Eating more than 1200 but less than...?

arserine · May 2012

Hi everyone,
I've been at this for about 2 weeks without real access to a scale. I thought that I had one, but I realized today that it fluctuates literally 10 pounds depending on how I stand on it so I don't know how much I started at (probably mid 190s, I'm terrified that I may have been over 200) and I don't know how much I've lost. Assuming that I stood on it the same way each time before this, I've dropped about 6 pounds with a few weeks of just being conscious of what I was eating, and now almost 2 weeks of tracking and starting to exercise.

I understand the basics about BMR and TDEE (please, if anyone is nutritionally or scientifically knowledgable here use as much data or sciency terms as you've got, I'm a biology major planning to do graduate level biology, I understand things much clearer at that level if you've got it

). I've been a competitive swimmer for about 14 years so a good portion of my body weight is muscle, I do however have plenty of excess fat. My first question is- is it likely that my BMR is higher than indicated because of this increased muscle just from when I was in season?

Perhaps I'm thinking too much about this, I'm just very confused about how many calories I should realistically be consuming to avoid starvation mode or feeling hungry and eating too many that I don't loose weight.

Is there a more accurate calculator for how much I should be eating, or is there a good way to figure this out on my own, potentially without good access to scales?

Thanks!

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

Try www.fat2fitradio.com

If you know you BF%, great, if not, you can estimate it (bear in mind this is an estimate and can be quite a bit different from other methods) using the Military Body Fat Calculator - http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf. Then go the BMR calculator - http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/. The result will give you an estimate of your BMR and will also indicate how much to eat to lose weight at a reasonable rate based on different activity levels.

You do need scales though.

ProjectTae · May 2012

Does the number they give you factor in your exercise so you will not have to eat back exercise calories? And at what increments do you suggest upping my cals, a little over a week ago I upped from 1200 to 1650, and this site tells me I should be eating 2045, so does this goal have exercise factored in?

em9371 · May 2012

It includes exercise if you choose the correct activity level.
The chart is tdee based on goal weight which creates a small deficit.
To find your current tdee, input your current weight in the goal weight box. This is the number you must eat below in order to lose, and you can create a manual deficit / cal level @ 500 cals per lb.

You can track with a tape rather than a scale, but ideally you need both. Digital scales aren't expensive so I'd get some new ones.

ProjectTae · May 2012

Ok so I put in my current weight as the goal and it gave me 2197 for lightly active (I'm a student but I work out 7 days a week for at least 30 minutes but I only burn on average 250 cals a day) so I subtract 500 from this or 250 from this number, I'm a bit confused at this part?

Edit: also my BMR is 1598, and I currently eat 1650.

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

If you picked the level of activity in line with your exercise then yes it does and so you do not 'eat them back'. Or, you can pick the sedentary level and 'eat your calories back'.

Re upping calories - there are different opinions on this. Some suggest 'ripping the bandade off' and upping them immediately. What others recommend, and what I would too, is to increase 100 -200 calories a week until you get to your goal.

A couple of things to remember:

- your weight may go up a little as your body adapt - which could take a few weeks. Some people see and immediate loss, and others see a temporary increase.

- these numbers are an estimate and you will have specific circustances that may make them too high or too low so after a few weeks, see how you are feeling. Are you losing weight? Are you losing energy? Are you losing body fat? and adjust accordingly.

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

You should take the numbers given in the table and eat at that to lose weight.

ProjectTae · May 2012

Ok so if I'm eating 2045 on days I work out what's a safe number on days I skip?

Edit: sorry to be annoying last question I promise, I'm just very young and new to this and ever since I started exercising everyday I'm extremely tired and sluggish so I feel I'm not eating enough.

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

Its a static number - you eat that every day.

ProjectTae · May 2012

Thank you so much for your help! I really feel I wasn't eating enough!

DerDude · May 2012

You´re on the safe side with 200-400 cal. below. If you eat less your body adept and get into a "sleep-mode" and maybe adds fat because your mind thinks you are in a dangerous situation.

AFitJamie · May 2012

Hi Arserine, back to your OP....

I am not an expert - particularly when it comes to swimming, but I'll give an opinion that I hope some of the experts will refine if they show up -that I hope is a reasonable discussion if nothing else...

I'm uncertain as to how much muscle you would have built in your competitive swimming experience. I guess it depends on how you approached it, how competitive it was, etc etc... So, If you were in the water swimming a lot, then it *seems* to me that you have engaged in working very hard to become excellent at a highly aerobic activity - and while you certainly may have built up some muscle mass, it may not have been a significant portion - again depending on the nature of the swimming (length of race, etc... Sprint versus marathon). If you have/had been focussed on strength training as part of your conditioning - lifting heavy weights, etc. to build mass to provide more power to your strokes/ etc... Then this will add mass because of the nature of the exercises. Building more muscle mass generally requires doing work sufficient to damage muscle and as your body repairs the muscle it will build more, providing you are eating an excess of calories.

It seems that being 'stronger" - or being better able to sustain a load, like running or swimming - is, interestingly, not directly related to muscle mass/volume. (Here is where the experts and trainers can explain why this is, but that is my understanding). Many people will work out while dieting on MFP and say they feel stronger and can run further, but because they are eating at a deficit, it is very difficult, or almost impossible, for the body to actually build muscle mass when at a deficit. (really, that is what the research says.) Many people say, or think, that they have added muscle, when the reality is that that is very unlikely....so the perception of adding muscle is not likely the reality in those circumstances...

So, long story to say it is feasible that you have more muscle that a typical individual, but that is very dependent on how you approached your training I think.

Having said that, you do need to start somewhere for a target. As you noted, the BMR and TDEE calculators are estimator tools based on a comparison of a population and these are estimates only... And everyone generally starts there and spends some time monitoring their reslts and slowly adjusting.... Even with more metabolically active tissue (muscle) than typical, I might ask if you perceive yourself (or if others perceive you) as obviously not in the relalm of the average? I'm not saying this well, but do you know what I'm getting at? Maybe I'd say it this way....Before you discard the tools that are based on generalities, you may want to ask if you are obviously not part of that general population, or if indeed you may just be a marginally different than the general population. Unless you can define yourself as outside that population fairly definitively, them I'd use the estimators as a starting point... Remembering that there are a lot of things that cause people to shift away from these general targets...

As for more accurate calculators... When it comes to your target numbers, I'm of the opinion, but open to being corrected, that sometimes these tools appear to provide more 'exactness' than really exists. All of the food labels you look at are estimates, good estimates, but estimates nonetheless... And even the most exact of us end up having to 'guesstimate' portions or weights from time to time depending on where we are and what we are dong.... And then we all have more active days running around our lives than others... All of these shifts make the process a challenge to be too exact.. So I'd take your calorie target MFP gives you for a 1 pound a week weight loss and eat at that and monitor your results. Also, if you are using MFP's approach then remember to 'eat back' some of those calories so you don't cate too large a deficit and see how it goes. Avoid going below your BMR target generally.

While there are different opinions expressed here on MP, I believe the general consensus, if there is one, is that 'starvation mode' isn't something that occurs with the frequency that it seems to receive blame for.... You won't 'go into starvation mode' on one day because you ate below your BMR that day... And it isn't like everything you ate that day is then locked into 'fat stores'... Yes, avoid eating so low that your body needs to attempt to adapt to that low level of eating, but if you are above your target BMR consistently, then it isn't likely that your excess muscle, unless it is very significant will make such a metabolic difference in reality that you need to worry... So just keep up with your discipline and keep your calories in a reasonable range and see how things go... But mostly be patient....

As for a scale... Meh... I'm not really certain you need one unless you really want one... In which case, get one that provides you a consistent result when you weigh yourself repeatedly in the same session... (yes i have one and use it and would want one, but i wouldnt say i need it..... Remember, your weight will fluctuate significantly depending on water and waste retention - so don't weight constantly and don't fret about it... Take measurements... They can be more telling than the scale.

Hope this is helpful and sorry about the book... Seems the more I post the longer they get....

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

Oh - and one more thing - if you only have a little weight to lose you are OK with going 200 below this number - so if you are losing weight and keeping strength and energy up at say 1850, then you can stop at that and see how you get on.

Sarauk2sf · May 2012

Extracted the sections I am going to refer to.

I totally agree with your comment that people place too much emphasis on exact numbers with all the estimates of estimates of estimates. It really is a case of picking the best estimate, and seeing how that works for you - and tweaking accordingly.

One reason I do not like MFPs calculations is that they are really 'stingy' on the activity levels - so their estimates of non-workout activity comes out really low - so I prefer to 'over-ride' with, for example, the numbers you get from fat2fit.

And totally true about the scale ve measurements.

Eating more than 1200 but less than...?

Replies

Categories