GAINING with scrict diet and workouts!!

Jeff92se

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

shannypoo21

I have a similiar problem. I think I will be eating my exercise calories and see what difference it makes.

seansquared

The caclulators take HEIGHT into the daily calorie allotments. So height must play a factor.

The calculator is wrong is my point. Height plays no factor.

(In all reality, differences in skeletal size and done density play a ridiculously tiny factor, which is why we just say "it plays no factor")

seansquared

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

I sure hope so - you have to eat and drink after all!

One big key here is always weigh yourself first thing in the morning either nude or in the same PJs, always after evacuation (#1, #2, both, whatever :P)

Never weigh yourself at any other time or in any other clothes unless you (1) know the exact weight of food and liquid you've consumed so far in the day (minus evacuation) and (2) know the exact weight of the clothes you're wearing.

Jeff92se

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

I sure hope so - you have to eat and drink after all!

One big key here is always weigh yourself first thing in the morning either nude or in the same PJs, always after evacuation (#1, #2, both, whatever :P)

Never weigh yourself at any other time or in any other clothes unless you (1) know the exact weight of food and liquid you've consumed so far in the day (minus evacuation) and (2) know the exact weight of the clothes you're wearing.

I already know this. Thanks. Point being 2lbs of gain might not be actual weight. Could be a host of things as you've mentioned.

seansquared

The problem here in my opinion is the MFP calculator, not the 2lbs per week loss. It is simply a bad tool. If you want real calculations, you should learn the Katch-McArdle method of calculating weight loss/gain needs and use that.

I am 2 inches shorter than the OP, and according to Katch-McArdle I should be eating only 1078 calories a day for weight loss.

This is because your weight is already so low. Katch-McArdle is just math - it doesn't take into account the concept of "not eating less than 1200 calories to avoid starvation". On the other hand at 115lbs, 1200 calories likely isn't starvation for you, more likely that's 800.

It also has nothing to do with your height. If you were 6 feet tall instead of 5 feet tall, you'd still be the same LBM. You might have an extra pound of organ weight. Big whoop

heybales

Hey Guys: I have asked a smiliar question and not had anyone reply----I am eating 1300-1500 cals, working out 3-4 times a week for an hour each session. I am extremely good about logging and drinking my water. I am targeting 100 gms protein and eating really good food but feel bloaty and puffy. I am not losing anywhere close to the amount MFP says I will if I follow the plan even though I am following the plan. What gives? appreciate any input

You appear to have daily deficits not only from exercise, but also whatever MFP suggested as deficit for your weight loss goal.

You'll notice you are green to go for eating more calories on your workout days, because MFP has kept the same 500-1000 cal deficit built in.

So you are eating 1300-1500 as safe margin probably because you heard of problems eating under 1200 calories, and you want to do it safely.
But when you throw in your exercise, you are hitting many days at 800 net calories for the day. That's just not enough to repair muscles and keep a healthy metabolism.

Jeff92se

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

ShapeUpSidney

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

not to an extent that it significantly affects your metabolic needs

seansquared

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

The delta is so meaningless as to be discounted.

Weight, bodyfat%, and estimated activity level are all you need for KMA (Katch-McArdle) and it's widely considered the best calculation method.

Jeff92se

A 7ft person is going to have more height related mass than a 4ft 9 person.

The way that this differs is that you need your lean body mass for the Katch-McGardle forumula. LBM is actually a very difficult calculation to get accurately.

heybales

And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

Absolutely false.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

psuLemon

A 7ft person is going to have more height related mass than a 4ft 9 person.

The way that this differs is that you need your lean body mass for the Katch-McGardle forumula. LBM is actually a very difficult calculation to get accurately.

Yea, but keep in mind that KMA has two major components, weight and body fat. My friend is 6'6" and has the same weight and body fat as me and I am 5'11" but yet we have the same BMR. The difference comes when you talk appearance. I look more muscular than my friend as his weight is more distributed. We still eat the same amount of calories and burn about the same.

ShapeUpSidney

The delta is so meaningless as to be discounted.

Jeff wants to believe the diff is significant, but it isn't. For example, a person my height and body weight has about 4.34 liters of blood. Add 10 inches of height, and that SAME person only has 4.39 liters of blood. Height actually has very little to do with your metabolic needs. Basically, the difference in caloric needs is so small that it falls within the "margin of error" that the KMA method provides.

Jeff92se

KMA requires a bodyfat % in it's caluculations. I'm not stating anything other than this. Because it requires a BF% and because BF%s are difficult to get accurate, the end calculation will be hard to judge.

Now OTHER caluclations that estimate BMR etc.. can also be equally as inaccurate.

heybales

Jeff92se and Seansquared.

You are both right!

Most sites that calculate BMR know you would not have your lean body mass or % Fat known.

So height is used to get a very rough value for what your LBM would be from tables based on others your size. If you fall in the bell curve, great for you. If you don't, oops.
Not really too far off BMI trying to supply a single figure for a meaningless measurement for a specific person.

But, it's as accurate as you can get.

But the K-M formula removes some inaccuracy if you know your fat % to a good estimate.

Of course, if you are estimating that per calculators of measuring wrists, forearmes, thighs, ect, you could be way off too.

That's why it could be at least more accurate to get fat % estimates from several sites using several different methods, besides scale or caliper or bodpod, ect, and enter them all into K-M formula, and see where they avg.

But considering how many probably won't do that, these other BMR sites gotta calculate their own LBM based on tables, and you'll get better accuracy in those tables if height is included.

ShapeUpSidney

KMA requires a bodyfat % in it's caluculations. I'm not stating anything other than this. Because it requires a BF% and because BF%s are difficult to get accurate, the end calculation will be hard to judge.

Now OTHER caluclations that estimate BMR etc.. can also be equally as inaccurate.

True, there is uncertainty introduced by the measurement, as well as the uncertainty inherent in the model. I haven't seen a comparison that took this into account. Does anyone know the uncertainty associated with different body fat measurements? I could run some numbers...

I know ECHO MRI is probably the most accurate method. Anyone have accuracy and precision data for the caliper method?

Jeff92se

You have to get a fairly technical and expensive BF done to do a good KM calculation. I'm not willing to spend the $50 to do that all the time.

Perhaps I'll get it done once at the end of my goals for giggles.

heybales

Just thought of another example regarding trying to find your own fat % - using a scale that will tell you that.

Now all the scale does is get a resistance figure.

It now takes that to the tables. So hopefully the scale asked for as much info as possible, so that more accurate tables could be used.

It probably asked for at least gender. Big difference in genders obviously.

Then it should have asked for height. If it doesn't, that is a huge source of error if you think of impedence going up and down the legs.

I had one ask for neck and waist size, because the tables/formula were that narrowed down on samlpe tests that were done.

These BMR sites could start asking for some of the common measurements and do their own body fat % calculation.

But honestly, how many people are going to measure and enter that info? Or just search for another BMR site to enter gender, age, weight, and height?

psuLemon

And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

Absolutely false.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

Thats a really cool study. Thanks for providing that. I would like to note that the people in the study that didn't lose lbm all have very low caloric deficits (unlike this case). So using this study and applying to the facts of this thread, I forsee it very unlikely that the 2 lbs was muscle, especially considering she seems to have a high caloric deficit.