Did the Unthinkable - Reduced Cals
SweatpantsRebellion
Posts: 754 Member
I've been going back and forth on whether or not I'm at the right calorie number at 2264. I redid my amounts using Scooby's workshop and if I used the more detailed calculator that allows you to choose the BMR calculation method, I end up with a BMR of 1574 instead of in the 1700ish range (which is pretty much every other calculator). But my understanding is that the Katch-McArdle is more accurate because it's using your lean body mass in it's calculation? So that would put me at 2074 instead of 2264. I hope this is the right decision. I did see a recent drop thankfully, but the drops have started getting further and further apart, so I hope this is the right thing to do.
Disclaimer - I'm not looking for super speedy here, just wanting to maintain my average loss of 1 pound a week.
What do you think? Does this sound right?
Disclaimer - I'm not looking for super speedy here, just wanting to maintain my average loss of 1 pound a week.
What do you think? Does this sound right?
0
Replies
-
I started out using that one. I wanted to make sure the BF% was in the equation.0
-
I've been going back and forth on whether or not I'm at the right calorie number at 2264. I redid my amounts using Scooby's workshop and if I used the more detailed calculator that allows you to choose the BMR calculation method, I end up with a BMR of 1574 instead of in the 1700ish range (which is pretty much every other calculator). But my understanding is that the Katch-McArdle is more accurate because it's using your lean body mass in it's calculation? So that would put me at 2074 instead of 2264. I hope this is the right decision. I did see a recent drop thankfully, but the drops have started getting further and further apart, so I hope this is the right thing to do.
Disclaimer - I'm not looking for super speedy here, just wanting to maintain my average loss of 1 pound a week.
What do you think? Does this sound right?
This is what I do to get my cut numbers. First I go to this website fat2fitradio.com to get my BF% (use the military calculator) and then I go to http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ to get my cut #'s.
On the Scooby website enter in your stats and choose the 15% to lose fat and in step# 8 choose Katch-McArdle and in step# 8A enter in your BF% and then eat the calories listed in the chart that say "Daily calories based on goal in step 6".
I am losing inches, but my weight has gone up a few pounds. And I'm okay with that because I have never been one who is concerned about the number on the scale!!!0 -
I've been going back and forth on whether or not I'm at the right calorie number at 2264. I redid my amounts using Scooby's workshop and if I used the more detailed calculator that allows you to choose the BMR calculation method, I end up with a BMR of 1574 instead of in the 1700ish range (which is pretty much every other calculator). But my understanding is that the Katch-McArdle is more accurate because it's using your lean body mass in it's calculation? So that would put me at 2074 instead of 2264. I hope this is the right decision. I did see a recent drop thankfully, but the drops have started getting further and further apart, so I hope this is the right thing to do.
Disclaimer - I'm not looking for super speedy here, just wanting to maintain my average loss of 1 pound a week.
What do you think? Does this sound right?
This is what I do to get my cut numbers. First I go to this website fat2fitradio.com to get my BF% (use the military calculator) and then I go to http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ to get my cut #'s.
On the Scooby website enter in your stats and choose the 15% to lose fat and in step# 8 choose Katch-McArdle and in step# 8A enter in your BF% and then eat the calories listed in the chart that say "Daily calories based on goal in step 6".
I am losing inches, but my weight has gone up a few pounds. And I'm okay with that because I have never been one who is concerned about the number on the scale!!!
I used the fat2fit site and that's how I got the initial numbers. However, I have an accurate bf% as I went to someone who had the hand held digital body fat thingy (so articulate right now - can't think of what it's actually called). So I used that number in the scoobysworkshop and set it to Katch-McArdle. So the BMR ends up being a couple hundred calories lower than pretty much every other calculator, but I feel like it has to be more accurate since it has my body fat % included. I will of course continue to redo it as my bodyfat decreased and lean body mass increases.0 -
I just went back and calculated my BF% using the military calculator and boy is it startling. I had estimated my % before at 30%, but the calculator gave me 45%. It only changes my TDEE-15% by about 50 calories, but I certainly can't wait to see that percentage decrease.0
-
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be0 -
I've heard that the military bodyfat is not as accurate for women as for men. No idea how accurate that is - just what I remember reading. So that's why I went and used someone's handheld bodyfat thingy (anyone know what they're called - I feel so inarticulate using the word thingy...lol). The handheld gives me a lower % than the military bodyfat calculator.0
-
I've heard that the military bodyfat is not as accurate for women as for men. No idea how accurate that is - just what I remember reading. So that's why I went and used someone's handheld bodyfat thingy (anyone know what they're called - I feel so inarticulate using the word thingy...lol). The handheld gives me a lower % than the military bodyfat calculator.
The calvert BF calculator on fat2fit is more accurate for women because it takes more measurements since women seem to be bigger around the hips and waist. This is the one I use though it says I am at 21% BF and there is no way so what I did was calculate the military one and the calvert and average the two out which then gives me about 26% and that seems more realistic. I also use the more detailed version of the scooby site.0 -
Something to keep in mind. (and this isn't really debating whether the amount is right or not, but just an FYI...because FWIW I think calculating using bf% is a great idea IF it's accurate - aka done by a pro
)
WhenEVER cals are reduced, there will be an initial drop. Regardless of it's the right amount of cals for you to eat or not. Two reasons for this, the first is water weight. When there is a sudden decrease in cals the body begins to release water weight. This occurs for a couple weeks, and then it stops, because it wasn't "real".. This is why we get hooked on the lower cal diets, because when we first drop we see the decreases, but it slowly tapers, yet we all we think about it the first drop, and we just hang in there.....
Not saying that that is the case here, or that the lower level is "extreme" lol (as cals are still high) but just something to keep in mind, but suppose the loss is "real" then what?
It is the act of UPPING cals, that makes LOWERING them, appear to "work". Eating more makes the metabolism work harder, eating less makes it slow down in order to meet the need (in both cases). That is one of the reasons that a metabolism reset, as well as diet breaks are suggested, and also why, when someone is at a plateau, we tell them to go UP in cals before going down. Because even if you only go up for a short time, then go down again, it is *because* you went up in the first place that going down "worked".
Remember, the body plateaus at high AND low levels. We just don't look at the higher levels as a plateau. And natural instinct is to go down.
This is why you will sometimes see someone "test the waters" with EM2WL, then slash the cals in panic, and start losing. They will convince themselves that it is because they dropped the cals, when it is actually the opposite. Because if only dropping cals were the answer, then every time a plateau comes, we'd have to drop further. But with the diet break, you take a week or 2 every 4-10 wks and eat at maintenance. Then you drop back into the *same* deficit that you were in before. So instead of going consistently lower and lower to break plateaus, you lose weight eating the same amount for the duration of your journey (not withstand the "breaks").
Like I said, just a tidbit...and not necessarily referring to the OP,
but in general, FYI, if anyone experiences this. If you hit a plateau, go UP first, get the metabolism revved at the higher level, then drop back into your *same* deficit to see if your body responds. :happy:
Kiki0 -
I did the body fat calculator on Fat2Fit and it was waaaaay high. With the calipers I was 24.1%. According to my scale I was 21%. F2F had me at 32.3%! Do I look 32%? I personally don't think so...hoping I'm not deluding myself. For a 20% BF goal I'd have to be at 133 pounds and my TDEE is 2600. This is all way lower than I've been doing.0
-
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be
I say if the other way is working for you then I would stick with it. The military BF% calc is working for me and I am seeing results in the inches lost department.
Whichever one you choose I say consistentcy is key, so I wouldn't go switching back and forth and just pick one and stay with that.0 -
Hopefully you guys can give me your opinion. I am not sure whether I am lightly active or moderate. So many of you are using moderate but do way more than I do. I am a SAHM, taking online classes so I sit more than half my day at my office desk. I put in about 3hrs worth of cleaning and cooking a day and work out 3 maybe 4 times a week for about 45 minutes 3 strength days and if I'm feeling up to it a cardio interval day. To be fully forthcoming I have IA (inflammatory arthritis) and so pushing my body 3 times a week some weeks is more than I can handle. The difference between light and moderate is about 200 calories. Lightly active is 1796 - 10% is 1616. Moderate is 2025 - 10% is 1822. So this is what I did I took both numbers and averaged them out to 1725 but set my goal to 1700 so that it is even. Tell me if you think I am wrong or right.
P.S. Sorry for high jacking the thread.0 -
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be
I say if the other way is working for you then I would stick with it. The military BF% calc is working for me and I am seeing results in the inches lost department.
Whichever one you choose I say consistentcy is key, so I wouldn't go switching back and forth and just pick one and stay with that.
Thats the problem.. I have had an initial drop of a few inches eating the higher amount, but the weight has been yoyo'ing up and down for about 10 weeks now..
So it makes me wonder which way is correct... if it were a 100 or so cals difference, I probably wouldnt be concerned, but mine is a 400 cal difference, so thats almost a pound of extra cals in a week, KWIM? So if I am supposed to be eating the lesser number, then it would show why the weight might not be moving off at the higher number.
The BF% one has me in at 51%. I have no idea how accurate that it. I know I am a larger gal, but even that seems pretty high..0 -
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be
I say if the other way is working for you then I would stick with it. The military BF% calc is working for me and I am seeing results in the inches lost department.
Whichever one you choose I say consistentcy is key, so I wouldn't go switching back and forth and just pick one and stay with that.
Thats the problem.. I have had an initial drop of a few inches eating the higher amount, but the weight has been yoyo'ing up and down for about 10 weeks now..
So it makes me wonder which way is correct... if it were a 100 or so cals difference, I probably wouldnt be concerned, but mine is a 400 cal difference, so thats almost a pound of extra cals in a week, KWIM? So if I am supposed to be eating the lesser number, then it would show why the weight might not be moving off at the higher number.
The BF% one has me in at 51%. I have no idea how accurate that it. I know I am a larger gal, but even that seems pretty high..
Try doing what Cclancaster suggested and do the Colvert BF calculator and see if that give you a different #. I did it and it said that I was 34% where as the military BF calc said 38.1% BF. I just might also take a average between the two and try that.0 -
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be
I say if the other way is working for you then I would stick with it. The military BF% calc is working for me and I am seeing results in the inches lost department.
Whichever one you choose I say consistentcy is key, so I wouldn't go switching back and forth and just pick one and stay with that.
Thats the problem.. I have had an initial drop of a few inches eating the higher amount, but the weight has been yoyo'ing up and down for about 10 weeks now..
So it makes me wonder which way is correct... if it were a 100 or so cals difference, I probably wouldnt be concerned, but mine is a 400 cal difference, so thats almost a pound of extra cals in a week, KWIM? So if I am supposed to be eating the lesser number, then it would show why the weight might not be moving off at the higher number.
The BF% one has me in at 51%. I have no idea how accurate that it. I know I am a larger gal, but even that seems pretty high..
Try doing what Cclancaster suggested and do the Colvert BF calculator and see if that give you a different #. I did it and it said that I was 34% where as the military BF calc said 38.1% BF. I just might also take a average between the two and try that.
Hmmm.. military says 51%... Calvert says 43%.. makes a difference of 200 cals..
So currently I am eating 2400... if I go by the military one, its 1987 cals... if I go by the calvert one its 2227.. So I suppose I could try dropping to the 2200 as the median0 -
Hmmm interesting... this actually takes me 400 cals less than what I am eating now.. thats a pretty big difference...
If I just do the calculations without BF% im 2400, which is what I am eating, but if I add my BF% according to the military site, then I drop to just under 2000
So what way is right?? using the measurement with the BF% or not?
400 is a lot of cals to be eating if I am not supposed to be
I say if the other way is working for you then I would stick with it. The military BF% calc is working for me and I am seeing results in the inches lost department.
Whichever one you choose I say consistentcy is key, so I wouldn't go switching back and forth and just pick one and stay with that.
Thats the problem.. I have had an initial drop of a few inches eating the higher amount, but the weight has been yoyo'ing up and down for about 10 weeks now..
So it makes me wonder which way is correct... if it were a 100 or so cals difference, I probably wouldnt be concerned, but mine is a 400 cal difference, so thats almost a pound of extra cals in a week, KWIM? So if I am supposed to be eating the lesser number, then it would show why the weight might not be moving off at the higher number.
The BF% one has me in at 51%. I have no idea how accurate that it. I know I am a larger gal, but even that seems pretty high..
Try doing what Cclancaster suggested and do the Colvert BF calculator and see if that give you a different #. I did it and it said that I was 34% where as the military BF calc said 38.1% BF. I just might also take a average between the two and try that.
Hmmm.. military says 51%... Calvert says 43%.. makes a difference of 200 cals..
So currently I am eating 2400... if I go by the military one, its 1987 cals... if I go by the calvert one its 2227.. So I suppose I could try dropping to the 2200 as the median
Yeah for me the military way is 2013 and calvert is 2118, but if I average between two then it's 2066. So I'm might set my MFP goal to 2070 and see what happens.0 -
Something to keep in mind. (and this isn't really debating whether the amount is right or not, but just an FYI...because FWIW I think calculating using bf% is a great idea IF it's accurate - aka done by a pro )
WhenEVER cals are reduced, there will be an initial drop. Regardless of it's the right amount of cals for you to eat or not. Two reasons for this, the first is water weight. When there is a sudden decrease in cals the body begins to release water weight. This occurs for a couple weeks, and then it stops, because it wasn't "real".. This is why we get hooked on the lower cal diets, because when we first drop we see the decreases, but it slowly tapers, yet we all we think about it the first drop, and we just hang in there.....
Not saying that that is the case here, or that the lower level is "extreme" lol (as cals are still high) but just something to keep in mind, but suppose the loss is "real" then what?
It is the act of UPPING cals, that makes LOWERING them, appear to "work". Eating more makes the metabolism work harder, eating less makes it slow down in order to meet the need (in both cases). That is one of the reasons that a metabolism reset, as well as diet breaks are suggested, and also why, when someone is at a plateau, we tell them to go UP in cals before going down. Because even if you only go up for a short time, then go down again, it is *because* you went up in the first place that going down "worked".
Remember, the body plateaus at high AND low levels. We just don't look at the higher levels as a plateau. And natural instinct is to go down.
This is why you will sometimes see someone "test the waters" with EM2WL, then slash the cals in panic, and start losing. They will convince themselves that it is because they dropped the cals, when it is actually the opposite. Because if only dropping cals were the answer, then every time a plateau comes, we'd have to drop further. But with the diet break, you take a week or 2 every 4-10 wks and eat at maintenance. Then you drop back into the *same* deficit that you were in before. So instead of going consistently lower and lower to break plateaus, you lose weight eating the same amount for the duration of your journey (not withstand the "breaks").
Like I said, just a tidbit...and not necessarily referring to the OP, but in general, FYI, if anyone experiences this. If you hit a plateau, go UP first, get the metabolism revved at the higher level, then drop back into you *same* deficit to see if your body responds. :happy:
Kiki
Wow. You are just an amazing wealth of information. I wonder if my body is saying that it's time for a maintenance phase. Maybe I should try that before deciding I need to go from the higher calorie level to the slightly lower (still high) calorie level. So I have a question. If I use the fat2fit site, which is the one I initially used to determine my calorie level, maintenance is 2800 calories. That sounds so high to me - especially considering that I'd be eating an extra 300 for breastfeeding - so 3100 total. I'm considering switching to the scooby site, which would give me roughly 2500ish for maintenance (2800 with my breastfeeding calories) and then using that site from here on out. Anyone have an experience switching from one site to the other in terms of accuracy. I love that this all comes down to math really, but it can be tricky too because these are just calculators and so it makes sense that each person would have to tweak a bit to get that number that fits right.
So, on maintenance is it normal to gain initially while your body adjusts to being on maintenance? Is this answered in one of the stickies somewhere? Sorry - I promise I did read them - it's just a lot to remember!0 -
Wow. You are just an amazing wealth of information. I wonder if my body is saying that it's time for a maintenance phase. Maybe I should try that before deciding I need to go from the higher calorie level to the slightly lower (still high) calorie level. So I have a question. If I use the fat2fit site, which is the one I initially used to determine my calorie level, maintenance is 2800 calories. That sounds so high to me - especially considering that I'd be eating an extra 300 for breastfeeding - so 3100 total. I'm considering switching to the scooby site, which would give me roughly 2500ish for maintenance (2800 with my breastfeeding calories) and then using that site from here on out. Anyone have an experience switching from one site to the other in terms of accuracy. I love that this all comes down to math really, but it can be tricky too because these are just calculators and so it makes sense that each person would have to tweak a bit to get that number that fits right.
So, on maintenance is it normal to gain initially while your body adjusts to being on maintenance? Is this answered in one of the stickies somewhere? Sorry - I promise I did read them - it's just a lot to remember!
LOL. No problem trying to remember everything, lol. That' what we're here for
I've been doing the research for 10yrs now, which is the only reason that I can recite this stuff in my sleep,
I actually just answered a message from someone regarding a metabolism reset (eating at maintenance for a while and diet breaks), as she'd just watched the metabolism reset vid and had some questions...so I'll paste here, in case any of the info is useful to you:
"Yes, I absolutely recommend a metabolism reset since you were very low cal for that long. The body really needs time and fuel to bounce back from something like that. After a successful reset, you should be able to come back down to where you are now, and resume loss Then continue to take the diet breaks will be where you eat at maintenance for a week (every 4-6 weeks or so) to remind your body of what maintenance is so that you don't fall back into that plateau again.
Here's how I did it. I upped the cals until a saw a gain. Once I saw a gain, I stopped and stayed there to see if the gain was "real." If it was just water, and dropped off after a few days, I'd just keep upping, until it happened again. I did this for as high as my body allowed me to go (which ended up being much higher than all of the calculations had put me at). This is because the same way that our body "plateaus" at lower cal levels, it also does at higher levels. So, even if my body hit a higher number but stayed there for a few weeks, I'd up the cals again, considering it to be a "plateau." I wanted my body to adjust to the highest possible # that I could get it to, so that when I lowered again, my "deficit" would be more than reasonable.
You don't *have* to do it that way, obviously, you can feel free to stop at what the calculators say, lol. I just knew that the calcs are an estimate, and I was determined to teach my body to live off of "more" the same way I'd abused it and made it learn to live off "less" in the past.
But the journey is personal, and you will find the way that works best for you....just wanted to give you an example."
Hope that helps
0 -
Wow. You are just an amazing wealth of information. I wonder if my body is saying that it's time for a maintenance phase. Maybe I should try that before deciding I need to go from the higher calorie level to the slightly lower (still high) calorie level. So I have a question. If I use the fat2fit site, which is the one I initially used to determine my calorie level, maintenance is 2800 calories. That sounds so high to me - especially considering that I'd be eating an extra 300 for breastfeeding - so 3100 total. I'm considering switching to the scooby site, which would give me roughly 2500ish for maintenance (2800 with my breastfeeding calories) and then using that site from here on out. Anyone have an experience switching from one site to the other in terms of accuracy. I love that this all comes down to math really, but it can be tricky too because these are just calculators and so it makes sense that each person would have to tweak a bit to get that number that fits right.
So, on maintenance is it normal to gain initially while your body adjusts to being on maintenance? Is this answered in one of the stickies somewhere? Sorry - I promise I did read them - it's just a lot to remember!
LOL. No problem trying to remember everything, lol. That' what we're here for
I've been doing the research for 10yrs now, which is the only reason that I can recite this stuff in my sleep,
I actually just answered a message from someone regarding a metabolism reset (eating at maintenance for a while and diet breaks), as she'd just watched the metabolism reset vid and had some questions...so I'll paste here, in case any of the info is useful to you:
"Yes, I absolutely recommend a metabolism reset since you were very low cal for that long. The body really needs time and fuel to bounce back from something like that. After a successful reset, you should be able to come back down to where you are now, and resume loss Then continue to take the diet breaks will be where you eat at maintenance for a week (every 4-6 weeks or so) to remind your body of what maintenance is so that you don't fall back into that plateau again.
Here's how I did it. I upped the cals until a saw a gain. Once I saw a gain, I stopped and stayed there to see if the gain was "real." If it was just water, and dropped off after a few days, I'd just keep upping, until it happened again. I did this for as high as my body allowed me to go (which ended up being much higher than all of the calculations had put me at). This is because the same way that our body "plateaus" at lower cal levels, it also does at higher levels. So, even if my body hit a higher number but stayed there for a few weeks, I'd up the cals again, considering it to be a "plateau." I wanted my body to adjust to the highest possible # that I could get it to, so that when I lowered again, my "deficit" would be more than reasonable.
You don't *have* to do it that way, obviously, you can feel free to stop at what the calculators say, lol. I just knew that the calcs are an estimate, and I was determined to teach my body to live off of "more" the same way I'd abused it and made it learn to live off "less" in the past.
But the journey is personal, and you will find the way that works best for you....just wanted to give you an example."
Hope that helps
Hmmm...I never did the metabolism reset really. When I first learned about EM2WL (roughly 2 months ago) I just upped immediately to what the calories said. So I went from 1500ish to 2300 and that's what I've been eating since then (with just a slight decrease to 2264 after readjusting for weight loss). So now I'm wondering if I should do a week of maintenance using numbers from the calculators or if I should do a true metabolism reset by figuring out my own maintenance number. I'm wondering if that would end up being more helpful in the long run.
Although, it is kind of a weird time to go up in calories. I'm currently sidelined - thinking my pinky toe is broken - will drag myself to get x-ray tomorrow, so my exercise isn't what it normally is right now. Maybe I should keep going as is and just wait until I'm more in my regular routine before trying to find my maintenance. Oy - my head is spinning. It's Friday night and I need a beer (maybe 2 so my toe will feel better). 0
