Frantic about adhering to the "right" calorie intake? Read t

1356789

Replies

  • tgh1914
    tgh1914 Posts: 1,036 Member
    bump! wish I could force others to read this too
  • cutmd
    cutmd Posts: 1,168 Member
    Who cares what the scale says. I don't get it. If you lost 2 lbs for the month of pure fat but the scale said you gained 3 lbs, you'd be upset. Which is completely illogical. The scale can't dictate your sense of progress when you're not overly fat. You're interested in losing fat and the scale is measuring fat, muscle, connective tissue, water, bowel matter, etc.

    It's like trying to calculate your fuel usage in your car with a calculator and assumed rate of fuel consumption per mile. Actual consumption is comprised of many variables, so your likely not going to get an accurate reading with your calculator.

    You're right, the weight thing is silly, but I'm having a hard time shaking it. I look leaner than my profile pic now, but weigh 2 or 3 pounds more. If the scale said 115 right now I'd probably declare myself pretty much done :laugh:

    The problem with the calorie intake approach proposed is that you have to be really strict with your calories to know whether you need to increase or decrease at the end of the 2-4 weeks. So it seems impossible to lose weight without counting and weighing. Makes me sad :sad:
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    bump! wish I could force others to read this too

    Spread the word please!
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    You're right, the weight thing is silly, but I'm having a hard time shaking it. I look leaner than my profile pic now, but weigh 2 or 3 pounds more. If the scale said 115 right now I'd probably declare myself pretty much done :laugh:

    How illogical is that though? I mean you look great. So who cares what the scale says?
    The problem with the calorie intake approach proposed is that you have to be really strict with your calories to know whether you need to increase or decrease at the end of the 2-4 weeks. So it seems impossible to lose weight without counting and weighing. Makes me sad :sad:

    I don't count a damn thing and I can alter my weight quite easily. But I'm not an emotional eater and I've loads of experience from my past tracking things meticulously. After a while it simply became second nature to a point where I know when I'm eating outside the bounds of how I need to be to reach whatever my goal is at the time (gain, lose, maintain, or whatever).

    But you're right, if you're nutrition isn't very consistent in terms of what you're eating, it does become a guessing game without tracking. Thankfully I've a foundation that comprises the majority of my food intake each and every day.
  • Burtonrah
    Burtonrah Posts: 142
    Thanks so much for the input!!
  • tokenana
    tokenana Posts: 16
    this was fantastic thank you about to do me some math now :D haha
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Thanks for reading guys! Glad you were able to find value in it.
  • stormieweather
    stormieweather Posts: 2,549 Member
    Good post, thanks!!
  • Splendidissimus
    Splendidissimus Posts: 20
    Saving. :) Thank you very much for the article.
  • shaunshaikh
    shaunshaikh Posts: 616 Member
    This is so true. I've been on 1200-1250 calories per day according to MFP. But I decided to try wearing my HRM through a 24 hour lazy day. So no exercise, slow work day - I have a desk job - and relaxed in front of the TV that evening. I burned and ESTIMATED 2300 calories in 24 hours. And I'm 5'2" and 124 pounds. Not big at all. (Subtracted my 'resting caloires' from this and it almost matched the BMR that MFP gave me according to my activity level - 3 calorie difference that day).
    BMRs weren't meant to measure calories burned while not doing aerobic activity.
  • 2bfitforever
    2bfitforever Posts: 87 Member
    As always, great information! Thanks Steve
  • emilysebastian
    emilysebastian Posts: 245 Member
    bump
  • Debx12345
    Debx12345 Posts: 210
    Bump for later
  • Leigh258
    Leigh258 Posts: 2
    bump
  • MEMoggridge
    MEMoggridge Posts: 151 Member
    This makes complete sense to me!! Thank you so much for the great explainations!!
    I have been on a really slow weight loss for a couple of months and have just started eating a little more but alternating it with the goals set on MFP and finally it seems to be working!! Going towards a 2lb loss for this week which matches the aim you mentioned so I am really happy with that!!! :smile:
  • newuser111
    newuser111 Posts: 40
    bump
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Thanks for the bumps everyone!
  • Rurouni_Kou
    Rurouni_Kou Posts: 180 Member
    Excellent advice. Thank you. Bumping here as well.
  • pj_writer
    pj_writer Posts: 107 Member
    another great post!
    thanks, I will be pointing lots of friends to this :)
  • pammbroo
    pammbroo Posts: 550 Member
    bumpity-bump
  • suzieqdiva
    suzieqdiva Posts: 183 Member
    bump!
  • Just_Dot
    Just_Dot Posts: 2,283 Member
    bump!
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Thanks for the bumps guys!
  • tizzy22
    tizzy22 Posts: 27 Member
    bump
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member

    To summarize from the last edition, caloric expenditure is determined by BMR, TEF, TEA and NEAT which are basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of feeding, thermic effect of activity and non-exercise activity thermogenesis respectively. As these factors rise and fall, so does your caloric expenditure.

    Caloric needs are very individual and variable.

    Caloric expenditure will change based on your energetic state (or diet if you will)—meaning if you’re continuously eating less energy than your body needs, your body is going to adapt by slowing down your metabolism over time.

    Great article again Steve but these things stand out for me and lots of people miss this point.

    In your other long running thread here:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/113609-relatively-light-people-trying-to-get-leaner?page=17

    you mention how a low calorie approach coupled with lots of exercise can make a person's weight loss plan go pear shaped (quite literally) due to the cumulative effect of stress over time on the body.

    Howver, many people also forget what you mention above: that calorie needs are variable. Following on from this by devoting more energy resources to one variable of the calorie expenditure / energy balance equation (such as exercise) you will affect other variable negatively, especially so when calories are restricted heavily.

    Many people follow this kind of rigid logic: I need say 2200 calories per day to maintain my weight. To lose 1lb fat = 500 calories per day reduction, to lose 2lbs then 1,000 calories per day. So if I want to lose 2lb then I should be eating 2,200 - 1,000 = 1,200 calories per day over 7 days.

    However, I'm ambitious. I want to lose 3lbs per week. So I also add in 500 calories per day worth of exercise. Seems to make perfect sense right? After all the less I eat and the more exercise I do the greater my calorie / energy deficit and so the more fat I should lose given the 1lb of fat = 3,500 calorie "rule."

    However is this always true?

    Let's look at the equation you mentioned above:

    Calorie expenditure = BMR + TEF + TEA + NEAT/SPA

    TEF is the thermic effect of food / eating. This loosely means the amount of energy it takes your body to process food and is roughly calculated at 10% of total intake. Therefore if I eat 1,000 less calories a day I will actually be burning 100 less calories a day than before because of reduced TEF. My actual deficit is 900 from diet. A small reduction perhaps but now lets turn to TEA.

    This is the thermic affect of activity, or specifically exercise. I am aiming to burn 500 calories each and every day. However, I am also eating much less than usual meaning my power resources are limited. What then happens to the NEAT/SPA part of the equation? NEAT/SPA is non exercise activty thermogensis or spontaneous physical activity. This is what I would do on a day to day basis to include generally moving round, fidgeting and so on. Because I am so tired from reduced calories and excessive exercising my NEAT/SPA falls dramatically. I am too knackered to take the stairs anymore so I use the lift more often. Forget about taking the dog for a walk in the evening, I want to lie on the coach.

    I think that it is very easy to forget how many little pockets of activity you do, which over the course of a day adds up to total activity which is greater than you could imagine. Changes in NEAT/SPA can have a dramatic affect on calorie expenditure. Lets say I have busted my *kitten* in my morning workout. I feel virtuous that I have burned off 500 calories. I am also knackered to the extent that I reduce the amount of NEAT/SPA I do by say, 25 calories an hour over the 16 hours I remain awake. 25 calories per hour x 16 hours = 400 calories. Translation? That busting my *kitten* in the gym has only made an actual difference of 100 calories. The cost? I am tired, irritable, I have spent less time with my loved ones, I can't concentrate.

    I have seen people advise others on here that they raised their calories by say 300 a day which triggered their weight loss again. The general rationale is that the increased calories got them out of "starvation mode." Is it that or is it simply more likely that water balance issues played out or by adding more calories they had sufficient power resources to not only to do a decent workout but also maintain their NEAT/SPA activities at a higher level coupled with an increased TEF? This meant an overall greater calorie expenditure despite the increased food intake.

    Add the changes in TEF & NEAT/SPA to the cumulative affect of stress that a low calorie, tons of exercise approach has to fat storage and you can see why some people end up hitting a brick wall. To lose more you have to do more? Not necessarily....
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Right on. Great post.

    My original sentiments were primarily for beginners who are simply trying to figure out the process. But you're right, many beginners take the extreme approach. And frankly, obese beginners can tolerate it for reasons I believe I've discussed in this thread previously. They can't do that much damage via exercise since there's a self-limiting component to their work capacity. And hormonally their bodies simply don't react as sensitively to large deficits. But when we're talking to non-obese populations, you REALLY have to stress stress. Put differently, it's not only about applying a stressor to the body (via calorie restriction, exercise, etc). It's about balancing stress and recovery, and that's what most people forget about.
  • locomotion
    locomotion Posts: 67
    bump
  • lizzybedizzy
    lizzybedizzy Posts: 81 Member
    bump

    Thanks for the great info :happy:
  • amk0429
    amk0429 Posts: 3 Member
    This has been helpful. I do have one question, with the weekly summary on MFP, is the goal to have the net calorie intake above or below my weekly goal? I am confused? I am looking for a calorie deficit?

    Thanks!
  • sassyg
    sassyg Posts: 393

    Many people follow this kind of rigid logic: I need say 2200 calories per day to maintain my weight. To lose 1lb fat = 500 calories per day reduction, to lose 2lbs then 1,000 calories per day. So if I want to lose 2lb then I should be eating 2,200 - 1,000 = 1,200 calories per day over 7 days.

    However, I'm ambitious. I want to lose 3lbs per week. So I also add in 500 calories per day worth of exercise. Seems to make perfect sense right? After all the less I eat and the more exercise I do the greater my calorie / energy deficit and so the more fat I should lose given the 1lb of fat = 3,500 calorie "rule."

    However is this always true?

    Let's look at the equation you mentioned above:

    Calorie expenditure = BMR + TEF + TEA + NEAT/SPA

    TEF is the thermic effect of food / eating. This loosely means the amount of energy it takes your body to process food and is roughly calculated at 10% of total intake. Therefore if I eat 1,000 less calories a day I will actually be burning 100 less calories a day than before because of reduced TEF. My actual deficit is 900 from diet. A small reduction perhaps but now lets turn to TEA.

    This is the thermic affect of activity, or specifically exercise. I am aiming to burn 500 calories each and every day. However, I am also eating much less than usual meaning my power resources are limited. What then happens to the NEAT/SPA part of the equation? NEAT/SPA is non exercise activty thermogensis or spontaneous physical activity. This is what I would do on a day to day basis to include generally moving round, fidgeting and so on. Because I am so tired from reduced calories and excessive exercising my NEAT/SPA falls dramatically. I am too knackered to take the stairs anymore so I use the lift more often. Forget about taking the dog for a walk in the evening, I want to lie on the coach.

    I think that it is very easy to forget how many little pockets of activity you do, which over the course of a day adds up to total activity which is greater than you could imagine. Changes in NEAT/SPA can have a dramatic affect on calorie expenditure. Lets say I have busted my *kitten* in my morning workout. I feel virtuous that I have burned off 500 calories. I am also knackered to the extent that I reduce the amount of NEAT/SPA I do by say, 25 calories an hour over the 16 hours I remain awake. 25 calories per hour x 16 hours = 400 calories. Translation? That busting my *kitten* in the gym has only made an actual difference of 100 calories. The cost? I am tired, irritable, I have spent less time with my loved ones, I can't concentrate

    Wow, this makes perfect sense
This discussion has been closed.

Categories