Accommodating Calories

Supadoopafly

With 160+lbs to lose you still have some wiggle room.
My biggest advice is to first find true TDEE for your height and weight.
While this is a simple math equation, it's a guesstimate.
So lets say you get base TDEE at 2400cals for moderate activity.

If you've been eating 1800/day, thats not too far off and certainly won't put you into a category of LCD or VLCD.
Reverse diet up to your calculated TDEE by slowly adding in 20-50cals per day of quality protein.
When you hit that TDEE number and maintain weight for about a month, you can safely say that you have an apps target for TDEE.

Then you start applying basic fat loss principals to lose the fat efficiently while maintaining as much lean muscle as possible.

General recommendations:
Lift weights 2-4x a week with varying rep ranges.
Hiit cardio or General preparedness work for an hour a week.
Eat TDEE on exercise days and -10 to -30% TDEE on rest days OR HIIT/GP days.

Lifestyle recommendations:
Sleep 8+ hours a night.
If you live north of Atlanta or Lisbon (for our UK friends), monitor closely your vitamin D levels.
Get 1 gram of DHA and appx 600mg of EPA a day.

Most people who come to MFP feel that they have all this motivation to do everything all at once.
Dont! Make the small changes 1 day or week at a time!
In other words, eat the elephant like everyone else!
I small bite at a time.

Why add protein only?
It's the easiest and best macronutrient to add!
A recent paper from Dr Brad Shoenfeld shows that 1.7g/kg LBM yielded the best fat loss with higher muscle sparing.

PM and i'll help you in any way I can.

hello,

Right, I shall need you to explain a few things to me from your post above. Once I'm at a 'puter screen I'll be able to communicate beyter, sans touch screen tablet mistakes. Rightnow I'm in bed because I can't sleep. See y'all in a few hours. X

nikibean123

Firstly, ignore this.

Secondly, that amount sounds fine to me. You have a lot to lose (that's not a criticism, I do too!) so you will need to eat more to keep your body running.

Based on that kind of activity, your TDEE I have just worked out to be 3457 calories, so to lose 1lb a week, you'd be eating 500 calories below that. For 2lb a week, 1000 calories below that.

Don't forget that your calories will drop the more weight you lose.

Hypothetical situation of course but...

So if Suzie Q who's been dieting incorrectly for 5 years and has a compromized metabolic rate due to mitochondrial inefficiency maintains her weight at 5'3" 180lbs eating 1200 calories a day, in order to lose 1lb of fat a week she needs to cut 500cals off her maintenance bringing her down to 700cals a day.....

If only the 3500 calorie = 1lb fat model ever worked.

to get a true estimation of how many calories are truly in each individual persons fat cell, it would take 20 pages of complex math equations with such a wide range of error....

Obviously, but it wasn't really necessary to point that out, was it? The OP didn't say she had been eating a VLCD for 5 years. By the fact she stated that she didn't want to not eat her exercise calories due to 'starvation mode' (a incorrect term that I hate, but I understand what she meant) I would assume that OP has probably not been on a VLCD for 5 years.

If the OP had come on here and said 'I eat 1000 calories a day and can't lose weight', I would not have told her to drop to 500. My answer would have been very different, as I'm sure you well know.

You don't need to be rude to every single person you encounter.

Supadoopafly

Firstly, ignore this.

Secondly, that amount sounds fine to me. You have a lot to lose (that's not a criticism, I do too!) so you will need to eat more to keep your body running.

Based on that kind of activity, your TDEE I have just worked out to be 3457 calories, so to lose 1lb a week, you'd be eating 500 calories below that. For 2lb a week, 1000 calories below that.

Don't forget that your calories will drop the more weight you lose.

Hypothetical situation of course but...

So if Suzie Q who's been dieting incorrectly for 5 years and has a compromized metabolic rate due to mitochondrial inefficiency maintains her weight at 5'3" 180lbs eating 1200 calories a day, in order to lose 1lb of fat a week she needs to cut 500cals off her maintenance bringing her down to 700cals a day.....

If only the 3500 calorie = 1lb fat model ever worked.

to get a true estimation of how many calories are truly in each individual persons fat cell, it would take 20 pages of complex math equations with such a wide range of error....

Obviously, but it wasn't really necessary to point that out, was it? The OP didn't say she had been eating a VLCD for 5 years. By the fact she stated that she didn't want to not eat her exercise calories due to 'starvation mode' (a incorrect term that I hate, but I understand what she meant) I would assume that OP has probably not been on a VLCD for 5 years.

If the OP had come on here and said 'I eat 1000 calories a day and can't lose weight', I would not have told her to drop to 500. My answer would have been very different, as I'm sure you well know.

You don't need to be rude to every single person you encounter.

Hey babe, please dont stress or worry. I lubs ya and appreciate all input. I have lots of questions because i want to make sure i get it right, get it done and then able to maintain. I appreciate all input. Don't worry.

xx

_HeartsOnFire_

I have women who lift 3x a week eating 2300cals a day to lose fat.
It depends on how metabolically flexible you are.

Heres my post on how to figure this out:
>>>>>IMPORTANT!!! To get your numbers right please visit---> http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet<---read the instructions. I lay everything out to help you have a true fat burning diet.<<<<<<<

^^^This.

Hi, you've done well! 37lbs lost!! Do you follow this approach? I must confess I read it and followed the link but was in too much of a rush to digest it (no pun intended!). I'll take a proper look tomorrow.

Yes, I do follow this approach. I have 2 friends who have and they've lost 150 & 100 lbs...

Helloitsdan knows of what he speaks...He's given good info.

ETA: Thank you. I also eat what I want, drink what I want. I believe it's about moderation NOT deprivation. No bad food just bad eating habits.

Remember you CAN do this. It won't be easy, it won't be overnight, but it WILL be worth it.

Thank you!

I kmow this may sound rather terrible and lazy of me, but I must admit I am struggling to get past first base mentally right now. I shall keep plugged in to this forum as I do need support. X

You will have ups and downs. There will be times you will want to quit, but then you have to remember why you started! There will be times where your old habits start sounding like good ideas (trust me, been there). If putting up motivational sayings, photos around your house/job help then do it. Whatever it takes, just do it.

You've already taken the hardest step - deciding you want to change. That is HUGE. So pat yourself on the back for that.

Believe in yourself, and believe in your ability to do this. That will be what gets you thru it.

knra_grl

What on earth were you doing to burn 1579 calories??? you don't have to eat back your exercise calories so don't worry about that added on top

Firstly, thank you so much for your reply.

I thought I had to eat up my calories to avoid starvation mode. Myfitnesspal just adds on the calories I've burned on to my total calorie allowance for the day.

As to your question, I have a Decathlon heart rate monitor, I plug in my credentials:

Height -175 cm
Weight - 23 st 7lbs
Resting heart rate - 85bpm
Age - 37
Sex - female

Then it tells me how much I've burned. I did spin + gym for the first time in months, it was hard work, total 80 mins 1579 is what I
burned. My hesrt rate regularly goes up to 175-180 bpm, when i do cardio and about 160 when strength training like squats or dead lifts.

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

I calculated:
40 mins spin at 528
40 mins strength training vigorous effort 373

Take it or leave it but I have been using this site lately as I don't have a HRM and I know MFP estimates are high.

Edit - you don't have to eat back ALL your workout calories if you aren't hungry but I would eat back some.

Helloitsdan

Simply PM me.
I'm on my phone for the rest of the day and will respond when able.

seltzermint555

For those who have lost a significant amount, how did you cope with the reduction in calories as you lost weight?

Thanks again!! :-)

I won't lie, it is not always easy. For me it wasn't a matter of feeling hungry as I've gradually gone from about 1,600 to 1,320...but each time my calories were reset to a new number I've experienced a short "plateau" of a week or two with absolutely no loss...that was upsetting when my mind knew I was eating fewer calories. Eventually things worked out though.

jeffpettis

You may want to check to make sure your HR monitor is accurate if you plan to eat back your exercise calories. 1579 calories is a lot to burn in only an hour and twenty minutes.

How does one check the accuracy of one's heart rate monitor?

I regularly burn about 1000 kCals per hour, it's not unusual for me.

Use a different monitor to double check the one you are using. I have seen HR monitors that are way off. They are more accurate than using a calorie burn calculator but they are not as accurate as most people think. You could be burning that much, I don't know, I'm just saying I would check it to make sure so you don't end up being one of those people that are on here in couple of months wondering why they are not losing weight because they are not burning as much as they think.

Good luck...

Hiya again hun,

Right ... I've just remembered that my Garmin Forerunner is also a HRM - (I've only ever used it to track my distances) so I'm going to go for a run around the block tomorrow with my Decathlon HRM (I'd have done it tonight but the wind and gales have started up again ggrrrr...). Then the next day I'll do the same with my Garmin and I will then post the results here :-)

Like I said before, you might actually be burning that much, depending on your stats it is entirely possible, as you lose weight and your body becomes more conditioned and efficient you won't burn as many calories doing the same activities anymore. And again, that is a ton of calories if you were going to eat them back, even half of them, so it would be a good idea to double check to make sure you are in fact burning those calories in the first place.

Just food for thought... :drinker:

Supadoopafly

My tdee is 2684.

bwogilvie

The only thing in this thread I'm really qualified to comment on is the HRM issue, since I have looked at some research (the actual studies, not just the PubMed abstracts!) on HRMs. Even for steady-state cardio, research suggests a lot of variability. Firstbeat, a Finnish company, has produced a proprietary algorithm that they claim is accurate to within 7-10% of actual energy expenditure, which is pretty good.

One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

The study by Keytel et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966347) that produced a widely-used formula found that it was reasonably accurate for groups when VO2max had been measured, but less accurate without measurement of VO2max - in the latter case, over 26% of the variance in energy expenditure was not explained by their equation, which uses heart rate, gender, age, and weight to estimate calories consumed. The equation underestimates the calories burned by a highly fit individual, and overestimates the calories burned by an unfit individual, because, to do the same amount of work, the unfit person needs a higher heart rate than the fit person, whose cardiovascular system is more efficient at delivering blood to the muscles.

I also suspect that, since energy expenditure is a function of muscular activity, the equation overstates the energy expenditure of those with a higher body fat percentage.

The Firstbeat Inc. algorithm (formula) that I mentioned above is described (vaguely, since it's a trade secret) in this white paper: http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/download/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf

A few Garmin and Suunto HRMs use its formula, including my Garmin Forerunner 620 (for running) and Edge 800 (for cycling). My anecdotal experience is that those two HRMs are more accurate than the Timex and Sigma ones that I have used in the past. For my Timex to give me a number that was close to my Garmins, I had to set my body weight to equal my estimated lean body mass.

A full list of the HRMs that use Firstbeat technology can be found in the links on the upper left side of this page: http://www.firstbeat.com/consumers/firstbeat-intelligence-in-heart-rate-monitors

(Note: I have no financial connection to Firstbeat!)

jonnythan

The only thing in this thread I'm really qualified to comment on is the HRM issue, since I have looked at some research (the actual studies, not just the PubMed abstracts!) on HRMs. Even for steady-state cardio, research suggests a lot of variability. Firstbeat, a Finnish company, has produced a proprietary algorithm that they claim is accurate to within 7-10% of actual energy expenditure, which is pretty good.

One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

The study by Keytel et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966347) that produced a widely-used formula found that it was reasonably accurate for groups when VO2max had been measured, but less accurate without measurement of VO2max - in the latter case, over 26% of the variance in energy expenditure was not explained by their equation, which uses heart rate, gender, age, and weight to estimate calories consumed. The equation underestimates the calories burned by a highly fit individual, and overestimates the calories burned by an unfit individual, because, to do the same amount of work, the unfit person needs a higher heart rate than the fit person, whose cardiovascular system is more efficient at delivering blood to the muscles.

I also suspect that, since energy expenditure is a function of muscular activity, the equation overstates the energy expenditure of those with a higher body fat percentage.

The Firstbeat Inc. algorithm (formula) that I mentioned above is described (vaguely, since it's a trade secret) in this white paper: http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/download/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf

A few Garmin and Suunto HRMs use its formula, including my Garmin Forerunner 620 (for running) and Edge 800 (for cycling). My anecdotal experience is that those two HRMs are more accurate than the Timex and Sigma ones that I have used in the past. For my Timex to give me a number that was close to my Garmins, I had to set my body weight to equal my estimated lean body mass.

A full list of the HRMs that use Firstbeat technology can be found in the links on the upper left side of this page: http://www.firstbeat.com/consumers/firstbeat-intelligence-in-heart-rate-monitors

(Note: I have no financial connection to Firstbeat!)

This is a phenomenal post. Thank you.

Supadoopafly

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

I calculated:
40 mins spin at 528
40 mins strength training vigorous effort 373

Take it or leave it but I have been using this site lately as I don't have a HRM and I know MFP estimates are high.

Edit - you don't have to eat back ALL your workout calories if you aren't hungry but I would eat back some.

I've just taken a look at that site, I think I'll leave it. It is full of estimates, so I wouldn't put my faith in its numbers. I would sooner spend money on a HRM. Nevertheless thanks for introducing me to the link, there are some other interesting things on the webpage

Helloitsdan

For those who have lost a significant amount, how did you cope with the reduction in calories as you lost weight?

Thanks again!! :-)

I'd like to touch on this really quick.
You should be eventually adding calories to your daily intake as you lose weight.
As crazy as it sounds you'll want to be building slight amounts of lean muscle as you lose fat.
I know it sounds counterintuitive but doing this now will save you from dieting incorrectly and ending up in a wheelchair in your 7th decade and on.

lauren3101

Firstly, ignore this.

Secondly, that amount sounds fine to me. You have a lot to lose (that's not a criticism, I do too!) so you will need to eat more to keep your body running.

Based on that kind of activity, your TDEE I have just worked out to be 3457 calories, so to lose 1lb a week, you'd be eating 500 calories below that. For 2lb a week, 1000 calories below that.

Don't forget that your calories will drop the more weight you lose.

Hypothetical situation of course but...

So if Suzie Q who's been dieting incorrectly for 5 years and has a compromized metabolic rate due to mitochondrial inefficiency maintains her weight at 5'3" 180lbs eating 1200 calories a day, in order to lose 1lb of fat a week she needs to cut 500cals off her maintenance bringing her down to 700cals a day.....

If only the 3500 calorie = 1lb fat model ever worked.

to get a true estimation of how many calories are truly in each individual persons fat cell, it would take 20 pages of complex math equations with such a wide range of error....

Obviously, but it wasn't really necessary to point that out, was it? The OP didn't say she had been eating a VLCD for 5 years. By the fact she stated that she didn't want to not eat her exercise calories due to 'starvation mode' (a incorrect term that I hate, but I understand what she meant) I would assume that OP has probably not been on a VLCD for 5 years.

If the OP had come on here and said 'I eat 1000 calories a day and can't lose weight', I would not have told her to drop to 500. My answer would have been very different, as I'm sure you well know.

Misinformation is one of the worst things you can spread on this site where most people use it as a revolving door. The 3500cal =1lb is misinformation.

But, you have to start somewhere?

If you were to look at it like that, the TDEE thing could be misinformation. It could also be classed as misinformation when you say 'deduct 20% to lose 1lb'. How do you know your TDEE for sure? Or that 20% = a 1lb loss? Everything here is just an estimation, you have to give someone a starting point, then let them work from there.

wilsoje74

You may want to check to make sure your HR monitor is accurate if you plan to eat back your exercise calories. 1579 calories is a lot to burn in only an hour and twenty minutes.

How does one check the accuracy of one's heart rate monitor?

I regularly burn about 1000 kCals per hour, it's not unusual for me.

Doubtful

Helloitsdan

Firstly, ignore this.

Secondly, that amount sounds fine to me. You have a lot to lose (that's not a criticism, I do too!) so you will need to eat more to keep your body running.

Based on that kind of activity, your TDEE I have just worked out to be 3457 calories, so to lose 1lb a week, you'd be eating 500 calories below that. For 2lb a week, 1000 calories below that.

Don't forget that your calories will drop the more weight you lose.

Hypothetical situation of course but...

So if Suzie Q who's been dieting incorrectly for 5 years and has a compromized metabolic rate due to mitochondrial inefficiency maintains her weight at 5'3" 180lbs eating 1200 calories a day, in order to lose 1lb of fat a week she needs to cut 500cals off her maintenance bringing her down to 700cals a day.....

If only the 3500 calorie = 1lb fat model ever worked.

to get a true estimation of how many calories are truly in each individual persons fat cell, it would take 20 pages of complex math equations with such a wide range of error....

Obviously, but it wasn't really necessary to point that out, was it? The OP didn't say she had been eating a VLCD for 5 years. By the fact she stated that she didn't want to not eat her exercise calories due to 'starvation mode' (a incorrect term that I hate, but I understand what she meant) I would assume that OP has probably not been on a VLCD for 5 years.

If the OP had come on here and said 'I eat 1000 calories a day and can't lose weight', I would not have told her to drop to 500. My answer would have been very different, as I'm sure you well know.

Misinformation is one of the worst things you can spread on this site where most people use it as a revolving door. The 3500cal =1lb is misinformation.

But, you have to start somewhere?

If you were to look at it like that, the TDEE thing could be misinformation. It could also be classed as misinformation when you say 'deduct 20% to lose 1lb'. How do you know your TDEE for sure? Or that 20% = a 1lb loss? Everything here is just an estimation, you have to give someone a starting point, then let them work from there.

I never said 20% reduction from TDEE would result in 1lb loss of fat.
In order to get true TDEE we would need to be a fully closed system and the equation would span 20 pages with a huge margin for error.

Heres my point for this entire thread.
OP has trouble eating "so many calories".
I've had clients with the same issue.
The fix is to reverse diet up to where they maintain current weight for a month, then reduce.
I've had people reverse diet from 1200 calories all the way up to 3000 and start maintaining.
From maintenance you start reducing calories by adding proper activity.
If desired fat loss is still too slow, you start reducing caloric intake.

the trouble with this site is that most people don't read the "How To" and end up crash dieting at 1200/day losing muscle and fat THEN jumping off the wagon gaining all the fat back resulting in a 3%+ increase in total fat mass from the start date.

Savvy?

Supadoopafly

You may want to check to make sure your HR monitor is accurate if you plan to eat back your exercise calories. 1579 calories is a lot to burn in only an hour and twenty minutes.

How does one check the accuracy of one's heart rate monitor?

I regularly burn about 1000 kCals per hour, it's not unusual for me.

Doubtful

Probably one of the most informative helpful posts I've ever seen here. Should be a sticky - this area is called Motivation and Support .... this post encapsulates this ethic beautifully!

LOL

Supadoopafly

Whats the best way to go?

Set my own calorie allowance or go with that set by MPF?

Supadoopafly

For those who have lost a significant amount, how did you cope with the reduction in calories as you lost weight?

Thanks again!! :-)

I'd like to touch on this really quick.
You should be eventually adding calories to your daily intake as you lose weight.
As crazy as it sounds you'll want to be building slight amounts of lean muscle as you lose fat.
I know it sounds counterintuitive but doing this now will save you from dieting incorrectly and ending up in a wheelchair in your 7th decade and on.

you're right, i don't get it.

My daily calorie allowance is set at a deficit to lose, once i get to my desired weight (168), I up my daily intake to a level that sustains weight. Thats my understanding.

jeffpettis

For those who have lost a significant amount, how did you cope with the reduction in calories as you lost weight?

Thanks again!! :-)

I'd like to touch on this really quick.
You should be eventually adding calories to your daily intake as you lose weight.
As crazy as it sounds you'll want to be building slight amounts of lean muscle as you lose fat.
I know it sounds counterintuitive but doing this now will save you from dieting incorrectly and ending up in a wheelchair in your 7th decade and on.

you're right, i don't get it.

My daily calorie allowance is set at a deficit to lose, once i get to my desired weight (168), I up my daily intake to a level that sustains weight. Thats my understanding.

OP it sounds like you are going about it the right way.

It's not a good idea to get below 1200 calories mainly because there just aren't enough macro and micronutrients being delivered to the body at low calories levels. That's not to say you won't still lose weight below 1200 calories, you will, it's just not healthy. But since you are around 1800 that's not an issue.

So after saying that I also don't see why you would want to add calories while in a deficit which would in turn cause you not to be in a deficit eventually. Now if you can add calories and still lose weight that's great, but if you keep adding calories you are eventually going to be at maintenance or even at a surplus...

You are NOT going to build any muscle in a deficit once you get past the "beginners" stage, but you should be trying your best to hang onto the lean muscle you have while dieting. The more muscle you can get your body to hold on to the more fat your body will burn. Muscle burns fat even at rest so you still want to be lifting the same amount of weight in the gym or even trying to progress a little if possible and get plenty of protein to support holding onto your muscle.

Also, I don't know how many 70 year olds that dieted, without adding calories, early on in life are in wheelchairs now but that one is interesting...

Good luck! :drinker: