Spreadsheet

rlw0031

Just something I noticed on Haybales spreadsheet...If I do 3 30 min walks and 3 30 min of weight lifting a week it gives me a 25% def. eating 1600 calories. If I do the walks and take out weight lifting it gives me a 13% def eating 1800! Obviously I would rather eat 1800. I asked before about 1600 being low and he responded with saying you can have a steeper def if you weight lift. Anybody else notice how you have a steeper def plugging in weight lifting on that spreadsheet? I thought you were to eat more if you lift. I did not change the amount of cardio.

I am still not having luck losing fat and am pretty discouraged. I understand eating a lower deficit is what EM2WL encourages. I am having a hard time eating the 1600 calories and always want to eat more so I guess should try to eat at 1800 although I have been pretty much eating that the last 2 months and have not seen any changes.

Just wondered if anybody believes I should in fact be at 1600 like it says in spreadsheet...I am confused as to why it says to eat less if you lift than if you don't lift.

jaeone

Just something I noticed on Haybales spreadsheet...If I do 3 30 min walks and 3 30 min of weight lifting a week it gives me a 25% def. eating 1600 calories. If I do the walks and take out weight lifting it gives me a 13% def eating 1800! Obviously I would rather eat 1800. I asked before about 1600 being low and he responded with saying you can have a steeper def if you weight lift. Anybody else notice how you have a steeper def plugging in weight lifting on that spreadsheet? I thought you were to eat more if you lift. I did not change the amount of cardio.

I am still not having luck losing fat and am pretty discouraged. I understand eating a lower deficit is what EM2WL encourages. I am having a hard time eating the 1600 calories and always want to eat more so I guess should try to eat at 1800 although I have been pretty much eating that the last 2 months and have not seen any changes.

Just wondered if anybody believes I should in fact be at 1600 like it says in spreadsheet...I am confused as to why it says to eat less if you lift than if you don't lift.

That spread sheet is just one of many calculators you can use, its not part of EM2WL. Yes smaller deficits will keep your appetite satisfied and more likely to stay consistent. So I would say go higher, listen to your body.

heybales

Remember the spreadsheet is for weight loss - not performance gain.
It's taking all the study results I could find to help retain muscle mass and maintain metabolism, while giving biggest deficit possible still for weight and fat loss.

Body of course for max improvement wants to be eating in surplus. For slow but some improvement, maintenance.
Somewhere between max deficit and maintenance is correct depending on your goals.
Some need to lose the fat weight first and most importantly, and actually at the start they'll still have performance gains.
But at some point, you'll have to decide what is most important to you.

Strength training retains muscle mass, high cardio risks it.

So there is a sliding scale based on the ratio of lifting to high cardio.
No high cardio only lifting, max deficit.
No lifting only other exercise, min deficit.

Here's the study from the TDEE Deficit tab. I used max weight loss amount of 0.7%, but stopped at BMR. Gotta draw the line in the sand somewhere.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

---

When weight loss (WL) is necessary, athletes are advised to accomplish it gradually, at a rate of 0.5-1 kg/wk.
However, it is possible that losing 0.5 kg/wk is better than 1 kg/wk in terms of preserving lean body mass (LBM) and performance.

The aim of this study was to compare changes in body composition, strength, and power during a weekly body-weight (BW) loss of 0.7% slow reduction (SR) vs. 1.4% fast reduction (FR).
We hypothesized that the faster WL regimen would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM and strength-related performance.
Twenty-four athletes were randomized to SR (n = 13, 24 ± 3 yr, 71.9 ± 12.7 kg) or FR (n = 11, 22 ± 5 yr, 74.8 ± 11.7 kg).
They followed energy-restricted diets promoting the predetermined weekly WL.
All athletes included 4 resistance-training sessions/wk in their usual training regimen.
The mean times spent in intervention for SR and FR were 8.5 ± 2.2 and 5.3 ± 0.9 wk, respectively (p < .001).
BW, body composition (DEXA), 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) tests, 40-m sprint, and countermovement jump were measured before and after intervention.

Energy intake was reduced by 19% ± 2% and 30% ± 4% in SR and FR, respectively (p = .003).
BW and fat mass decreased in both SR and FR by 5.6% ± 0.8% and 5.5% ± 0.7% (0.7% ± 0.8% vs. 1.0% ± 0.4%/wk) and 31% ± 3% and 21 ± 4%, respectively.
LBM increased in SR by 2.1% ± 0.4% (p < .001), whereas it was unchanged in FR (-0.2% ± 0.7%), with significant differences between groups (p < .01).

In conclusion, data from this study suggest that athletes who want to gain LBM and increase 1RM strength during a WL period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly BW loss of 0.7%.

---

So even in that 0.7% of weight lost weekly, the Slow Reduction group gained LBM of 2.1% while losing weight and fat. And these were already athletes. 19% deficit was the SR group, 30% the FR group. And even the FR group lost no LBM, but same weight, but less fat.

Since the group likes to talk about a deficit as a cut, lifters during a cut change their workout to more maintenance mode with no attempts to improve, because during a deficit recovery is just going to be bad, and worst time to increase workouts and intensity and weight.
Should be more maintenance mode.
Except at the start, you can do both with lots of fat to lose.

If you want performance improvements, need to eat more. View the TDEG as minimum.

Also, if you are dropping inches but no weight - you are eating at maintenance. Body is making improvements hiding the fat loss weight.
Lifting should be progressing nicely.
But if no inches dropped and stalled on amount lifted, then likely at suppressed metabolism still. Body isn't going to make improvements that require more energy to support if not getting enough already.

TDEE estimate may be low, may be more active than calculated.

Did you do a reset from prior dieting levels eating 1600 for a year, and what was the exercise routine that whole time?
1600 with no frame of reference could be good or bad. If no exercise, 1600 not that bad. If 1 hr of intense cardio 6 x weekly, then bad.

mnsmov15

Sorry to highjack this thread, but I don't think I understand the difference between TDEG and Eating for future you.
Also how do I use the progress tab? I am not able to get the avg calculations working there. Thanks!

heybales

Sorry to highjack this thread, but I don't think I understand the difference between TDEG and Eating for future you.
Also how do I use the progress tab? I am not able to get the avg calculations working there. Thanks!

EFFY is alternate method I was asked to keep in there for many following it. They have a routine that appears to rarely change, so they are basically eating at goal weight, minus 5% so you actually have a decent deficit in place. They don't seem to mind the slow pace.
But it's still a smaller deficit than the main part of the page under Your Results.

Both are TDEG you might say, as in what that stands for, same amount eaten daily.

Progress tab.
Line across the top shows what the current stats are on Simple Setup tab.
Section further down has example data there to replace, by merely retying the stats you want to track, plus the date when gotten.
Like you may not want to take a TDEG as low as recommended, because you want more performance gains.

Not sure what you mean by average calculations.
If you mean the average eaten daily, enter the date in yellow cell for when you are going to enter your stuff for convenience. It allows for a month, but you may want to do only a week though, which it will average correctly, just use blank cells, don't enter 0.
Then the gross calories (didn't want people entering net, which is useless figure for this) you ate each day.
Then whatever the average is, enter that in your Progress stats next to the TDEG you had intended to follow.

That way when you see TDEG of say 1600 you intended to follow, and your average eaten with that goal was actually 1900 for that week or month or 2 weeks or whatever and that matches your TDEE, you shouldn't be too shocked that the next line of stats shows no weight loss.

rlw0031

Wow that is a lot of information and I will most likely read through again. Jaeone, i always want to eat more. I have been trying to keep it at 1600 and I am always a couple hundred over it seems. And yes I can eat less junk in my diet. I am just concerned because I have not seen any improvement in almost 2 months and summer is around the corner. If anything I feel better about not seeing scale weight but definitely want to see some sort of result, just move in a positive direction instead of standing still as I have been it feels like forever.

Haybales thank you for all the information. you did tell me before that lifting burns less than cardio and you can eat a steeper def. I was just surprised when I was playing with it that if I did not increase cardio and took out weight lifting all together that the TDEG went up 200 calories. Since I am eating that much anyway I should probably keep it at 1800, maybe 1700 because that is what my TDEE-15% is. I am just frustrated at not having any noticeable progress. Measurements have not changed. Maybe I need more time but when nothing happens you feel you have to change something. I tried answering everything on spreadsheet as honest as I could but it is a little hard to figure out how many hours you are doing things and it can change a little. Eating the way I am is pretty much the EFFY method I think as you guys were talking about.

No inches dropped, lifting pretty much the same with a little progress in weight I can lift. Yes I did practically a 6 month reset. Started off probably not eating at true TDEE and then overindulged past it during holidays. My exercise during reset was the same, 3 times lifting 30 min, 3 times walking 30 min. I am wondering if I eat my TDEE or just below and add in a couple more walks if that can count as a cut by adding in activity?

heybales

Your last comment is actually the study results that usually show the best results.

Start with best estimate of sedentary TDEE, in the studies they literally measure for a day or some other method to see what their current TDEE is.

Then they take 10% of that as the amount to cut calories, and 10% of that as the amount of exercise to do. They of course have treadmill tests to nail exactly that much burned.

That combo always has best results compared to diet only. and actually tad better than exercise only deficit.

Now you would think that it would all work out the same in the wash, but it actually doesn't.

So I'm not suggesting you decrease exercise until it's only providing a burn of 7.5% of sedentary TDEE, and you only take that much in the diet, but you can do the same math about and see where it leaves you.
Usually don't go this way because the amount of exercise would have to be decreased well below desired.

Sedentary TDEE.
Estimated calories burned from exercise (add up a week / 7) is X.
Change for food is Y.

X / TDEE = % from exercise.
0.15 - % = % for food.
% for food x TDEE = Y deficit (if positive number) or surplus (if negative number) to eat.
TDEE + or - Y = TDEG

Example:
107 / 2000 = 0.0535% from exercise
0.15 - 0.0535 = 0.0965% for food
0.0965 x 2000 = 193 deficit
2000 - 193 = 1807

Pretty close to your 15% deficit.
So indeed, if you wanted equal parts of your deficit provided by diet and exercise, you could probably walk a tad more, and eat a tad more. Just redo the math.