Eating too much to lose 1lb per week?

yarwell

I don't get it. It's telling me that but it's also saying 'current intake is 2718 calories'. Is it saying if she did a 1000 calorie deficit and ate 1700, it'd take her a year to lose 40 lbs.? How do they get that?

In simplifying it they make some assumptions, the 2718 assumes you are starting the journey at maintenance so the 2718 is maintenance for the person entered, with RMR estimates and estimates of physical activity etc as laid out at http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/about/

All of these dynamic models say much less than 1 lb/week results from 500 cals/day deficit (2 lbs / month in the first month, less in the next, etc) because they set an initial deficit then model declines in RMR, activity etc, which reduce the deficit in practice.

siriusalien

Yeah, tell my trainer that !! I admitt my cardio is a mess. I'm on his case all the time for more free weight trainning

They like you doing cardio as it gives them more time to do nothing. I would fire your trainers but and get one that knows what they are talking about.

So, in your opinion, despite the fact that I'm 46 and a cardio mess, I should indeed push my trainer (or another trainer) to concentrate more on heavy lifting? I have always said-I don't mind being 200 lbs if its muscle

mcarter99

I see, that calculator is assuming you stick to the same calorie level month to month. As you lose weight so should your deficit.

It does, hence my italics on the initial calorie deficit.

Mind you , if someone is hesitant at a 1000 deficit from 2660 they may not be keen chasing their intake down the hole as the BMR drops away.

It doesn't make sense to me, either way. Dropping from 200-160 isn't a giant change in BMR, not enough to cut her weight loss in half over the entire period. It's only figuring a little over 1 lb./week loss, at 1000 calorie deficit, which I don't get. Maybe it's set up to account for measurement error. LOL

Personally, sirius, I'd stick to MFP or TDEE-1000 (with a floor of 1200). That calculator doesn't ask anything about activity level. If you set MFP to a goal of 'lose 2 lbs/week' and it sets your intake at 1200, I would eat back your exercise calories as you feel necessary. Others will argue but I'm less conservative and advocate listening to your body. Some days I'm happy with 900, some days I want 1900. It comes out in the wash to around 1400 without me stuffing myself on some days and starving myself on others.

LOL@ lazy trainers.

ElizabethRoad

So if this equation is accurrate:
10,800(BMR) + 3,519 (exercise) = 14,319 - 12,628 (calories consumed) = 1,691

You've started with the wrong number. It's not BMR minus 3500. It's TDEE minus 3500.

10,800(BMR) X 1.2 = 12,960(TDEE)
12,960 + 3519 = 16,479
16,479 - 12,628 = 3851

psuLemon

Yeah, tell my trainer that !! I admitt my cardio is a mess. I'm on his case all the time for more free weight trainning

They like you doing cardio as it gives them more time to do nothing. I would fire your trainers but and get one that knows what they are talking about.

So, in your opinion, despite the fact that I'm 46 and a cardio mess, I should indeed push my trainer (or another trainer) to concentrate more on heavy lifting? I have always said-I don't mind being 200 lbs if its muscle

As you age, it's even more important to lift weights to prevent a slow down of your metabolism. Below is a good study on fat loss vs weight loss. You can show it to them. And it's your money, so if you want intense weight training, then they should start you with intense weight training.

http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx

yarwell

It doesn't make sense to me, either way. Dropping from 200-160 isn't a giant change in BMR, not enough to cut her weight loss in half over the entire period. It's only figuring a little over 1 lb./week loss, at 1000 calorie deficit, which I don't get. Maybe it's set up to account for measurement error.

Have a play with the more comprehensive one at http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/ where you can see the BMR decline in a table etc.

Just to re-state, it takes an INITIAL deficit of 1000 (or whatever) from the initial maintenance, and runs with it. The first thing that happens is that RMR declines a bit and the deficit is reduced, then as weight comes off the RMR declines further, etc. The calorie intake is fixed through the process.

The models are validated against published data inc the Minnesota study.

I ran a case on the above one comparing adding 1000 cals of exercise to dieting 1000 cals, the exercise scenario had a faster weight loss on account of keeping the RMR higher.

I've worked on modelling of industrial processes in the past and this is all familiar, as the systems respond to an initial change the driving force for change is reduced and the rate of change slows etc etc. Ultimately it becomes asymptotic and like Fat2Fit radio takes an infinite time to reach goal.

psuLemon

BTW, here is what I am talking about. It's a response I got from another member i set up a calorie plan for. She is 36, 5'5", 154, lifted 4 days a week, zero cardio. 2100 calories on workout days and 1800 calories on non workout days. You don't get these results on 1200 calories. You get it on more.

"I just wanted to thank you for your help. You helped me a few months back and I just wanted to give you an update on my progress. 12 weeks ago I started at 154 and 28% bf. I got my bf remeasured last Friday and it was 24%. But I only lost 1 pound. It is crazy to me but I have learned to ignore the scale. You were right that keeping consistent and not giving up my body would finally adjust.

Thanks again for your help!

Stephanie"

yarwell

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/ says average loss for a sedentary 200 lb woman with a 1012 calorie deficit is 1.55 lbs/week. 6 lbs in the first week, 1.3 in the last.

mcarter99

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/ says average loss for a sedentary 200 lb woman with a 1012 calorie deficit is 1.55 lbs/week. 6 lbs in the first week, 1.3 in the last.

Well now that is depressing. And even more reason for me to stick to my "aggressive" goals. And here I've been chalking it up to measurement error.

siriusalien

OK so here is my math:
46, 66", 202lbs, female, sedentary
BMR 1626 TDEE 1951 20% deficit 390 Daily Calorie 1460
SOUND GOOD or go lower?

I'm also thinking off ditching my current trainer in favor of one who will do heavy weight training.

psuLemon

OK so here is my math:
46, 66", 202lbs, female, sedentary
BMR 1626 TDEE 1951 20% deficit 390 Daily Calorie 1460
SOUND GOOD or go lower?

I'm also thinking off ditching my current trainer in favor of one who will do heavy weight training.

You are not sedentary, you workout several days a week. At best (if only 3 days a week) you are lightly active. If you workout 5 days a week you are moderately active.

So its more like:

CN = 1626 * 1.375 * .8 = 1788

or

CN = 1626 * 1.55 *.8 = 2016


It's the KISS rule (keep is simple stupid, lol) and exercise is part of your TDEE.

siriusalien

Woww that seems like a lot of food compared to what I'm currently eating

yarwell

Well now that is depressing. And even more reason for me to stick to my "aggressive" goals. And here I've been chalking it up to measurement error.

I should have added that the deficit has dropped to 600 from an initial 1000+ over 6 months ie a 400 cals/day decline in RMR etc.

psuLemon

Woww that seems like a lot of food compared to what I'm currently eating

And that could be your problem. What I generally suggest is add 200 calories to your plan until you hit the goals. I work with 5' women that are eating 2000 calories that weigh 120 lbs. It's not uncommon. So start at 1800 calories (I like 35% carbs, 40% protein and 25% fats) and then increase as you add ST by another 200 calories.

mcarter99

I'm much less conservative (and patient). You pick what's best for you but for me, I would want that weight off and I'd go with the national authorities recs to aim for 1-2 lbs/week, which is 500-1000 calorie deficit per day. So if you burn 2000, you eat 1250 on average and don't eat back exercise. If you're hungry eat more. I'd actually go for the 2 lb/week goal but I know heads will explode if I suggest you eat 1200 and exercise off 200 per day (not eating back) and see how it feels.

Bobby_Clerici

or you can just keep it simple and follow the MFP recommendations.
They make this so easy, yet some of you want to complicate the system.
Eat all those green numbers every day as close to goals as possible.
Again, simple....
MFP figures out your calorie maintenance, then subtracts enough to lose 1 pound per week.
That's your green number. Eat that.
When you exercise, that green number goes up as you log in the exercise.
Eat that green number as close to goal as possible. If your input is correct, you will lose weight.
Good luck!

yarwell

I ran psulemon's suggestions (approximately) on two simulators :-

a) Eat 1788 cals/day with 1.375 activity factor, after 6 months weight is down to 188 lbs after a year 178 lbs. (Hall simulator)

b) 553 deficit (20%) from a TDEE of 2760 cals, after 6 months weight 188 and 12 months 181 (Pennington)

c) Eat 2026 with a 1.55 activity factor, after 6 months weight 187, one year 176.6lbs (Hall simulator)


ETA the mcarter99 solutions :

Eat 1250 cals/day

d) 1.375 factor, 142.7lbs after a year.

e) 1500 calorie reduction, to 1260, 141 lbs after 12 months.

f) 129 lbs after a year. 1.55 activity

mcarter99

I adore your info, yarwell. But I don't think I like those simulators. Why in real life would you not readjust as conditions change? I always do. Or maybe not all of them have that built in, I'm not sure. But she wouldn't be using mine for a year because she'd hit goal in 5 months (theoretically). ?

yarwell

Why in real life would you not readjust as conditions change? I always do

Many don't, which is why they stall.

The Hall web simulator allows you to do two changes, and I have the full modelling package thing but not got my head round running it yet - it can do as many changes as you want, up and down.

Ultimately dieting is the desire to lose weight overcoming the desire to eat, so if someone has got down to your 1250 they may not want to go any further or be capable of it.

Obviously you would transition to maintenance once goal was reached.

mcarter99

I guess that's a good point. The times I lost significant weight were with WW and with the Fitbit plan, both of which automatically adjust you down as you shrink. I guess most people here are doing it solo and it's often their first time so they may not know that as you get smaller you have to eat less to keep losing. Though doesn't MFP prompt you with each 10 lbs. lost or something, to go re-do your inputs?

psuLemon

I guess that's a good point. The times I lost significant weight were with WW and with the Fitbit plan, both of which automatically adjust you down as you shrink. I guess most people here are doing it solo and it's often their first time so they may not know that as you get smaller you have to eat less to keep losing. Though doesn't MFP prompt you with each 10 lbs. lost or something, to go re-do your inputs?

There are two methods I suggest, either every 90 days, evaluate your caloric needs or evaluate you needs once you plateau again.

siriusalien

or you can just keep it simple and follow the MFP recommendations.
They make this so easy, yet some of you want to complicate the system.
Eat all those green numbers every day as close to goals as possible.
Again, simple....
MFP figures out your calorie maintenance, then subtracts enough to lose 1 pound per week.
That's your green number. Eat that.
When you exercise, that green number goes up as you log in the exercise.
Eat that green number as close to goal as possible. If your input is correct, you will lose weight.
Good luck!

It would be nice to have that kind of faith. I've signed up for a couple online programs/calorie logs, and each gives me different #'s.. The huge discrepency make one wonder: given the same exact info to lose 1.5 lbs a week, HOW can each be so different and which is correct?