BMR and BodyFat results

night_watcher

Although first test was done way back in july 2012. I am pretty happy about the BF% and BodyFat loss. I started EM2WL back in october,13 and started lifting mid november. I am really happy to see fat loss and muscle gain. My nutritionist thinks i should it less than my BMR. I dont feel like following this I can't make myself to eat this low. I am currently eating at 1800-2000 net.



What do you guys think?

heybales

That is so wild the programming would spit out eating goals below BMR automatically. Or perhaps it is based on the BF%.
Did they ask any questions about daily activity level including exercise at all?

Because assuming that 1604 is 1000 deficit from 2604, that would imply an activity factor of 1.6 exactly over BMR of 1618 - which sounds like a TDEE level was selected. And they took standard 2 lb weight loss goal. Just like MFP does.

Also be aware that LBM is muscle mass and everything else in the body that is not fat - blood volume, water, stored glucose with attached water, ect.

You didn't gain that kind of muscle mass since Nov, even as newbie.
But I hope you weren't sore from prior workout when test was done.

Also be aware BIA is only 5% accurate, depending on hydration levels. But it's a better place to start BMR than age, weight, height.

Great results too. Because increased LBM, even if not muscle, does increase metabolism.

To be clear too, that is not a tested BMR, but calculated, based on other stats. Tested would be a face mask and metabolic cart for about 15 min sitting or lying down resting.

Also, not sure what your height is (161 cm or 5' 3.5"?), because that BMR is NOT based on weight and bodyfat%, unless they are using some other formula that is not normally used. You might ask how they calculated the BMR since it's not measured.
That is neither Katch BMR 1501 nor Cunningham RMR 1652, but it is Mifflin BMR if 161 cm, or Harris BMR if 4' tall.

I'd actually suggest that with that much to lose, depending on your workout type and time, you actually could eat at best estimated Katch BMR on daily basis, but 1 day a week eat at estimated TDEE on a big workout day, to unstress the body.
Since lifting, that takes care of retaining muscle mass, and enough protein eating just backs that up.
This would be for a short period of time, because eventually it wouldn't be a reasonable deficit anymore.
Because reasonable depends on amount of fat to lose, reasonable deficit with little to lose is smaller than when you have a lot to lose.

Now since their goal eating level is still above better estimated BMR by 100 calories, ya, you could eat their recommendation too.
Here at the start of lifting, you'll make improvements, and even a little muscle mass gain, even eating at a steeper deficit than you would want to do later.
In other words, you get good body recomp now eating less, than you would later when only fat loss would occur, but not as many body improvements. Probably have 6-9 months for that effect, depending on how serious you make the lifting.

night_watcher

Yep I told her that its been 2 months that i have regularly started doing exercise, and that i lift 2 days and circuit train 2 days and that on weekend im usually standing in kitchen cooking or doing house chores for about 6-8 hours.

Because assuming that 1604 is 1000 deficit from 2604, that would imply an activity factor of 1.6 exactly over BMR of 1618 - which sounds like a TDEE level was selected. And they took standard 2 lb weight loss goal. Just like MFP does.

Also be aware that LBM is muscle mass and everything else in the body that is not fat - blood volume, water, stored glucose with attached water, ect.

You didn't gain that kind of muscle mass since Nov, even as newbie.
But I hope you weren't sore from prior workout when test was done.

Nope i was well rested, and i am more happy about that 6 lbs loss in body fat figure. Right now my main focus is retaining on the muscle i have.

Also be aware BIA is only 5% accurate, depending on hydration levels. But it's a better place to start BMR than age, weight, height.

Great results too. Because increased LBM, even if not muscle, does increase metabolism.

To be clear too, that is not a tested BMR, but calculated, based on other stats. Tested would be a face mask and metabolic cart for about 15 min sitting or lying down resting.

Umm i guess you are right! she made me lay on the stretcher and then she attached some sticky tapes like things, 2 on my right leg and 2 on my right arm, and then there was this machine, she attached wired to those sticky tapes from the machine, i was laying down so i dont know what the machine read. after that she used calculator and some software! and i was given these results. What is the actual procedure of measuring BMR is called? So that i can look it up if its done anywhere near i live.

Also, not sure what your height is (161 cm or 5' 3.5"?), because that BMR is NOT based on weight and bodyfat%, unless they are using some other formula that is not normally used. You might ask how they calculated the BMR since it's not measured.
That is neither Katch BMR 1501 nor Cunningham RMR 1652, but it is Mifflin BMR if 161 cm, or Harris BMR if 4' tall.

I'm 5.3, im glad i posted this here, i shouldnt be going to that dietician! I mean thats how your sheet also calculates TDEE right?

I'd actually suggest that with that much to lose, depending on your workout type and time, you actually could eat at best estimated Katch BMR on daily basis, but 1 day a week eat at estimated TDEE on a big workout day, to unstress the body.
Since lifting, that takes care of retaining muscle mass, and enough protein eating just backs that up.
This would be for a short period of time, because eventually it wouldn't be a reasonable deficit anymore.
Because reasonable depends on amount of fat to lose, reasonable deficit with little to lose is smaller than when you have a lot to lose.

Now since their goal eating level is still above better estimated BMR by 100 calories, ya, you could eat their recommendation too.

I thought the recommended intake by her was less than the BMR no? 1618 BMR, Required Intake 1604 if you see jan,2013 column?

Here at the start of lifting, you'll make improvements, and even a little muscle mass gain, even eating at a steeper deficit than you would want to do later.
In other words, you get good body recomp now eating less, than you would later when only fat loss would occur, but not as many body improvements. Probably have 6-9 months for that effect, depending on how serious you make the lifting.

Im really sorry, i didn't get this :S, I actually want that excess fat reduction, thats my goal for now, BF% to be around 20-23%.

heybales

So indeed, they likely got that eating goal exactly like the TDEE sites you've seen, except for not taking a % off, but rather even 1000 or 750 calories off, just like MFP would.
They either used activity factor of 1.45 x Mifflin BMR and took 750 off, for 1.5 lb weekly, or factor of 1.60 x BMR and took 1000 off for 2 lb weekly.

That's a bodyfat test you got, absolutely nothing to do with metabolism as a test. And as a BF test, perhaps a tad better than the scales that use BIA method too. As long as you show up with same hydration levels, even though not as accurate as other methods, it can be consistent and give a direction of gain or loss.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatbia.htm

RMR test, metabolic test, resting metabolism test, ect is what those are called. You lay or recline for about 15-20 min breathing in to a face mask with tubes coming off of it that analyzes how much oxygen you are using in each breath, which indicates how much us being used to burn fuel, which tells how much you are burning - your RMR. From that you can backtrack to best BMR available. They will also usually estimate your TDEE.
Don't use a service that just shows up at gyms to offer free or reduced service to members, or shows up at malls for a cheap test. Those aren't valid tests and they know it, which means they have no need to spend money to regularly calibrate their equipment since they are handing out false figures anyway.
Now a good firm may meet you at a gym they regularly use, like they do VO2max tests with the equipment there too, so they want access to a treadmill or bike. But they better give you a bunch of prep instructions for a valid test (following rest day, no food 5-6 hrs, no lifting 36 hrs prior).

So this table for BMR and eating goal is NOT based on what they just tested - that is super stupid I think.
If they just got stats that gave a decent LBM figure, why in the world would they not use the Katch formula that estimates BMR based on that LBM figure, and is more accurate?
Instead of the Mifflin BMR which MFP already tells you for free.

So, your best estimated Katch BMR based on your actual LBM would be 1501.
So if you ate their eating goal 1604, you are NOT actually eating less than your best estimated BMR 1501. You are eating less than a less accurate BMR calculation of 1618.

If you weighed yourself on a balance scale that used rocks that were "around" 5 lbs each added to the basket on the other arm, and a digital scale accurate to 0.2 lbs - which figure are you going to use to measure your weight loss and figure out your eating level?

So yes, the spreadsheet, if you do NOT use the included BF calc or use the results, will use the Mifflin BMR as basis of math, just like they did. It's considered the most accurate based on gender, age, weight, height.
And since the Activity Calculator is based on research their program might have been using too, you might actually have come up with similar TDEE.
And with enough to lose, and doing weight lifting, the recommendation would probably be right down around that BMR figure too. With recommendation to eat at TDEE once a week though, so slight difference there.

But, why eat 150 more based on least accurate figure, rocks, when you got the digital scale?

I would suggest though, use the BF calc and see what the average of measurement calcs is, then add in the BIA and use the total avg. Nothing like a bunch of 5% methods averaged together to improve accuracy, though it would likely be small.

Use the activity calc for your high cardio circuit training, and weight lifting time.
The 6-8 hrs is part of normal activity really, part of even sedentary level.

Spreadsheet will let you track Progress too, and give your minimum macro goals for retaining muscle mass.

To that last part, many that have already lost a bit of weight, but decent amount of it being muscle mass, start the lifting, and take a minor deficit, and may not actually lose any weight for a long while. Because actually, they are eating at TDEE no matter what they think.
But, with lifting, the least deficit you have, the best improvement you get in the body, just no weight loss, and it's a slow process.
When you are starting lifting though, and enough fat for energy needs, you can actually get the same body improvements and lose more fat and weight at the same time.
The won't be possible later with less to lose, and after lifting for a while.

My suggestion is go for the steeper but reasonable deficit that lifting allows you to take because it will help retain muscle mass, and actually at the start will allow building some more.
The spreadsheet actually uses a recommendation for max deficit when you have lifting in your workout, based on a couple studies where they actually gained LBM (and likely some muscle) while they lost weight and fat.
But it won't go below BMR, a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere, and that's safe as can be done without lab tests on you.

night_watcher

So indeed, they likely got that eating goal exactly like the TDEE sites you've seen, except for not taking a % off, but rather even 1000 or 750 calories off, just like MFP would.
They either used activity factor of 1.45 x Mifflin BMR and took 750 off, for 1.5 lb weekly, or factor of 1.60 x BMR and took 1000 off for 2 lb weekly.

That's a bodyfat test you got, absolutely nothing to do with metabolism as a test. And as a BF test, perhaps a tad better than the scales that use BIA method too. As long as you show up with same hydration levels, even though not as accurate as other methods, it can be consistent and give a direction of gain or loss.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatbia.htm

RMR test, metabolic test, resting metabolism test, ect is what those are called. You lay or recline for about 15-20 min breathing in to a face mask with tubes coming off of it that analyzes how much oxygen you are using in each breath, which indicates how much us being used to burn fuel, which tells how much you are burning - your RMR. From that you can backtrack to best BMR available. They will also usually estimate your TDEE.
Don't use a service that just shows up at gyms to offer free or reduced service to members, or shows up at malls for a cheap test. Those aren't valid tests and they know it, which means they have no need to spend money to regularly calibrate their equipment since they are handing out false figures anyway.
Now a good firm may meet you at a gym they regularly use, like they do VO2max tests with the equipment there too, so they want access to a treadmill or bike. But they better give you a bunch of prep instructions for a valid test (following rest day, no food 5-6 hrs, no lifting 36 hrs prior).

So this table for BMR and eating goal is NOT based on what they just tested - that is super stupid I think.
If they just got stats that gave a decent LBM figure, why in the world would they not use the Katch formula that estimates BMR based on that LBM figure, and is more accurate?
Instead of the Mifflin BMR which MFP already tells you for free.

So, your best estimated Katch BMR based on your actual LBM would be 1501.
So if you ate their eating goal 1604, you are NOT actually eating less than your best estimated BMR 1501. You are eating less than a less accurate BMR calculation of 1618.

If you weighed yourself on a balance scale that used rocks that were "around" 5 lbs each added to the basket on the other arm, and a digital scale accurate to 0.2 lbs - which figure are you going to use to measure your weight loss and figure out your eating level?

So yes, the spreadsheet, if you do NOT use the included BF calc or use the results, will use the Mifflin BMR as basis of math, just like they did. It's considered the most accurate based on gender, age, weight, height.
And since the Activity Calculator is based on research their program might have been using too, you might actually have come up with similar TDEE.
And with enough to lose, and doing weight lifting, the recommendation would probably be right down around that BMR figure too. With recommendation to eat at TDEE once a week though, so slight difference there.

But, why eat 150 more based on least accurate figure, rocks, when you got the digital scale?

I would suggest though, use the BF calc and see what the average of measurement calcs is, then add in the BIA and use the total avg. Nothing like a bunch of 5% methods averaged together to improve accuracy, though it would likely be small.

Use the activity calc for your high cardio circuit training, and weight lifting time.
The 6-8 hrs is part of normal activity really, part of even sedentary level.

Spreadsheet will let you track Progress too, and give your minimum macro goals for retaining muscle mass.

To that last part, many that have already lost a bit of weight, but decent amount of it being muscle mass, start the lifting, and take a minor deficit, and may not actually lose any weight for a long while. Because actually, they are eating at TDEE no matter what they think.
But, with lifting, the least deficit you have, the best improvement you get in the body, just no weight loss, and it's a slow process.
When you are starting lifting though, and enough fat for energy needs, you can actually get the same body improvements and lose more fat and weight at the same time.
The won't be possible later with less to lose, and after lifting for a while.

My suggestion is go for the steeper but reasonable deficit that lifting allows you to take because it will help retain muscle mass, and actually at the start will allow building some more.
The spreadsheet actually uses a recommendation for max deficit when you have lifting in your workout, based on a couple studies where they actually gained LBM (and likely some muscle) while they lost weight and fat.
But it won't go below BMR, a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere, and that's safe as can be done without lab tests on you.

Okie thanks alot for so thorough information.
So i put my bodyfat in your sheet and other measurements, not including exercise and got this

Set Net Calories Consumed to 1500, change Calories Burned goal to 0 if not logging them
Set Carbohydrates to 45% (169g), Protein to 30% (113g), Fat to 25% (42g)

By adding exercise I got this.

Set Net Calories Consumed to 1637, change Calories Burned goal to 0 if not logging them
Set Carbohydrates to 45% (184g), Protein to 30% (123g), Fat to 25% (45g)

I am thinking of following 1500 and i will add calories burned daily by exercise. Logging my exercise keeps me motivated and focused, so two days i burn around 450 cals and two days i burn around 250. And i will be eating 2202 TDEE calculated in the sheet.

heybales

In that usage case then, wanting to eat back exercise calories, head over to the MFP Tweak tab.

Fill in the Katch BMR shown, the activity factor shown (1.2 if sedentary), and follow those instructions, should end up the same, except the Simple Setup takes in to account what your workout type is if entered for calorie recommendation, MFP Tweak tab goes for straight % off.

At bottom of tab is place to put your reported calories burned, and same % will be taken off, as well as what was already accounted for during that time.

For instance, if 2000 daily non-exercise maintenance, you are already expected and accounted to burn 83 calories an hr. So your reported burn of 450 is not above and beyond that, it includes that. So really you burned 367 above and beyond what you were expected to already. Then you take another 20% off and you actually log and eat back 294 calories. Or whatever it really ends up being.
Since you have steady workouts, I'd just enter what the avg burn and time of workout is, get your eatback amounts from that column, and now you know what to log to change the eating goal correctly.

Curious though, what was the BF results of the 2 measurement methods?
Just wondering how well they line up with the BIA test. Because if within 3%, then you measure well, and can track those inches off really easy to keep getting decent BF estimates.

night_watcher

In that usage case then, wanting to eat back exercise calories, head over to the MFP Tweak tab.

Fill in the Katch BMR shown, the activity factor shown (1.2 if sedentary), and follow those instructions, should end up the same, except the Simple Setup takes in to account what your workout type is if entered for calorie recommendation, MFP Tweak tab goes for straight % off.

At bottom of tab is place to put your reported calories burned, and same % will be taken off, as well as what was already accounted for during that time.

For instance, if 2000 daily non-exercise maintenance, you are already expected and accounted to burn 83 calories an hr. So your reported burn of 450 is not above and beyond that, it includes that. So really you burned 367 above and beyond what you were expected to already. Then you take another 20% off and you actually log and eat back 294 calories. Or whatever it really ends up being.
Since you have steady workouts, I'd just enter what the avg burn and time of workout is, get your eatback amounts from that column, and now you know what to log to change the eating goal correctly.

Curious though, what was the BF results of the 2 measurement methods?
Just wondering how well they line up with the BIA test. Because if within 3%, then you measure well, and can track those inches off really easy to keep getting decent BF estimates.

I put in the katch BMR and 1.2 and I got this

Set Net Calories Consumed to 1440, enter Calories Burned goal
Set Carbohydrates to 40% (144g), Protein to 30% (108g), Fat to 30% (48g)

And then I added the exercise time and calories burned, so i got 1750 on my Circuit training days and 1606 on weight training days, I have a question though.

Except the day when i will be eating at TDEE, the remaining rest days i have to eat around 1440 right,its less than my BMR:ohwell: ,no?

About the BF% methods, I dont have calliper so i wasnt able to go skin fold test.
But U.S. Navy Circumference Method is showing 42.4%, so exact 1% difference. I guess ill be using this one instead

heybales

I'd suggest that just because 2 different potentially 5% accurate BF estimates are within 1% of each other, doesn't mean they are the most accurate.
I'd still take the average of all 3 of them, which will be shown automatically if you enter your BIA results in the field for Body comp scale or handheld. Skipping the skin-fold no problem. Actually in inexperienced hands it's a 10% or worse method.

Yep, eating goal below best estimated calculated Katch BMR. But only here at the start, and as noted, only on rest days.

Another twist as to why that happens, 2 studies have shown that based on LBM (so Katch BMR), a woman's actual measured sedentary TDEE and BMR is less than a man's using that BMR calculation, because of the difference in several organs that are the main metabolic burners in the body.
The best accuracy as to the difference (7.5%) between men and women was the sedentary TDEE, the BMR actually had less consistency of difference, but it was less too.

So while the Katch BMR is the best estimate, I've tweaked the Sedentary TDEE to be that 3.75% less than calculated for women when using the Katch BMR (men are 3.75% more, so the 7.5% spread), but I just didn't tweak the actual BMR figure itself lower - but it actually is. Because if I reported a Katch BMR that didn't match the calculation done anywhere else, anyone would of course think there are math problems going on, which is scary for something as simple as the BMR calc.

So a tad more accurate TDEE of 1.2 x Katch BMR - minus 20%, is going to be less than calculated BMR. But the BMR is in reality lower.

So for a while it will appear you are eating below BMR, but you aren't really.

And since you are eating your exercise calories back, and your gross goal is not right there at BMR for majority of time, you actually don't need to do the TDEE day.

Just the normal diet break for a week after 6 weeks of deficit eating.

night_watcher

I'd suggest that just because 2 different potentially 5% accurate BF estimates are within 1% of each other, doesn't mean they are the most accurate.
I'd still take the average of all 3 of them, which will be shown automatically if you enter your BIA results in the field for Body comp scale or handheld. Skipping the skin-fold no problem. Actually in inexperienced hands it's a 10% or worse method.

Yep, eating goal below best estimated calculated Katch BMR. But only here at the start, and as noted, only on rest days.

Another twist as to why that happens, 2 studies have shown that based on LBM (so Katch BMR), a woman's actual measured sedentary TDEE and BMR is less than a man's using that BMR calculation, because of the difference in several organs that are the main metabolic burners in the body.
The best accuracy as to the difference (7.5%) between men and women was the sedentary TDEE, the BMR actually had less consistency of difference, but it was less too.

So while the Katch BMR is the best estimate, I've tweaked the Sedentary TDEE to be that 3.75% less than calculated for women when using the Katch BMR (men are 3.75% more, so the 7.5% spread), but I just didn't tweak the actual BMR figure itself lower - but it actually is. Because if I reported a Katch BMR that didn't match the calculation done anywhere else, anyone would of course think there are math problems going on, which is scary for something as simple as the BMR calc.

So a tad more accurate TDEE of 1.2 x Katch BMR - minus 20%, is going to be less than calculated BMR. But the BMR is in reality lower.

So for a while it will appear you are eating below BMR, but you aren't really.

And since you are eating your exercise calories back, and your gross goal is not right there at BMR for majority of time, you actually don't need to do the TDEE day.

Just the normal diet break for a week after 6 weeks of deficit eating.

okie thanks, ive decided to go with 1440 for a day, ill get back to you in a month with my progress.