First week report from BMF

irunsf85

I've had my BMF for a week now and just pulled up a 7 day report from BMF. Wow! The amount of information is insane and the numbers I'm seeing are nothing what I expected. According to the report, my TDEE for the week was 2865, average calories consumed = 2084 and in a deficit of 781 cals.

Scooby's calculator says my TDEE under 5-6 hours strenuous activity is 2465. Under 7+ hours activity, TDEE is 2715. This means that I'm burning more than what the highest level is estimating.

So.. if BMF's numbers are accurate, I'm definitely undereating. However, I'm kinda thinking that I should take off 10% from the numbers because BMF says there is a 10% margin of error and also with one of my runs this past weekend, it says I burned about 200 calories more than what other calculators predict. With 10% taken off, it puts me at 2578 TDEE.. which is more in line with what Scooby estimates.

What do you guys think? I just recently upped my cals to 2000 a couple of days ago.

rebekahgo

funny...seems like a whole bunch of us got BMFs at the same time.

i've had mine a week as well, and i just printed up the report. it shows an average burn of 2574 and intake of 2345. my TDEE is set at 2200 per scooby, but i've been eating a little more than that. i've only worked out twice this week (NROLFW 1A and 1B - and lifting is not always recognized by BMF??), and i've had higher burns on a couple of non-exercise days. it's crazy!!

i have no idea what to do with this info at this point, lol.

as for you, it sounds like you should definitely go up. that's a huge difference. for your own comfort, maybe go with that lower estimate for a while and then tweak from there.

Noor13

I've had my BMF for a week now and just pulled up a 7 day report from BMF. Wow! The amount of information is insane and the numbers I'm seeing are nothing what I expected. According to the report, my TDEE for the week was 2865, average calories consumed = 2084 and in a deficit of 781 cals.

Scooby's calculator says my TDEE under 5-6 hours strenuous activity is 2465. Under 7+ hours activity, TDEE is 2715. This means that I'm burning more than what the highest level is estimating.

So.. if BMF's numbers are accurate, I'm definitely undereating. However, I'm kinda thinking that I should take off 10% from the numbers because BMF says there is a 10% margin of error and also with one of my runs this past weekend, it says I burned about 200 calories more than what other calculators predict. With 10% taken off, it puts me at 2578 TDEE.. which is more in line with what Scooby estimates.

What do you guys think? I just recently upped my cals to 2000 a couple of days ago.

I thought you were under eating in your last post. The mileage you are running per week needs some serious fuel
Go and have a nice meal

irunsf85

I thought you were under eating in your last post. The mileage you are running per week needs some serious fuel
Go and have a nice meal

lol. After that last post, I've been stuffing myself silly! 2000 cals is a lot and I'm totally loving it! But.. my anxiety prone mind is still eating away at me and making me question and feel guilty! Agggghhh! I'm trying to push it aside as much as possible though.

gypsybug

I've had my BMF for over a year now. I love it. Just a couple things you guys should know about though.

Don't make any massive adjustments to your routine or calorie intake based on the 1st week of data. It takes a couple of weeks for the BMF to adjust to your body and that first week is based more on the numbers you plugged into the database. For some people, myself included, the burns for the first week are really high, then they gradually go down and level off as it adjusts. It was such a letdown lol! That doesn't happen for everyone but it's something to be aware of.

And yeah the burn it registers from weights sucks. But it is what it is. What you won't see because you just got it is how weight lifting actually affects your burn over time. When I first got it all I was doing was TurboFire. Cardio out the ying yang.

You may have noticed it records your METS....basically your average calorie burn per minute.

When I first started calculating things like my bmr I wanted to compare the numbers to the BMF to see if scooby and fat2fit were accurate. I figured that if I only looked at my METS burned while sleeping...and averaged it out over a month...I could calculate my BMR from that (by the way it matched scooby very nicely). When I did this little activity I had been weight lifting for about 3 weeks and I noticed that my average METS for when I am SEDENTARY had gone up!!! So .... the added muscle, even though it was only a little bit, was actually increasing my average burn per minute while at rest.

So that is where the weight lifting will affect your overall burns...not during the workout.....but every other minute you breathe.

rebekahgo

yeah, i'm not acting on the info yet given that my numbers are not miles apart. still fascinated by it though. where do you get the METS #?

also, someone posted elsewhere that the whole adjusting to your body thing was bogus. i'm wondering what that was based on.

gypsybug

yeah, i'm not acting on the info yet given that my numbers are not miles apart. still fascinated by it though. where do you get the METS #?

also, someone posted elsewhere that the whole adjusting to your body thing was bogus. i'm wondering what that was based on.

If you expand the calories burned section, it will tell you the average MET's for the time frame selected. You can adjust the window to look at specific times, like when you are sleeping, and see what your average MET's are. I love to play with that and see what my afterburns are like and how long they go for. Especially after doing HIIT.

I can't speak to what someone else claimed on the adjusting thing, I was speaking from experience. That's what happened to me. My first week on BM my burns were the highest than any other time, except when I've done 5k's. I literally watched them drop down day by day then level off in the next week. It was really obvious too since I was doing TurboFire at the time and repeating the same workouts. My burns for the entire day overall did the same. So for me...it was true. For some people it's not. I just thought I'd let you guys know.

jgkoutr

On BodyMEdia Fits website it states that the bodymedia does not adjust to your body, they state it is a myth. They said the technology at this point is not capable of taking all the data and syncing to you. As you become more fit or lose weight the less work your body has to work, so the less calories you will burn. For instance or if you input a weight loss the body media will adjust to your readings and lower itself on that...heavier people expend more energy moving. so that maybe why you see a difference?

irunsf85

Looking at my calories burned/minute while I sleep, I burn anywhere from 0.8-1.0 cal/minute. If I go by the 1.0 cal number and multiply that by the number of minutes during a 24 hour period, I get 1440, which is not too far off from what my true RMR is. I had it measured and it was 1470.

It really would be a bummer if the average TDEE starts dropping. lol. I know I was already undereating prior to bumping up my cals to 2000 a couple of days ago. I was working off of 1700-1900. That's almost a 1000 cal deficit if I go by those numbers.

gypsybug

On BodyMEdia Fits website it states that the bodymedia does not adjust to your body, they state it is a myth. They said the technology at this point is not capable of taking all the data and syncing to you. As you become more fit or lose weight the less work your body has to work, so the less calories you will burn. For instance or if you input a weight loss the body media will adjust to your readings and lower itself on that...heavier people expend more energy moving. so that maybe why you see a difference?

LMAO!!! Honestly folks...not trying to start any debates. Just telling what I experienced with it in my first week. Take it or leave it lol! It's just something to be aware of when recalculating calories you intend to take in that you may want a couple weeks of data under your belt first! Whether it's a myth or I just worked my *kitten* off that first week because I was excited and motivated or I have an older model or maybe I experienced some weird wormhole in the space-time continuum and accessed my future fit muscle bound self burning the torch at both ends......it really doesn't matter!!! Hahaha.....

Just don't overhaul your plans/routines based on one week of data. Give it some time and collect a little more.

rebekahgo

On BodyMEdia Fits website it states that the bodymedia does not adjust to your body, they state it is a myth. They said the technology at this point is not capable of taking all the data and syncing to you. As you become more fit or lose weight the less work your body has to work, so the less calories you will burn. For instance or if you input a weight loss the body media will adjust to your readings and lower itself on that...heavier people expend more energy moving. so that maybe why you see a difference?

LMAO!!! Honestly folks...not trying to start any debates. Just telling what I experienced with it in my first week. Take it or leave it lol! It's just something to be aware of when recalculating calories you intend to take in that you may want a couple weeks of data under your belt first! Whether it's a myth or I just worked my *kitten* off that first week because I was excited and motivated or I have an older model or maybe I experienced some weird wormhole in the space-time continuum and accessed my future fit muscle bound self burning the torch at both ends......it really doesn't matter!!! Hahaha.....

Just don't overhaul your plans/routines based on one week of data. Give it some time and collect a little more.

dude, you just went total trekkie!!! except you needed to use the phrase "temporal anomoly"...lol.

not debating...just info gathering. i have heard accounts of the burns staying fairly even from the first and of them going down some. i'm just hoping mine does the former. thanks for the MET info. i will have to check that out when i get home.

irunsf85, sorry for hijacking your thread!!

irunsf85

On BodyMEdia Fits website it states that the bodymedia does not adjust to your body, they state it is a myth. They said the technology at this point is not capable of taking all the data and syncing to you. As you become more fit or lose weight the less work your body has to work, so the less calories you will burn. For instance or if you input a weight loss the body media will adjust to your readings and lower itself on that...heavier people expend more energy moving. so that maybe why you see a difference?

LMAO!!! Honestly folks...not trying to start any debates. Just telling what I experienced with it in my first week. Take it or leave it lol! It's just something to be aware of when recalculating calories you intend to take in that you may want a couple weeks of data under your belt first! Whether it's a myth or I just worked my *kitten* off that first week because I was excited and motivated or I have an older model or maybe I experienced some weird wormhole in the space-time continuum and accessed my future fit muscle bound self burning the torch at both ends......it really doesn't matter!!! Hahaha.....

Just don't overhaul your plans/routines based on one week of data. Give it some time and collect a little more.

dude, you just went total trekkie!!! except you needed to use the phrase "temporal anomoly"...lol.

not debating...just info gathering. i have heard accounts of the burns staying fairly even from the first and of them going down some. i'm just hoping mine does the former. thanks for the MET info. i will have to check that out when i get home.

irunsf85, sorry for hijacking your thread!!

I'm loving the Trekkie geekyness! Rock on!

No worries on the hijack. Everything is all for informational purposes and am learning from what you guys are posting. I appreciate all the feedback.

I don't have any plans to overhaul anything that the moment.. If anything, I may bump up calories some more but I definitely will gather some more data before I do that.

gypsybug

Ha! Total trekkie/trekker and now BBTheory junkie. You're right, I should have beefed up the technical phrasing....dammit Jim!

IRUNS that's exactly how I calculated my RMR too and mine was really close as well. It really went a long way towards reassuring me that the online calculators weren't totally full of crap and that I should give this method a shot.

I also went back and changed up my goals stuff on bodymedia so that it's set on 1/2 pound a week and I set my "goal" wayyyy out in February of 2013. So when I hit enter BM even then told me to eat around 2070 per day to create a 250 cal per day deficit and no more.

Which completely synced with what EM2WL was saying....so I guess what I'm beating around the bush to get to is that I trust the numbers now. I now make it a habit to run 28 day reports. I arbitrarily chose the first of the month to do this in the hopes it would help me remember. I'm trying to trend it to see if my avg burns go up over time so that I can adjust my intake if needed.

Food for thought.