Focused Lifting & Eating More to Weigh Less - My Journey

perky12415

I started my journey this week. I am focused on heavy lifting with the intent of doing little to no cardio.

Age: 31
Height: 64 in
SW: 141lbs
GW: 125lbs
Waist (minimum): 33.75
Abdomen (navel): 35.75
Hips (maximum): 38.5

Squat: 60lbs
Deadlift: 50lbs
Push-ups (reg): 15

My RMR was tested two months ago (I weighed 135 at the time) and it was 1550. My bodyfat at that time (bodpod) was 30%. I am using those numbers today... don't know if that makes too much of a difference or not.

I spent some time this week playing with HeyBales spreadsheet. According to the Simple Setup tab, my TDEE is 2346 and my TDEG is 1852. According to the MFP Tweak tab my daily NET goal is 2246. And the TDEE tab has 2481. Starting tomorrow I will be tracking my food and plan on eating between 1800-2000 calories a day.

I have a fitbit and will be using that as well... which by the way shows my daily anticipated burn at 2400.

I am doing the NROLFW program. Tomorrow I will be doing Week 2, Workout A.

I was planning on posting pictures but have no idea how to do that....

I look forward to sharing my journey and learning from all of you. Of course... If I am starting in the wrong direction - please let me know!

heybales

Since you are lifting, view that TDEG as minimum if you want focus of weight loss without muscle mass loss.

But with lifting, you may get very hungry as body wants to make improvements, and you aren't feeding it enough to.
So that higher level will be good for strength improvements, and closer to body recomp.

So your choice it appears you know you'll take, with a range - very smart.

Just curious though, that the TDEE would be 2346 on Simple Setup. Sounds like it matches the FitBit.

But - I think the other tabs may be messed up by not deleting sample figures.

Also be aware the MFP Tweak is different method than TDEE Deficit method. If you had the Simple Setup activity calculator filled out, then the BMR multiplier already has exercise in it for the MFP Tweak tab.

But you got it none-the-less, anywhere between 1800 - 2200 you'll be losing some weight, just depends on focus.

I'll mention with starting weights, you'll make improvements fast with the steeper deficit still, as body pulls extra energy from fat stores. But you still may feel hungry as body relearns how to do that.
Now after a month or so, that steep deficit will likely start impacting strength progress. But until then, if you can figure out meals to keep from being hungry, you'll burn that fat off fast.

conniedj

Welcome! It's exciting to get started, isn't it?

To Post pix--
1) you need to find an on-line host site (tinypic, photobucket, etc.)
2) Upload your pix
3) copy the http: and paste as such in an [Img][/Img] bracket img is all lower case!!
EX: <remember the img is all lower case!

I look forward to see your progress!

perky12415

Just curious though, that the TDEE would be 2346 on Simple Setup. Sounds like it matches the FitBit.

I was able to pretty accurate with the activity calculator on the simple setup tab because I have been tracking my daily activities by type and duration for a little while. I went back and double checked the numbers in the calculator and they seem correct. Based on the fitbit tab, I set up my fitbit for a person of 75.28 inches.

But - I think the other tabs may be messed up by not deleting sample figures.

I put my own numbers in the yellow boxes on the TDEE deficit, Macros, MFP Tweak, and Fitbit tabs. fitbit goal for calories burned is 2470.

Also be aware the MFP Tweak is different method than TDEE Deficit method. If you had the Simple Setup activity calculator filled out, then the BMR multiplier already has exercise in it for the MFP Tweak tab.

got it! I confirmed that the right multiplier is being used. D26 and E27 on the map tweak tab match.

But you got it none-the-less, anywhere between 1800 - 2200 you'll be losing some weight, just depends on focus.

I'll mention with starting weights, you'll make improvements fast with the steeper deficit still, as body pulls extra energy from fat stores. But you still may feel hungry as body relearns how to do that.
Now after a month or so, that steep deficit will likely start impacting strength progress.

But until then, if you can figure out meals to keep from being hungry, you'll burn that fat off fast.

This will definitely be the hardest thing.... a few days into this and eating 1900 calories is more difficult that imagined...

Loving the workouts... I don't remember the last time I tried to to get in shape and not do cardio. But I am not missing it yet!

I am down to 139 but I am sure this initial loss is due to not eating junk food...

perky12415

Thanks Connie!

perky12415

Update after week 2....

SW: 141
CW: 139

Waist (minimum): 33 (down .5)
Abdomen (navel): 35 (down. 5)
Hips (maximum): 38.5 (unchanged)

My average eaten daily is 1795. Based on what I calculated in my first post - this is too low. Boy, let me tell you getting to 1935 and/or above is tough mentally.

I've been tracking my TDEE and calories burned by fitbit. The TDEE is calculated by the the healthcalc spreadsheet.

TEE Energy Out- Fitbit Energy Out - ave TEE & FB
2419 2764 2592
2345 2533 2439
2331 2745 2538
2362 2696 2529
2472 2562 2517
2165 2372 2269

Seeing these numbers, I am not sure that even 1935 is high enough....

I am still a little concerned that the fitbit might be calculating too high. Cell F28 on the fitbit_bodymedia tab suggested I adjust my height in the fitbit profile to 77.13 inches which is a foot taller than I am so I have that little bit of doubt nagging.

We'll see. Either way... I LOVE the lifting.

heybales

You must remember to adjust your stride length in FitBit if you change the height. Good idea anyway if you want better moving accuracy. They use standard formula for stride length based on height, but sadly if you have longer or shorter legs than average, that value is off, and can be very wrong over short distance.

The height change is merely making their calculated BMR based on height, weight, age, match your best estimate Katch BMR.
That BMR is used during all non-moving time, which for many could be 2/3 of their day.

Of course as your measurements change, the bodyfat calc should change and may become more accurate, depends on the spread between formula's right now.
But as that BF% changes, then LBM changes, therefore BMR changes, and the height may need to be updated too. So keep an eye on it.

Now for lifting, FitBit is indeed going to be underestimating.
I'd recommend logging strength training in MFP and take that lowish calorie burn, which is actually better estimate, and it'll update FitBit correctly when synced. Should find the TDEE come up a bit depending on how much lifting is done.

Regarding the foot taller, go to a Mifflin BMR calc and use your stats except height that same 77 inches tall. Compare that BMR to the Katch BMR using BF% - should be close to the same.

I actually made an improvement in the spreadsheet, I didn't assume straight BMR, but rather average of BMR and RMR for 2/3 of the time, because actually during awake non-moving time you burn RMR, which is more than BMR. When sleeping you burn BMR (unless repairing from lifting then it's higher). So Katch BMR and Mifflin using that adjusted height should be off a tad, higher for adjusted BMR.

perky12415

I adjusted my stride length when I set up the fibit. I've also done some tests - walk and count twenty steps and it is right on.

For the rest I have to read a little closer than my lphone allows.

Thanks for all your insight!

perky12415

Now for lifting, FitBit is indeed going to be underestimating.
I'd recommend logging strength training in MFP and take that lowish calorie burn, which is actually better estimate, and it'll update FitBit correctly when synced. Should find the TDEE come up a bit depending on how much lifting is done.

Ok. I will start adding strength training to my MFP. AND then eat those calories back? or just stick with my attempt to reach the TDEE calculated at 1994 (per cell J77 on the TDEE deficit tab)?

I actually made an improvement in the spreadsheet, I didn't assume straight BMR, but rather average of BMR and RMR for 2/3 of the time, because actually during awake non-moving time you burn RMR, which is more than BMR. When sleeping you burn BMR (unless repairing from lifting then it's higher). So Katch BMR and Mifflin using that adjusted height should be off a tad, higher for adjusted BMR.

That is so cool. It really is a very comprehensive spreadsheet!!!

heybales

Ok. I will start adding strength training to my MFP. AND then eat those calories back? or just stick with my attempt to reach the TDEE calculated at 1994 (per cell J77 on the TDEE deficit tab)?

Well, if that calculated TDEE is based on FitBit TDEE readings, you should have the FitBit start showing higher because of improved lifting calorie burn being logged.

Depends on how you arrived at the figure in D67 on TDEE deficit tab. If taken from average FitBit reading, correct after about a week of new readings.

perky12415

They are separate calculations. I am trying to track using two methods so I can see where each is falling (and hopefully being able to make better decisions). For the J77 cell on TDEE deficit tab I feed it TDEE that I tracked through http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

heybales

They are separate calculations. I am trying to track using two methods so I can see where each is falling (and hopefully being able to make better decisions). For the J77 cell on TDEE deficit tab I feed it TDEE that I tracked through http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

Funny, the Activity Calculator in the spreadsheet is based on same formula's for BMR activity factors as that site and here.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

I just use the weekly average, because I found rarely does anyone have 1 day that equals the others.

Good tracking though.

So yes you would eat to that TDEE based on improved FitBit readings during the reset.

perky12415

Week 3 Update!!

Age: 31
Height: 64 in
SW: 141lbs CW: 136.6
GW: 125lbs
Waist (minimum): 33.75 down to 32
Abdomen (navel): 35.75 down to 34.75
Hips (maximum): 38.5 down to 38

I am seeing progress through measurements, scale, and in the weight room.

Last week I averaged 2244 calories consumed.
Last week I averaged 2477 for energy expended.

i think this is working...

trosewine

Great progress! I am watching your progress with interest as our stats are similar. How many days a week are you lifting?

I am holding steady on weight and inches and I lift 2x a week (something like strong lifts 5x5) with moderate cardio. 30 min a day walking or tennis (120 minutes doubles per session more or less).

I think I need to eat more, but the mentality is hard to break...

perky12415

Thanks!

I am lifting three times a week using New Rules... I started from the beginning even though I am not a novice to lifting. I am not doing anything hardcore for cardio. Just lots of walking and occasional bike rides. Not doing intense cardio at the gym is very different for me!

Some days it is easier to eat all the calories than others. I've decided to stress over it too much. I am trying to juggle the calorie recommendation and the level of hunger I am feeling.

perky12415

Heybales... can you explain the science or math behind why when my weight goes down the height adjustment to fitbit goes up? Curious to learn!

FitterBody

Also be aware the MFP Tweak is different method than TDEE Deficit method. If you had the Simple Setup activity calculator filled out, then the BMR multiplier already has exercise in it for the MFP Tweak tab.

Had not realised that. Thanks.

heybales

So if you had a BMR based on age, weight, height as FitBit uses, as weight goes down BMR would go down. Say 1500.
Those BMR formula's have assumption you have same healthy ratio of fat mass to lean body mass, and as you lose weight the ratio stays the same.
Rarely true until you come in to goal weight area.

So that's why spreadsheet asks for bodyfat %, and bases BMR on the LBM in your body. There is still an assumed ratio fat:non-fat, but since fat mass contributes very little to metabolism, having higher fat isn't off nearly as much as the other BMR calc can be. Say 1600 because you did lifting during the diet and held on to muscle mass.

So using Katch BMR, and eating at reasonable deficit, you can lose weight, fat weight, but your LBM stays exactly the same.
So your BMR actually stayed the same, 1600.

But FitBit and MFP using Mifflin BMR, see the weight goes down, that formula says your LBM went down, therefore the BMR went down, so they would adjust from say 1500 to 1400.

So now to tell FitBit your BMR really didn't go down, your height has to go up to increase BMR even more. So what took 70 inches to make the FitBit BMR match the Katch BMR, now takes 75 inches.

Because next to weight, height is the next biggest influence on BMR. It's actually surface area of the skin, but since that is very hard to come by, studies figured out what formula would be with height, tad easier to come up with.

perky12415

So if you had a BMR based on age, weight, height as FitBit uses, as weight goes down BMR would go down. Say 1500.
Those BMR formula's have assumption you have same healthy ratio of fat mass to lean body mass, and as you lose weight the ratio stays the same.
Rarely true until you come in to goal weight area.

So that's why spreadsheet asks for bodyfat %, and bases BMR on the LBM in your body. There is still an assumed ratio fat:non-fat, but since fat mass contributes very little to metabolism, having higher fat isn't off nearly as much as the other BMR calc can be. Say 1600 because you did lifting during the diet and held on to muscle mass.

So using Katch BMR, and eating at reasonable deficit, you can lose weight, fat weight, but your LBM stays exactly the same.
So your BMR actually stayed the same, 1600.

But FitBit and MFP using Mifflin BMR, see the weight goes down, that formula says your LBM went down, therefore the BMR went down, so they would adjust from say 1500 to 1400.

So now to tell FitBit your BMR really didn't go down, your height has to go up to increase BMR even more. So what took 70 inches to make the FitBit BMR match the Katch BMR, now takes 75 inches.

Because next to weight, height is the next biggest influence on BMR. It's actually surface area of the skin, but since that is very hard to come by, studies figured out what formula would be with height, tad easier to come up with.

Such a clear explanation - thank you!!!

perky12415

Four week update...

I've lost just under 8 pounds in a little over 4 weeks. My waist is getting smaller and my legs are getting stronger!

I am loving the lifting. I really forgot how much I enjoy the burn from lifting much more than gym cardio. I love riding my mountain bike but it does not burn as many calories (per my hrm) as I thought.

at 5'4" i am down to 133.4 pounds. I am aiming for 125 pounds and strong.

athenalove46

WTG! I can't believe we have pretty much the exact same stats except I weigh considerably more than you. I have yet to start losing weight, but sounds like you are doing great!