Eating too much to lose 1lb per week?

Options
2

Replies

  • siriusalien
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options
    10,800(BMR) + 3,519 (exercise) = 14,319 - 12,628 (calories consumed) = 1,691

    equivalent to 0.5 lb/week as your 1691 deficit is less than half of 3500

    Have a play with this http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/

    A bit depressing that.. It will take me 12 months just to get to simply fat and out of obese.. One day at a time I guess

    How much do you need to lose and what rate did you select? You don't look big enough to need a year to get out of obese.

    Thank you! In my profile pic I was 220, and a size 20(American)..I am down 201-204 ( haven't budged for a bit) and wearing a size 14. I want to get down to 160. According to the posted link It will take me 12 months just to get to 184.. Yikes

    MFP set to lose 1lb a week allowed 1470 calories a day workout 2x week one hour with trainer burning 350-500 calories

    Keep in mind that your body won't follow the math. Some weeks you will lose nothing, some you can lose 2lb +. But if you concentrate on heavy strength training, I can tell you that you will cut fat quicker.

    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
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose 40 lbs. and are a 200 lb. female you absolutely can shoot for 2 lbs/week. That would take 20 weeks, or about 4-5 months! You could be at goal before the holidays. Are you sure your inputs are correct?
    Using the weight loss simulator at http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/ says 12 months to go from 200 to 160 lbs with an initial deficit of 1000 cals/day.
  • siriusalien
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options
    If you want to lose 40 lbs. and are a 200 lb. female you absolutely can shoot for 2 lbs/week. That would take 20 weeks, or about 4-5 months! You could be at goal before the holidays. Are you sure your inputs are correct?
    Using the weight loss simulator at http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/ says 12 months to go from 200 to 160 lbs with an initial deficit of 1000 cals/day.

    Isn't that a bit drastic? I know, I know being bit of a baby here
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose 40 lbs. and are a 200 lb. female you absolutely can shoot for 2 lbs/week. That would take 20 weeks, or about 4-5 months! You could be at goal before the holidays. Are you sure your inputs are correct?
    Using the weight loss simulator at http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/ says 12 months to go from 200 to 160 lbs with an initial deficit of 1000 cals/day.

    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?
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose 40 lbs. and are a 200 lb. female you absolutely can shoot for 2 lbs/week. That would take 20 weeks, or about 4-5 months! You could be at goal before the holidays. Are you sure your inputs are correct?
    Using the weight loss simulator at http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor/ says 12 months to go from 200 to 160 lbs with an initial deficit of 1000 cals/day.

    Isn't that a bit drastic? I know, I know being bit of a baby here

    Do you feel like 1700 calories a day is drastically low? Or that aiming for 2 lbs/week is drastically aggressive? It's up to you. 2 lbs/week is considered a safe goal. It's pretty standard. Slower is good for you, too, though.
  • siriusalien
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options
    No, No I now realize I was misusing that calculator.
  • siriusalien
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options
    So according to that calculator I should be eating no more than 1765 calories per day? If that's correct it's certainly alot more generous than other calculators

    According to MFP to lose 1.5 lbs a week I need to resrict down to 1220 per day. 2lbs would be well below that
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options

    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.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options
    So according to that calculator I should be eating no more than 1765 calories per day? If that's correct it's certainly alot more generous than other calculators

    According to MFP to lose 1.5 lbs a week I need to resrict down to 1220 per day. 2lbs would be well below that

    Keep in mind that MFP doesn't include exercise in your calculations unless you set your goal to moderately active (pending you workout 3-5 days a week) where the calculators assume exercise as part of your TDEE calculations. So if you burn 500 calories, than MFP and the online calc is the same.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options

    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
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    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
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    Options
    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
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options

    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
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options
    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
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
  • siriusalien
    siriusalien Posts: 207
    Options
    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.

Categories