In place of a road map!

SOOZIE429

Bump

heybales

I apologize to anyone who has already read this on another post. But it seems like this is a good place to get some feed back.
I am 32
5'5
135 lbs
20% bf (caliper test)
I have lost a total of 4lbs in a little less than a year. However, I have decreased my body fat from 26% to 20% in that time period.

On average my daily calorie burn worked out to 387 calories a day. I would eat the majority of those calories back every day. So, my average calorie intake was 1537 (this is a 3 month average for calories consumed and burned).

In that 3 month period, there was no change in my body, no inches, no lbs…nothing.

So, I decided to get my Resting Metabolic Rate tested. From what I have read RMR and BMR are similar.
The test was the conducted at rest after fasting for 12 hours, no exercise for 24 hr period prior. 15 min - test using The Cardiocoach".

I went into the test assuming I was not eating enough calories… but the test came back with less than positive results.

My RMR was 1019 and that put me into a maintenance calorie range (to include daily activities and exercise) at 1200-1400. They said my weight loss calories would need to be at 1200 (because they wouldn’t recommend eating under 1200). I asked the trainer who performed the test if I should eat back my calories after exercise and he looked at me like I was insane!! He basically said that “that is where you were getting it wrong, it is not net calories for someone with your metabolism, you need to create a deficit and if my maintenance level is 1400 calories a day, the best I could do was eat 1200 and exercise without eating the calories back to create that deficit.

Now, in all honesty I don’t care what the scale says anymore, but I am trying to get my bf% lower… and to lower my bf% I know I need to be at a deficit! I am basically confused and frustrated and I have been trying to eat 1200 for a week or so without much difficulty. But on days I really work hard at the gym and I see a net calorie of 500 calories it freaks me out! The last thing I want to do is make my metabolism slower than it already is!!

So assuming the test is correct and my RMR really is 1019 and my goal is to lose body fat while maintaining my lean muscle mass, do I eat 1200 calories and not eat back exercise calories. Or should I eat back a portion of those calories to keep my net calories above 1019?

Sorry for this lengthy post!

So you really slowed your metabolism down. The math is very correct to have accomplished that.

So the question is - do you want to live with a slower than desired BMR, or do you want to raise it back where it could be?
Because frankly, their advice would lead to it slowing down even more.

And RMR is above BMR by a small amount, it means your real BMR is lower than that. And if you trust that 20% BF, your BMR could be upwards of 1400.

Now with 20% BF, where exactly are you trying to lose. Or trying to do body composition change, more muscle, less fat?
Very hard to do with suppressed metabolism, and eating under BMR.

Here is a case study very similar to yours, notice the results of getting the metabolism going again.

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).

A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html

sbfreak17

bump

redmapleleaf

Can someone please double check my numbers for me. I think I got but I just want to make sure. Thank you.

Ok. I think I finally got it. Hopefully someone can agree.

I found my Body Fat using the military formula to be 34.9%.

So my BMR would be 1297 calories.

I chose moderately active since I do body pump 2 times a week, go for a 3 mile run/walk on Sundays and then I'm also an elementary PE teacher so I'm always moving at work.

So that gives me 2041 calories to eat everyday.

TDEE would be 2041 + 20% = 2449.2 I wear a Fitbit so that does seem pretty accurate.

So for me to reach my goal weight my calorie count should be 2041 with only eating back my exercise calories to at least NET my BMR of 1297.

SOOZIE429

Can someone please double check my numbers for me. I think I got but I just want to make sure. Thank you.

Ok. I think I finally got it. Hopefully someone can agree.

I found my Body Fat using the military formula to be 34.9%.

So my BMR would be 1297 calories.

I chose moderately active since I do body pump 2 times a week, go for a 3 mile run/walk on Sundays and then I'm also an elementary PE teacher so I'm always moving at work.

So that gives me 2041 calories to eat everyday.

TDEE would be 2041 + 20% = 2449.2 I wear a Fitbit so that does seem pretty accurate.

So for me to reach my goal weight my calorie count should be 2041 with only eating back my exercise calories to at least NET my BMR of 1297.

You want to subtract the 20%, not add to your TDEE. That would give you 1633. If you eat at TDEE, that is maintenance.

Numptcakes

What are the chances of that body fat calculation being way out? Is it better to account for too much rather than too little?

foster59803

So you really slowed your metabolism down. The math is very correct to have accomplished that.

So the question is - do you want to live with a slower than desired BMR, or do you want to raise it back where it could be?
Because frankly, their advice would lead to it slowing down even more.

And RMR is above BMR by a small amount, it means your real BMR is lower than that. And if you trust that 20% BF, your BMR could be upwards of 1400.

Now with 20% BF, where exactly are you trying to lose. Or trying to do body composition change, more muscle, less fat?
Very hard to do with suppressed metabolism, and eating under BMR.

Here is a case study very similar to yours, notice the results of getting the metabolism going again.

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).

A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html
[/quote]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for the help and information.

To answer your question, no... I would rather not live with a lower than average RMR. I was led to believe that I could not really increase my metabolism that much as it was "genetic". They told me I would need to pack on at least 10 lbs of muscle to accomplish the slightest increase in my metabolism.

Now if I could in fact increase my metabolism by increasing calories consumed everyday, where exactly do you think I need to be at. I was eating 1500 to 1600 calories a day with maybe 1 spike or cheat day on the weekend. Do you think I need to eat more than that?

My ultimate goal has less to do with the number on the scale and much more to do with body composition. I would love to get to around 16% body fat (a number I had achieved during collage) So yes to your question, I want to increase muscle and decrease body fat. That is where I get really confused. It is my understanding that I cannot build new muscle without a calorie surplus and cannot decrease body fat without a calorie deficit. So does that mean I have to train like a bodybuilder? Bulk and cut?

Thank you very much for your time, it seems like you approach the questions with science based knowledge and I really appreciate it. It is difficult to shuffle though all the information out there and figure out what is correct!

Tigermad

Can someone please help

I am 5ft 4. 152lbs and want to be around 135lbs. Body fat is 28.6

I have inputted everything into the calculator. My bmr is 1429.

I work out 3-4 times per week but am not consistent so would prefer to use sedentary figure of 1626 calories and eat back any exercise calories. That way if for some reason I can't workout I won't go over my calories

I know this 1626 figure already includes a deficit but according to other sites my tdee now is 1707. So this is not really much of a deficit at all. Is it just giving me this high figure because I haven't got that much to lose?

The other thing I can't grasp is say I use the mod active figure of 2100. This is an increase of 3,318 calories over the sedentary level. So my 4 workouts would need to burn an average of 829 cals each to allow for the extra food eaten. That's pretty high. Is it best to use the light active figures in this case?

Tigermad

Anyone?

heybales

I am 40, 5ft 4. 152lbs and want to be around 135lbs. Body fat is 28.6

I have inputted everything into the calculator. My bmr is 1429.

I work out 3-4 times per week but am not consistent so would prefer to use sedentary figure of 1626 calories and eat back any exercise calories. That way if for some reason I can't workout I won't go over my calories

I know this 1626 figure already includes a deficit but according to other sites my tdee now is 1707. So this is not really much of a deficit at all. Is it just giving me this high figure because I haven't got that much to lose?

The other thing I can't grasp is say I use the mod active figure of 2100. This is an increase of 3,318 calories over the sedentary level. So my 4 workouts would need to burn an average of 829 cals each to allow for the extra food eaten. That's pretty high. Is it best to use the light active figures in this case?

More accurate body comp BMR (Katch) is 1440. Close enough.

NET'ing at Sedentary 1626 and feeding workouts is just fine and reasonable if they are iffy. Good to squeeze anything in you can.

Your current TDEE if truly sedentary would indeed be 1715, if you were truly sedentary. So while that appears to be a mere 100 cal deficit, you are really burning more than that daily. And indeed, the reason it's so close is because you are so close to goal. Less to lose the less fast it should be.

BTW, you increase the deficit over that estimated figure, by creating more daily activity that you are not feeding - park farther out, stairs, walk during break/lunch, ect. Deficit comes from daily activity that doesn't need to be fed. Exercise gets fed so your body can improve. Why else exercise?

And your math on difference between activity level with exercise and sedentary was right on.

This is a simple fail safe method of protecting BMR and feeding your workout.
You could also tweak MFP to set goal slightly above current BMR, and eat back all those exercise calories.
Set activity level to Lightly Active.
Set goal loss to 1lb weekly.
MFP should set daily net goal to 1444.
Right above current BMR.
MFP will lower goal as weight is lost.
When about 5lbs away from goal weight, change goal to 1/2 lb weekly, and goal will still be set above then current BMR.

heybales

Can someone please double check my numbers for me. I think I got but I just want to make sure. Thank you.

I found my Body Fat using the military formula to be 34.9%.

So my BMR would be 1297 calories.

I chose moderately active since I do body pump 2 times a week, go for a 3 mile run/walk on Sundays and then I'm also an elementary PE teacher so I'm always moving at work.

So that gives me 2041 calories to eat everyday.

TDEE would be 2041 + 20% = 2449.2 I wear a Fitbit so that does seem pretty accurate.

So for me to reach my goal weight my calorie count should be 2041 with only eating back my exercise calories to at least NET my BMR of 1297.

Correct daily goal. And with that many rest days in there, you balance out any days you may net under BMR, so don't worry about it. That would have to be almost an 800 cal workout!

heybales

You want to subtract the 20%, not add to your TDEE. That would give you 1633. If you eat at TDEE, that is maintenance.

Incorrect - this is in regards to a specific website fat2fit.com that gives you your TDEE at goal weight, not current weight, as what to eat to.

The adding 20% gives a clue as to the current TDEE.

But they had it correct for this method.

You have it correct if you were using standard TDEE calculator site - which this is NOT.

heybales

What are the chances of that body fat calculation being way out? Is it better to account for too much rather than too little?

Some body types can be very incorrect.

Too little BF estimated would be the safe direction. If you went for too much, that may mean you are underestimating what your BMR could be, and thereby underfeed it, being in the same boat you might have been.
Perhaps at a higher level at least, so not nearly as bad an effect. But if you play with the BF% stat, a 10% difference is usually only about 100 cal either direction, so not bad with built in safety buffer.

Tigermad

I am 40, 5ft 4. 152lbs and want to be around 135lbs. Body fat is 28.6

I have inputted everything into the calculator. My bmr is 1429.

I work out 3-4 times per week but am not consistent so would prefer to use sedentary figure of 1626 calories and eat back any exercise calories. That way if for some reason I can't workout I won't go over my calories

I know this 1626 figure already includes a deficit but according to other sites my tdee now is 1707. So this is not really much of a deficit at all. Is it just giving me this high figure because I haven't got that much to lose?

The other thing I can't grasp is say I use the mod active figure of 2100. This is an increase of 3,318 calories over the sedentary level. So my 4 workouts would need to burn an average of 829 cals each to allow for the extra food eaten. That's pretty high. Is it best to use the light active figures in this case?

More accurate body comp BMR (Katch) is 1440. Close enough.

NET'ing at Sedentary 1626 and feeding workouts is just fine and reasonable if they are iffy. Good to squeeze anything in you can.

Your current TDEE if truly sedentary would indeed be 1715, if you were truly sedentary. So while that appears to be a mere 100 cal deficit, you are really burning more than that daily. And indeed, the reason it's so close is because you are so close to goal. Less to lose the less fast it should be.

BTW, you increase the deficit over that estimated figure, by creating more daily activity that you are not feeding - park farther out, stairs, walk during break/lunch, ect. Deficit comes from daily activity that doesn't need to be fed. Exercise gets fed so your body can improve. Why else exercise?

And your math on difference between activity level with exercise and sedentary was right on.

This is a simple fail safe method of protecting BMR and feeding your workout.
You could also tweak MFP to set goal slightly above current BMR, and eat back all those exercise calories.
Set activity level to Lightly Active.
Set goal loss to 1lb weekly.
MFP should set daily net goal to 1444.
Right above current BMR.
MFP will lower goal as weight is lost.
When about 5lbs away from goal weight, change goal to 1/2 lb weekly, and goal will still be set above then current BMR.

Thanks for the reply. I have set Mfp to lightly active and 1lbs and it has given me a total of 1320 :-(

heybales

To answer your question, no... I would rather not live with a lower than average RMR. I was led to believe that I could not really increase my metabolism that much as it was "genetic". They told me I would need to pack on at least 10 lbs of muscle to accomplish the slightest increase in my metabolism.

Now if I could in fact increase my metabolism by increasing calories consumed everyday, where exactly do you think I need to be at. I was eating 1500 to 1600 calories a day with maybe 1 spike or cheat day on the weekend. Do you think I need to eat more than that?

My ultimate goal has less to do with the number on the scale and much more to do with body composition. I would love to get to around 16% body fat (a number I had achieved during collage) So yes to your question, I want to increase muscle and decrease body fat. That is where I get really confused. It is my understanding that I cannot build new muscle without a calorie surplus and cannot decrease body fat without a calorie deficit. So does that mean I have to train like a bodybuilder? Bulk and cut?

Thank you very much for your time, it seems like you approach the questions with science based knowledge and I really appreciate it. It is difficult to shuffle though all the information out there and figure out what is correct!

Funny, by that BF% and weight, you already have more Lean Body Mass that avg gal your age/height/weight. And the BMR studies showed pretty tight bell curve for where people fell, and considering you CAN lower it by eating less, thinking you are meant for slower was is scary thinking.

It is true that a lot of muscle is needed to raise metabolism much. But as long as you don't sleep all day, that extra muscle comes into play all day long, for increased burns. That applies to increased metabolism too, higher calorie burn on all daily activity.

So good for you want to try higher.
You need to at least, NET above your potential BMR by slight amount, meaning eat back exercise calories.

The spike day theory can work if slightly undercutting your BMR and needing to make up the difference you might say, on that one day. And you start your diet that way.
The problem is, if already suppressed BMR when you attempt that, the body isn't fooled by one day extra calories - it just stores it in case the insanity continues, which it does the next day. And especially if stalled, where you are already eating at maintenance level, and then 2000 extra in one day is total surplus. No surprise - weight gain, real fat once carbs stores are topped off, and muscle is repaired with protein.

Constant level of eating the same everyday, causing your net to never be constantly under your potential BMR, should help. As in the case study, increase slowly.
In fact, first week of increasing perhaps 200 daily, no true workouts, just walk slowly during that allotted time. Fat burning walk, body sees cal's it getting can be used for BMR, it goes up.
Week after when you add another 200, normal workouts. Probably be stronger for it. Only weight gain would be energy stores going up. Because even by their estimates, you would not yet be eating above maintenance level.
But you'll get that raised up as BMR raises up.

heybales

Thanks for the reply. I have set Mfp to lightly active and 1lbs and it has given me a total of 1320 :-(

That's right. MFP uses a slightly more accurate BMR calc by Mifflin study, usually lower.

You can confirm that daily goal is above it by doing Tools - BMR Calc.

Edit: it won't be.
You'll need to use Active level and 1lb loss.

That makes it 1448 about - slightly above current BMR by body composition of 1433.

See, you have more LBM of avg gal your age/weight/height the other calcs are aware of - congrats!

Tigermad

Thanks for the reply. I have set Mfp to lightly active and 1lbs and it has given me a total of 1320 :-(

That's right. MFP uses a slightly more accurate BMR calc by Mifflin study, usually lower.

You can confirm that daily goal is above it by doing Tools - BMR Calc.

Ok. I have manually set my goal as 1440 per day to see how it goes. I have been doing this amount for the past 3 days and seems to be going well.

LizKurz

Heres a question I haven't seen answered.

I went though, calulcated all my stats. Get a bmr of 1411. Now, right now, MFP has my calories set at like 12something and then I'm eating back exercise cals burned, something like 1900 a day. But I know from losing weight before, and keeping it off, at this weight, doing 600 cals 6x a week working out, that sounds low.

So, I like tracking all my things in the app and don't want to mess that up, can I put my bmr in the calorie goal spot on the app profile and go from there?

I'm not sure why MFP doesn't take these things into account, but I wish it did!

purplesparklies

Okay, I have followed the map but fear I may have veered off course. When I input my numbers, horrible though they may be, it tells me I should have a goal weight of 107 lbs. with 30% body fat. Yikes! While short, just shy of 5'2", I have a larger frame and am very muscular. I would look terrible at 107 lbs. and I think it would be impossible to achieve that weight. Does this mean I have somehow gone awry in my calculations or do I just ignore this and forge ahead?

Further, it gives me a Katch-McArdle BMR of 1106 and then tells me my calorie goal is below my BMR. However, when set for a goal weight of 130 (more reasonable, I think)it gives me a calorie goal of 2082 for moderately active, which is clearly not below 1106. Obviously I am missing something. Anyone willing to help me get a grasp on this. I also wonder if I should use "moderately active". I do Zumba 5x's/week and burn 400 cals. each time. Other than that I have very little activity. I truly spend most of the day sitting. Maybe better to use " lightly active"?

Current info:
Female
Age 36
62"
226 (down from 260 1/3/12!)
Body fat % per military calc. 66.6% (vomit!!!)

Thanks in advance for any help.

poofycat

Can someone help me with this? I think I might have it, but I don't know...

I am not on any plan right now, but I am going to start on Monday. Yeah, I know, Monday...

I'm 46
62"
326 lbs:sad:
65% BF

BMR shows 1489. I have a sedentary job and haven't started exercising, so 1607. So then I do 1607X1.2=1928. So I should eat 1928 a day? And what do I do when I start exercising?