Focused Lifting & Eating More to Weigh Less - My Journey
Replies
-
The first set of pics are from early September 2013. And please forgive a little bit of the crack...
This is the second set from 11/1/13. Thing I love... my butt is growing! Thing I want to work on... back!
0 -
The first set of pics are from early September 2013. And please forgive a little bit of the crack...
This is the second set from 11/1/13. Thing I love... my butt is growing! Thing I want to work on... back!
so what did I do wrong... geez... i'm assuming no one else can see these.
I did: [img]the url which for example was http://s785.photobucket.com/user/perky12415/media/Progress 9_17_13/P9170314_zps653ae3dc.jpg and then closed with[/img]
I didn't put any spaces in it. thoughts?0 -
This made a difference for me! I'm back at 7 ft tall.
Also, what is the date on the FitBit tab? I changed the formula last go around dealing with that difference in metabolism for women, and got one parentheses in the wrong place. That was corrected on 10/30 when someone noticed their height really changed. Due to where it was, may not even effect you. But might confirm.
What would be the implications of this>>
I am not there yet clearly because my fitbit height was adjusted back not to far from my starting point in this journey.Means your Katch BMR appears to be higher than Mifflin BMR by decent amount.0 -
This made a difference for me! I'm back at 7 ft tall.
Also, what is the date on the FitBit tab? I changed the formula last go around dealing with that difference in metabolism for women, and got one parentheses in the wrong place. That was corrected on 10/30 when someone noticed their height really changed. Due to where it was, may not even effect you. But might confirm.
What would be the implications of this>>
I am not there yet clearly because my fitbit height was adjusted back not to far from my starting point in this journey.Means your Katch BMR appears to be higher than Mifflin BMR by decent amount.
You have more or less LBM by 5% from where someone average age, weight, height would be.
So it's telling you to increase height so your FitBit is aware of higher BMR estimate, because you have more LBM. Great job.0 -
The first set of pics are from early September 2013. And please forgive a little bit of the crack...
so what did I do wrong... geez... i'm assuming no one else can see these.
I did: [img]the url which for example was http://s785.photobucket.com/user/perky12415/media/Progress 9_17_13/P9170314_zps653ae3dc.jpg and then closed with[/img]
I didn't put any spaces in it. thoughts?
Ah, html at end of link, should be just the .jpg.
But since that didn't work either, you got links for the web page itself, you want to right click on the actual picture and copy image link, not web page link.0 -
i can do individual web links for the pictures but that is kind of lame, no?
plus on the page it has options for downloading which I don't want.
grrr0 -
Apparently getting pictures up here is a bust... but that's okay.
Big news: Bod Pod tomorrow!!
Have a great week everyone!0 -
Apparently getting pictures up here is a bust... but that's okay.
Big news: Bod Pod tomorrow!!
Have a great week everyone!
Make sure you get your measurements in the morning before you go.
That way you can have a correction factor from measured BF% estimate, to better tested BF%.
Because later as inches go down, your BF% won't stay the same, so you'll want to apply that correction factor to get new BF%.0 -
i can do individual web links for the pictures but that is kind of lame, no?
plus on the page it has options for downloading which I don't want.
grrr
Well, you can provide a link to the page and people can just go to it and view, and get whatever options a guest viewer gets.
Or indeed you provide individual links to the actual pictures, each of course it's on file on that server, for display here.
Either way, anyone can right click on a picture and save it - unless site disables that, in which case usually can't get filenames either to link to.0 -
Make sure you get your measurements in the morning before you go.
That way you can have a correction factor from measured BF% estimate, to better tested BF%.
Because later as inches go down, your BF% won't stay the same, so you'll want to apply that correction factor to get new BF%.
tape measure measurements i can do. the calipers might be trickier because i might not have an assistant on hand...0 -
Do you have your pictures uploaded onto Photobucket? What I learned was that in order for the picture thing to work there can be NO spaces n any of your folder names. I just went in to my folder and added a little dash instead and it worked.0
-
Do you have your pictures uploaded onto Photobucket? What I learned was that in order for the picture thing to work there can be NO spaces n any of your folder names. I just went in to my folder and added a little dash instead and it worked.
I did not know that... thank you!
I'm not considering if I even want to post them... feeling a little too exposed in this cyber crazy world...0 -
OK. I got the bodpod estimate today and it really threw me for a loop. I was thinking I would be around 28...
Bodpod: 31.6
u.s. navy circumference method: 28.89 (from spreadsheet)
covert bailey method: 27.13 (from spreadsheet)
Also, not sure of what to make of the discrepancy between my RMR that i go through a breathing test of 1550 (in august) versus the 1086 that the bodpod estimated.
Just a reminder... 5'4" and 127.2 pounds. The scale at the bod pod had me at 126.5.
I was thinking that I didn't really want to lose too much more fat because than my breasts will disappear but I am doubting myself now. I do know that I would like to build more muscle... especially in my arms, back, and butt. I do not want them hiding under too much fat so I guess that means I do need to lose probably another 10 pounds of just fat.0 -
How do you feel with the way you look? I know I get obsessed with numbers and forget to just look in the mirror.
BTW, our stats are similar. I'm 5'5.5" (gotta add that half) and 127 lbs. I've been thinking about doing a Bodpod, but I'm not sure I want to now, lol. I think if the numbers came back higher than I think they are, I'd get overly obsessive.0 -
OK. I got the bodpod estimate today and it really threw me for a loop. I was thinking I would be around 28...
Bodpod: 31.6
u.s. navy circumference method: 28.89 (from spreadsheet)
covert bailey method: 27.13 (from spreadsheet)
Also, not sure of what to make of the discrepancy between my RMR that i go through a breathing test of 1550 (in august) versus the 1086 that the bodpod estimated.
Just a reminder... 5'4" and 127.2 pounds. The scale at the bod pod had me at 126.5.
I was thinking that I didn't really want to lose too much more fat because than my breasts will disappear but I am doubting myself now. I do know that I would like to build more muscle... especially in my arms, back, and butt. I do not want them hiding under too much fat so I guess that means I do need to lose probably another 10 pounds of just fat.
Avg tape measurement method BF% - 28.0
Bodpod measurement - 31.6
Correction factor to tape method - 1.129 (I'd stick that in the spreadsheet right above the yellow cell for BF% so you'll know when the inches drop more).
That is within the 5% accuracy the tape method can yield.
I'd suggest at that point, it will be about the way you look, with a truthful eye. Weight may not matter as much as building muscle. You may want to use less deficit than suggested, close to maintenance, at least 24 hrs after lifting, to get max benefit from lifting.
I've seen Bodpod tests that use different software versions, so the calc's based on your results may be different.
Mine gave some RMR method based on formula that was found best for female athletes when I researched it, ya strange.
Might see if it was giving Katch BMR or whatever. But it's testing BF%, estimating everything else based on that.
Anyway...
126.5 lbs with 31.6% BF = 86.5 LBM = estimated BMR Katch 1218, estimated RMR Cunningham 1363.
Test RMR couple months back - 1550.
I'd still base the spreadsheet on the test RMR, and if pretty sure you didn't lose any LBM, you could even say RMR 1550 / 86.5 LBM = 17.919 cal/lb LBM.
If your LBM changes decently, you can redo that to get a better RMR value.
Because with your RMR being higher it seems than expected based on LBM, no need to base the math on a lower estimate, I'd trust the RMR test, unless it was poorly setup. (no lifting day before, no exercise within 12 hrs, no meal within 4-6 hrs).
And Bodpod was good setup, same no eating, not sore from last lifting retaining water, not depleted of water because of big cardio exercise this morning, ect?0 -
Correction factor to tape method - 1.129 (I'd stick that in the spreadsheet right above the yellow cell for BF% so you'll know when the inches drop more).
How do I implement the correction factor in the future?I'd suggest at that point, it will be about the way you look, with a truthful eye. Weight may not matter as much as building muscle. You may want to use less deficit than suggested, close to maintenance, at least 24 hrs after lifting, to get max benefit from lifting.
Agreed on the truthful eye.... I definitely want to build more muscle. I will lower my deficit and for the 24hours after lifting I will eat as close to TDEE as possible.
Interesting... I didn't know this!I've seen Bodpod tests that use different software versions, so the calc's based on your results may be different.
So say when my LBM gets to 93 I take 17.919*93 = 1,666 to be my new RMR.I'd still base the spreadsheet on the test RMR, and if pretty sure you didn't lose any LBM, you could even say RMR 1550 / 86.5 LBM = 17.919 cal/lb LBM.
My test was at 8:30am today. I did bikram yoga from 5:30am-7:00am yesterday. Nothing additional. I drank water until 9:30 the night before. And my last meal before the test was at 6:30pm the day before. I was a little sore in my shoulder area.And Bodpod was good setup, same no eating, not sore from last lifting retaining water, not depleted of water because of big cardio exercise this morning, ect?0 -
New avg bodyfat % from tape measurement calcs in the future x 1.129 = better estimate BF%.
New LBM from that x 17.919 = better estimated RMR. (you were correct with example, good positive attitude - going up!)
Wow that's a long yoga session, I don't feel stretched out even thinking about it.
Sounds like valid test though.
To add to my experience with your Bodpod results (because I'd think the company would want to control things more, their names on the equipment still), did you get a full 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper as results? One person got like a receipt printout, not sure if that is newer or older method, or option perhaps.
Does it give a full TDEE table based on your results? Does it show a BMR or RMR, they should comment which formula led to that figure?
Mine on the back page gave all the definitions of BMR, RMR, TDEE, and the formula, and eating level, ect. My person giving test didn't ask about my daily life or exercise, some one else commented they were asked, how about you?0 -
It's new for me! The hardest part is focusing that long...
Wow that's a long yoga session, I don't feel stretched out even thinking about it.
Sounds like valid test though.
full sheet of paperTo add to my experience with your Bodpod results (because I'd think the company would want to control things more, their names on the equipment still), did you get a full 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper as results? One person got like a receipt printout, not sure if that is newer or older method, or option perhaps.
I will have to double check the paper when I get home to confirm but I remember it had RMR as well as a box with TDEE at four different activity levels. The guy asked me how much I worked out but that was it. I will post everything on the form tonight. :happy:Does it give a full TDEE table based on your results? Does it show a BMR or RMR, they should comment which formula led to that figure?
Mine on the back page gave all the definitions of BMR, RMR, TDEE, and the formula, and eating level, ect. My person giving test didn't ask about my daily life or exercise, some one else commented they were asked, how about you?0 -
New avg bodyfat % from tape measurement calcs in the future x 1.129 = better estimate BF%.
New LBM from that x 17.919 = better estimated RMR. (you were correct with example, good positive attitude - going up!)
Wow that's a long yoga session, I don't feel stretched out even thinking about it.
Sounds like valid test though.
To add to my experience with your Bodpod results (because I'd think the company would want to control things more, their names on the equipment still), did you get a full 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper as results? One person got like a receipt printout, not sure if that is newer or older method, or option perhaps.
Does it give a full TDEE table based on your results? Does it show a BMR or RMR, they should comment which formula led to that figure?
Mine on the back page gave all the definitions of BMR, RMR, TDEE, and the formula, and eating level, ect. My person giving test didn't ask about my daily life or exercise, some one else commented they were asked, how about you?
So this is what the sheet says...
This bodpod is associated with www.cosmed.com
Test profile:
the density model is listed as Siri
the thoracic gas volume model is listed as Predicted
The body fat rating table has the following asterisk:
Applies to adults ages 18 and older. based on information from the American College of Sports Medicine, the American Council on Exercises, Exercise Physiology (4th Ed.) by McArdle, Katch, and Katch, and various scientific and epidemiological studies
This is the breakdown for females:
risky(high body fat) >40%
excess fat 30.1-40%
moderately lean 22.1-30%
lean 18.1-22%
ultra lean 15-18%
risky (low body fat) <15%
Energy Expenditure Results
Est. Resting Metabolic Rate is 1086
Est total energy expenditure and associated daily activity level
1347 sedentary
1651 low active
1890 active
2248 very active
The asterisk with this section:
Applies to adults ages 18 and older. Based on information from the Institute of Medicine (2002),Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, Part 1, pp93-206. Washington D.C. National Academy of Sciences0 -
I just looked at my 2 sheets, which changed over time.
First one had more references, Second just figures. But didn't give the volume and formula info you were given, interesting.
There aren't many RMR formula's that use LBM or BF in them.
The only other one happens to be in an article on the cosmed site, so they probably used it.
This is the one I was talking about, worked great for athletic young women. Nelson.
http://www.cosmedusa.com/hires/marketing_literature/product_news/Product_News_Estimation_of_RMR_based_on_Lean_Mass_with_Bod_Pod_EN_print.pdf
The RMR prediction equation used in the Bod Pod software is as follows:
RMR (kcal/day) = 25.80 x Fat-free mass (kg) + 4.04 x Fat mass (kg)
I examined this when first making the spreadsheet, and the studies weren't as glowing as Cosmed is on how accurate it can be.
I'll have to see if new studies say differently, might have to update the spreadsheet - yet again!0 -
Ah, pretty good results, in their study of only 213 adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1415003
"3) REE = (108 x FFM) + (16.9 x FM) (R2 = 0.986, P < 0.001). FM explained only a small part of the variation remaining after FFM was accounted for. The models that include both FFM and FM are useful in examination of the changes in REE that occur with a change in both the FFM and FM. To account for more of the variability in REE, FFM will have to be divided into organ mass and skeletal muscle mass in future analyses."
And there last reference was done lately a couple times, here's one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164308
Just a quick review of that study and another one show no references to Nelson's study. Interesting, his is later, perhaps something was found out about it, don't know.
Just sharing, and hopefully I can find this again when needed.0 -
The RMR prediction equation used in the Bod Pod software is as follows:
RMR (kcal/day) = 25.80 x Fat-free mass (kg) + 4.04 x Fat mass (kg)
I examined this when first making the spreadsheet, and the studies weren't as glowing as Cosmed is on how accurate it can be.
I'll have to see if new studies say differently, might have to update the spreadsheet - yet again!
You're talking specifically about the RMR formula here, yes?
So I think I am going to take that number with a grain of salt.0 -
Just sharing, and hopefully I can find this again when needed.
Share away! I love to learn new things and to explore these topics. I've actually created a word document where I cut and past things from the forum that I want to easily find again. 0 -
I just used that formula for RMR based on my BF% and it gave me a number of 1277. Less than my estimated BMR and certainly less than my tested RMR of 1580.
Based on what I eat to maintain vs. estimated TDEE, Fitbit vs. Bodymedia TDEE, that number is impossibly low. It's easy to get obsessed with these numbers, but the simple solution is to monitor closely what you eat, see if you gain, lose or maintain, adjust from there depending on your goals.0 -
I just used that formula for RMR based on my BF% and it gave me a number of 1277. Less than my estimated BMR and certainly less than my tested RMR of 1580.
Based on what I eat to maintain vs. estimated TDEE, Fitbit vs. Bodymedia TDEE, that number is impossibly low. It's easy to get obsessed with these numbers, but the simple solution is to monitor closely what you eat, see if you gain, lose or maintain, adjust from there depending on your goals.
So true. The purpose of the spreadsheet is to not go to the low side, which it seems has been indicated twice here, and in the fact no other recent study uses that RMR formula, for probably very good reason.
So the problem with starting on the low side with suppressed metabolism - the math doesn't work out right, and you'll just keep chasing down and suppressing as you drop what appears to be TDEE based on math.
Add to that the fact that if eating so little to be suppressed in the first place, some of the weight loss is probably muscle mass, so the whole math with 3500 calorie / lb of fat doesn't work anyway.
So i think this answered my question, thanks for checking against known test.0 -
Okay...
I haven't stepped on the scale all week... going to do a check in tomorrow. I am forcing myself to not exercise today. I have a Groupon for Bikram Yoga and have been doing it everyday with a few doubles in there. I really like it and want to maximize my deal (since I won't pay the regular prices it... at least not at this point). I only lifted once this week. Was going to train today but I really want to get on the scale tomorrow (for some crazy reason).
Here are my different TDEE Calculations from the TDEE Deficit tab...
1A. 1973
2. 2124
3A. 2625 (using the fitbit)
3B. 1909
My energy consumption averaged at 1600 this week - big days and then much smaller days... I've been finding on the days that I eat more to keep hunger at bay (somewhere between 4.5-5.5) rather than to social cues I eat a lot less.
I know it's silly but the bodpod messed with my head. I let it eat into my motivation when in reality it should have been an extra source of good. So I have spent the week justifying why I am not going to the gym to lift.... hassle, little to no access (traveling next four weeks), stupid stuff.
I ate out a lot this week - which is very, very unlike me because I do not like to be in situations where I am not in control of how my food is made. There is a lot of guilt that comes with that lack of control. I feel bloated and blah today... I realize the thinking behind this is irrational. I ate half of a pumpkin bread pudding on Wednesday night and I feel its weight on me mentally (which has led to this notion that it is on me physically). Then yesterday I had a LARGE meal out (with lots of stuff that I would generally never eat).
So ridiculous...
Not exactly sure on the purpose of this post other than to vent a little... there is no one in my family/friends that relates to my dis-ordered thoughts around food.0 -
Here is my update from yesterday:
SW: 141.6
CW: 128.4
It's always so hard to tell if I'm doing my measurements in a consistent manner but I lost an inch in my waist and in my abdomen.
Mental shift required.0 -
Here is my update from yesterday:
SW: 141.6
CW: 128.4
It's always so hard to tell if I'm doing my measurements in a consistent manner but I lost an inch in my waist and in my abdomen.
Mental shift required.
Big congrats.
Also, the min or max circumference method is nice because unlike skin calipers, you don't need the same spot each time (except abdomen at belly button).
Like waist is minimum, so wherever the minimum may be, and that may change as back changes too. As long as it's level going around body, like the back isn't dropping 1 inch below the front, adding distance to the measurement.
That just requires a mirror to confirm.
And 3 hands of course. ;-)0 -
Missed this update...great job on your progress!0
