Caloric Intake & Body Fat

psuLemon

Female
Height: 5' 5"
Weight: OBESE! 218
Goal: 135

I exercise 5 times a week, 3 strength, 2 cardio circuits.

I have not had much luck losing so far, but finally managed to drop some weight last week by eating an average of 1955 calories. It was 1700-1800 most days with a few days going up into the 2200-2300 range. Am going to stick with this for a couple more weeks and see if I continue to lose. I absolutely sucked at 1200 and even 1500.

Thanks, I can say from my experience, most people under eat. It may be a sign that you need to eat more since you lost after a week of eating more. Remember, food is fuel.


Great exercise routine too... I love to see people that include weight training.

joseph9

The objective is to test the theory, that people with really low body fat have to consume a huge amount of calories to maintain or continue to change their body composition.

I'd definitely agree with that. Even at rest, pound of muscle requires more calories to maintain than a pound of fat, plus on average, people with lower body fat percentages are probably doing more daily work than people with higher. I think you might need people's weights, too, however.

Here's my info:

Age: 42
Sex: M
Body Fat : 23% (Probably closer to 21% -- taken first thing in the morning with a BEI scale).
Daily Calories: 1554

BF Goal (optional): 10-15%

duckpond11

The objective is to test the theory, that people with really low body fat have to consume a huge amount of calories to maintain or continue to change their body composition.

I'd definitely agree with that. Even at rest, pound of muscle requires more calories to maintain than a pound of fat, plus on average, people with lower body fat percentages are probably doing more daily work than people with higher.

I read that in reality, muscle doesn't really burn that more than fat. It burns about 5-6 cals per hour vs fat, which is 2-3. Considering the small percentage of your lean body mass that is actually muscle, it doesn't work out to be all that much.

Additionally, some of us that have high body fat also have a lot of lean body mass. We need it to carry our fat *kitten* around on a daily basis. So I think it has less to do with your actual percentage of fat, and more to do with the amount of lean body mass you have regardless of fat.

and just to update my stats, I did a skin fold fat test today and it was way different result than the impedence test. Only 36% (bleh) - bad, but better than 42.

abby459

Age: 27
Weight: 148
Height: 5'2
Sex: F
Body Fat : 29.3%
Daily Calories: 1300 + most of my exercise calories (usually 200-300 more cals)

psuLemon

The objective is to test the theory, that people with really low body fat have to consume a huge amount of calories to maintain or continue to change their body composition.

I'd definitely agree with that. Even at rest, pound of muscle requires more calories to maintain than a pound of fat, plus on average, people with lower body fat percentages are probably doing more daily work than people with higher.

I read that in reality, muscle doesn't really burn that more than fat. It burns about 5-6 cals per hour vs fat, which is 2-3. Considering the small percentage of your lean body mass that is actually muscle, it doesn't work out to be all that much.

Additionally, some of us that have high body fat also have a lot of lean body mass. We need it to carry our fat *kitten* around on a daily basis. So I think it has less to do with your actual percentage of fat, and more to do with the amount of lean body mass you have regardless of fat.

and just to update my stats, I did a skin fold fat test today and it was way different result than the impedence test. Only 36% (bleh) - bad, but better than 42.

Well I did some research and I have to apoloize, I was wrong and you are correct. Muscle does only burn a little extra calories than fat.

Now, in terms of lean body mass, it's impossible to have a lot of LBM if you have lean body mass. it would completely defy the calculation (unless I am mis reading your statement). Calculation below:

LBM = Weight - (Weight x Body Fat %)

Now, if the only constant is body fat and you maintain weight, then your LBM will only increase. But if you lose weight faster than your lose body fat, then I would agree with you as our LBM will decrease. This is what happens a lot with those who don't eat enough calories (or at least I theorize) as they can't maintain muscle mass due to mal nutrition. For me, I went from 205 @ 18% body fat, to 190 @ 12 % body fat. By doing this, i was able to maintain my lean body mass. Just something to think about. Thanks for the info. I love when I get questioned so I can learn more.

psuLemon

duplicate

psuLemon

stupid internet connection

anda2oo5

bump

mbissey

bump

nicjim

Age 43
Height 5ft 7
Weight 160 Lbs
BF 33% Navy method
Cals 1200 5 days a week
Dont eat exercise cals back of approximately 400 a day
Weight not really moving!

Good luck with the study!

psuLemon

Age 43
Height 5ft 7
Weight 160 Lbs
BF 33% Navy method
Cals 1200 5 days a week
Dont eat exercise cals back of approximately 400 a day
Weight not really moving!

Good luck with the study!

Sex?

Also, start eating back your exercise calories. Eating 1200 calories and burn 400 calories is like only eating 800 calories which is really low, below what is recommended.

joseph9

@duckpond11 and psulemon - thanks for the info, that's very interesting.

anda2oo5

Age: 27
Weight: 152.7
Height: 5'6
Sex: F
Body Mass Index: 24.7 kg/m2
Waist-to-Height ratio: 0.42
Percent Body Fat: 28.2%
Lean Body Mass: 109.6 lb
Weight Goal: 138
Daily Calories: 1310 ( i cant eat all my exercise calories back which are between 300-500 so my net calories are very low )
Thank you!

reyna99

Hey there, just seeing if you got my stats? and if you need anything else from me?

duckpond11

The objective is to test the theory, that people with really low body fat have to consume a huge amount of calories to maintain or continue to change their body composition.

I'd definitely agree with that. Even at rest, pound of muscle requires more calories to maintain than a pound of fat, plus on average, people with lower body fat percentages are probably doing more daily work than people with higher.

I read that in reality, muscle doesn't really burn that more than fat. It burns about 5-6 cals per hour vs fat, which is 2-3. Considering the small percentage of your lean body mass that is actually muscle, it doesn't work out to be all that much.

Additionally, some of us that have high body fat also have a lot of lean body mass. We need it to carry our fat *kitten* around on a daily basis. So I think it has less to do with your actual percentage of fat, and more to do with the amount of lean body mass you have regardless of fat.

and just to update my stats, I did a skin fold fat test today and it was way different result than the impedence test. Only 36% (bleh) - bad, but better than 42.

Well I did some research and I have to apoloize, I was wrong and you are correct. Muscle does only burn a little extra calories than fat.

Now, in terms of lean body mass, it's impossible to have a lot of LBM if you have lean body mass. it would completely defy the calculation (unless I am mis reading your statement). Calculation below:

LBM = Weight - (Weight x Body Fat %)

Are you saying it's impossible to have a lot of LBM if you have a high percentage of body fat? Look at your own calculation, if Weight is a LARGE NUMBER, the LBM will be large. Now, let's use a specific example - me. I weigh 218 pounds, 36% body fat. I have approximately 140 pounds of LBM, and about 78 pounds of fat. It's still a lot of LBM for a female at my height - 5' 5". You probaby only have 30 pounds more than I do, and you are probably much taller and a dude.

Losing LBM is inevitable even with proper diet if you have a lot to lose. A previous poster speculated that the lean person works "harder" than the fat person, and this is why they supposedly get to eat more. I totally disagree. You strap 75 pounds to your body and drag it around 24/7 and tell me you aren't burning more calories just existing than without that extra weight. The thing is, as you drop some of that fat, it is natural for *some* LBM to disappear as well. Firstly, 75% of your LBM is actually just water. Smaller people need less water. Secondly, because you are no longer working so hard (i.e. dragging your 75 pound load around), your muscles will shrink a bit. But it's ok. If you have not much to lose (for example, your case), then you can successfully maintain your LBM. But an obese person will naturally lose LBM as well as body fat.

I feel like the amount of calories you can eat in a day is largely dictated by your height, then secondarily by the amount of muscle mass you have.

baisleac

Losing LBM is inevitable even with proper diet if you have a lot to lose.

Not so. I started out at 186 lbs, 38% body fat, 116 lbs LBM.

Currently, I am 155 lbs, 24% body fat, and 117 lbs LBM. (there are some decimals left off for simplicity's sake).

No LBM loss (gain even), despite starting at a similar body fat percentage. However, my goal weight is higher than what it would be for someone not working on retaining their LBM.... I'll still look damn good at 20% body fat.

psuLemon

Hey there, just seeing if you got my stats? and if you need anything else from me?

I did, thank you very much..

Sublog

Assuming you calculated your body fat levels correctly (almost impossible I might add), you gained muscle mass during a deficit, which is HARD to do for a woman. You have to understand that lean body mass (or fat free mass) can be everything from connective tissue, water, glycogen, blood. And around 20% of your body's lean body mass is there solely to support the added fat mass of an overweight person.

Losing 20% lean body mass during an extended cut is quite the normal, and some lose 30%. The only way you aren't losing lean body mass is two reasons.
1. You've gained muscle to offset your lbm lss
2. You've calculate your lean body mass incorrectly. (most likely)

baisleac

Assuming you calculated your body fat levels correctly (almost impossible I might add), you gained muscle mass during a deficit, which is HARD to do for a woman. You have to understand that lean body mass (or fat free mass) can be everything from connective tissue, water, glycogen, blood. And around 20% of your body's lean body mass is there solely to support the added fat mass of an overweight person.

Losing 20% lean body mass during an extended cut is quite the normal, and some lose 30%. The only way you aren't losing lean body mass is two reasons.
1. You've gained muscle to offset your lbm lss
2. You've calculate your lean body mass incorrectly. (most likely)

My body fat measurements are accurate (calipers & a couple of bod pods to verify along the way). I didn't say I'd gained muscle, I said I gained LBM... most likely that gain is in the form of glycogen storage from weight lifting, it doesn't change the numbers.

edit to add... I've also, intentionally, kept my deficit relatively small.

lucky1ns

I was mizled into thinking I didnt have to count my alcohol calories. Boy, was I wrong. That friends was a major mizler.