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

suzieqdiva

bump!

Just_Dot

bump!

stroutman81

Thanks for the bumps guys!

tizzy22

bump

myofibril

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

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

bump

lizzybedizzy

bump

Thanks for the great info :happy:

amk0429

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

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

dawnkitchen

bump
:flowerforyou:

stroutman81

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!

To be honest, I'm not really sure. I don't use MFP for anything but the community. I don't even count the calories I eat, lol. But I'd assume your weekly goal is what MFP calculates based on your desired track (gain, lose or maintain). So if that assumption is correct, then your net calorie intake should be close to your goal intake. But again, I'm only guessing. Hopefully someone who uses the platform can answer your question.

I look at things very simply. Calculate maintenance. If you want to lose weight, make sure intake is below maintenance. If you want to gain, make sure intake is above it.

stormieweather

The deficit is pre-calculated in MFP based upon what you stated your goals to be. The idea here is to meet the calorie goals (including exercise calories) and maintain that deficit.

DanieGirl74

Thanks so much, this is really helpful!

slydog1227

Bump

Lanfear

Bump fr reading later!

cccathyyy

bump for later

marji4x

bump

baisleac

bump

Sueboo31

let me go get my calculator...bump!