spend every waking minute together, doing identical activity and ingesting exactly the same food and drink, but Ada's weight remains stable while Bella's weight begins to creep upwards. Furthermore, Ada never seems to think about food, but Bella thinks about it all the time, almost to the point of obsession. She feels constantly hungry, and there's temptation everywhere. At mealtimes, though she stops eating at the same time as Ada, she never feels satiated. It's a constant battle not to sneak off and eat a bag of donuts. She also feels constantly cold and tired.
After some months of experimentation, they calculate that for Bella's weight to remain stable, she needs to eat 500 calories/day fewer than Ada for doing identical activity....and this will be the case for the rest of their lives. And it's likely that she'll always feel more hungry, more tempted, more cold, more tired and less satiated than Ada.
"I can do it!" says Bella, grimly.
"I'll support you!" says Ada, guiltily, wondering if this means she'll never be able to have a bar of chocolate ever again, in case it sends Bella off into a tailspin.
The end....
1 line summary:
For the rest of my life I'll most likely need to live on several hundred calories a day fewer than someone of the same age/height/weight/gender/activity level who has never had a weight problem, and compared to that person I'll also feel more hungry, cold and tired, and less satiated. Forever and Ever. Amen.
Have I understood that right?
If I HAVE understood that right, how does that square with my experience to this point?
To date, I've lost 65lbs, which though not a HUGE sum, is still a pretty hefty amount of weight (31% of my starting body weight).
So shouldn't I have expected this metabolic slow-down to have started already?
Instead, my TDEE is pretty stable...Using SailRabbit to calculate my RMR, depending on which model is used, my RMR theoretically ranges from 1,190 to 1,460 and my TDEE theoretically ranges from 1,695 to 2,080 for my standard activity level (Light jogging or walking 5-7 days per week).
However, at 2,162 cals/day, my TDEE is higher even than that calculated by Cunningham, and hundreds higher if using Mifflin St Jeor, which is widely considered the most accurate estimate.
Against Mifflin St Jeor, my TDEE multiplier is 1.8, i.e. somewhere between 'Hard Labourer' and 'Professional/Olympic Athlete'.
It just doesn't make sense!
When I type my GOAL weight into SailRabbit and just take Mifflin St Jeor as the estimator, using 'hard laborour' as the activity level gives me a TDEE of around 1,869.
I could be wrong, but I think I could live long-term on 1,869 calories a day if I was mindful, motivated and careful to include enough protein and fibre. I think folks like Yooly would think they'd died and gone to heaven if they had a long-term maintenance calorie budget to 1,869.
But the theory of AT suggests I won't have 1,869, right? I may have closer to 1,500... (i.e. my current deficit budget).
But if the theory of AT's true (and I see no reason to disbelieve it)...why am I still losing about 1.48 lbs/week on a calorie budget of 1,500 calories, despite having lost a third of my body weight? Why is my body still being so efficient at burning calories? And will it stop being so efficient (pound for pound) if I push on to goal?
That's what I'm struggling to get my head around....2 -
It's all so confusing....2
-
What I get from all of this is…..if I want to maintain a healthy weight, I will have to diet and exercise the rest of my life!….which isn’t a bad thing because at a healthy weight I will most likely live longer!3
-
Hopefully I can get back to some serious exercise and earn an extra 200-300 calories which would boost me to 1800. At my age it’s more like declining vigor rather than increase. I think I’ll be in the 1400-1550 range at best.2
-
Hopefully I can get back to some serious exercise and earn an extra 200-300 calories which would boost me to 1800. At my age it’s more like declining vigor rather than increase. I think I’ll be in the 1400-1550 range at best.
That is one reason I love being in the pool a couple of hours four or five days a week….besides getting stronger and having more endurance, I can have a few more calories to eat!….I just can’t get in the water when it is so chilly outside!….1 -
Physical therapy seems to be helping. It’ll be at least 4-5 weeks and I’m hoping for some more permanent relief. I do miss the extra calories!3
-
It is not 500---that seems remarkably excessive. How would you be reacting about this discussion if the figure was 50 or 27 after a year?
There is some recovery and it doesn't continue forever at the maximum. Furthermore, methodological and other questions aside larger loser is an extreme that nobody here I believe advocates as a modus operandi
There is some disagreement if the recovery is complete or partial and under what conditions and very little (or at least not discovered by me) clear and compelling research establishing figures beyond that it exists to some degree and there is a recovery to some degree and that there's a potential for a small degree of differences. (And always the full recovery with regain option exists which may not be ideal 😹😹😹)
It doesn't mean you will never have chocolate that's where the advocacy of losing weight in similar methods to how you're planning to maintain comes into play.
You view your internal reality and isolation so it's not all grim even though ahead of time we tend to exacerbate our problems.
All this addresses AT and not your reality.
Your reality and figures are totally different thing. And there would have to be a lot of review before we accept as incomprehensible the labels you assign yourself versus the amount of movement and exercise you perform every day.
Your main incomprehension stems from the labels asigned to the figures, and not necessarily the actual numbers.
So starting from the beginning:
Quick answer: you already have some AT that you are perfectly comfortable living with. Numbers need reviewing 😹
Expanding
The population estimate is the population estimate, individuals vary and a standard deviation or two is unlikely but not impossible for any one individual.
I walk around in the 15 to 20,000 step range and did that from pretty early in my weight loss ramping up a bit as it became easier.
In my case this represents 2 to 3 hours of trying to be active and not sitting on my butt which is what I tend to do most of the rest of the day in front of a computer screen. Ok. I maybe try to inject some extra activity these days. And get up every hour and all that jazz. And my Mifflin activity multiplier is in the 1.93 range
I'll try to bring up some of my old numbers later. But evaluating against an outside estimate with all the potential issues this has (Fitbit) I would say I've shown a less than 5% drop over time.
What I DO see is that when I'm more sedentary Fitbit underestimates my calories out, and when I'm very active it overestimates.
My math is not good enough to come up with a model and the averages are what count.
And I'm not going to be less active because at peak activity I burn fewer than expected calories
I'm not active just for the calories and OVER TIME appetite seems to stabilize close to need when no longer eating at deliberate continuous deficit
I don't tend to overeat because I'm really hungry, right? I would not really gain weight if I did.
I tend to overeat because cookies taste really good and or because I'm annoyed at the world or tired and cold/miserable.
So to part of your question you ARE exhibiting some AT and are more efficient than you think and sitting
Perfectly satisfied with that degree of at and activity. Danger; neither you nor I can engage in this level of activity when injured or possibly reach Connie's or yooly's age.
So your body *is* (probably) less efficient yet you don't séem to mind currently 😹 It will deteriorate at an accelerated rate the more into normal weight you push Ugh ugh ugh I have to leave for an appointment and try to wrap my null brain into something thoughtful later.
2 -
Just to be clear, I have no intention of avoiding chocolate forever. I eat it while in deficit, and fully intend to carry on doing so in maintenance. My only 'rule' is that it must be GOOD chocolate (or have nuts in it!)
I, too, don't exercise for the calorie burn. I walk because I enjoy it and the dog gives me the evil eye if I don't. I cycle because it makes my face ache from grinning so much.
I hear you about not being able to maintain a high TDEE if injured or when older - I guess I'll have to cross those bridges when I come to them. I don't do massive amounts of exercise anyway - and not very high intensity - to minimise my reliance on the calorie burn from intentional exercise.
Lots to ponder on...2 -
I hate MFP. I've written two responses that made more sense and they have both disappeared. I will try to return to this later but right now I want to smash the screen. And I apologize for the response from earlier today where I can barely make out what I'm rambling about. Obviously not enough coffee and too much google dictation.3
-
TBH I think I'd be feeling pretty sanguine.It is not 500---that seems remarkably excessive. How would you be reacting about this discussion if the figure was 50 or 27 after a year?
Yep, fair assessment. It's not the numbers I can't get my head around, it's the fact that my numbers seems to equate closer to 'olympic athlete' level of activity rather than 'lightly active'. Over the past 183 days (6 months) I've averaged 5.2 miles of walking a day, at an average pace of 3.1 mph (which, according to the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine is the optimal fat-burning pace). So that's around 90-120 mins a day of walking. But that walking is predominantly on tarmac/pavement and relatively flat terrain, so I'm never out of breath. And that's my predominant exercise. I also cycle pretty regularly (on the turbo, off road on singletrack and forest fireroads, and on-road) but as we all know, cycling is about the most efficient form of exercise there is, so burns far fewer calories that one might imagine. Due to a shoulder injury I've also done ZERO cycling since 18th December, but eliminating those exercise calories hasn't impacted my TDEE at all (yet).Your reality and figures are totally different thing. And there would have to be a lot of review before we accept as incomprehensible the labels you assign yourself versus the amount of movement and exercise you perform every day.
Your main incomprehension stems from the labels asigned to the figures, and not necessarily the actual numbers.
The rest of my day is pretty indolent...
That's encouraging...I'll try to bring up some of my old numbers later. But evaluating against an outside estimate with all the potential issues this has (Fitbit) I would say I've shown a less than 5% drop over time.
And that's interesting! I don't have a FItbit, but I do have power-meters on all my bikes which might over-estimate my calorie burn.What I DO see is that when I'm more sedentary Fitbit underestimates my calories out, and when I'm very active it overestimates.1 -
Fat burn vs other burn during exercise of way less relevance especially to stored fat loss as compared to total quantity of calories burned over the course of the complete day.
Overall the more calories you use the more stored fat you will lose subject to the same intake regardless of the substrate that was directly utilized during the exercise. So optimizing for substrate is sub-optimal. In fact, burning carbs that have to be stored again is more energy intensive and wasteful than efficiently burning fat
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8Km is what, just about 10K steps for you? That puts you as ~active in the 1.6x range by itself. At 12K to 13.5K you're verging towards 1.7x or 1.8x (for most people who are tracking close to average blah blah yada yada)
A power meter is an impartial arbiter. It is literally a power meter. It measures energy. Subject to normal measurement error and variance... it, how should I put it, measures energy spent! So it CAN'T overestimate what you've put out because that's what it measuring, and the only source of that energy is... YOU!
So you've spent that energy. TIMES A CONVERSION FACTOR because bio-chemical power ain't electricity.
And that's where the issues start because in reality only about 25% of the calories you're burning make it to the pedals. The rest become heat. And the more efficient you are, the less you "waste" on generating heat, and thus you burn fewer calories for the power levels you generate.
But the power your meter measured has been generated as measured.
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
How can eliminating exercise not reduce your total daily expenditure ABSENT compensation by increasing other activity?
Be a confident olympic athlete.
For some reason I've had stuck in my head a multiplier in the 1.93 to 1.97 range for myself.
And I just confirmed it by using third year of MFP (a unique combination of both a complete and a relatively weight stable year for me while I was still logging food with extreme diligence and with a sub 3lb yearly decrease). Using lowest age and highest weight I still get a multiplier of just over 1.9 based on observed weight change results and subject to logging quality.
ONLY activity was walking, averaging 19104 steps or about 13.5 to 13.75km per day for the year. Divergence from expected TDEE was 4.77% lower than expected.
1 -
I average about 15,100 steps a day according to my iPhone, so that's obviously the steps from the actual 'walks' and other steps as I go about my daily activities. Not that I'm welded to my phone, but I guess it's often in the back pocket of my jeans. I think the iPhone overestimates steps slightly, but not by a massive margin. Last week on one of my walks I physically counted my steps as I walked - 5 rounds of 1000 paces gave me results of 1045, 1042, 1057, 1023 and 1041 on the steps monitor on my iPhone 'health' app. So not accurate, but not a million miles overestimating.
I guess I've been more NEAT mindful since taking the month off the bike. And my figures do tend to suggest that I burn quite a few NEAT calories as a matter of course, so being extra-NEAT mindful may be enough to compensate for the lack of cycling. E.g. when cycling I don't do stretches when waiting for the kettle to boil, but that's what I've been doing recently, as well as using the 'Stand Up' app to remind me to get up and move around for 5 minutes every hour.2 -
Hence Olympic athlete 😹
Note that the step to km conversion is extremely suspect and only outside would reliably count based on stride. Stride varies with speed and terrain
But averages hide a lot of non biased inaccuracies as errors offset.
And long term data are long term data and thus reflective of one's reality1
