Very interesting research on weight loss rate

wackyfunster

Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss negates much of if not all of the decrease in metabolism that usually follows weight loss...

This.

http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf

Even on a VLCD, weight training subjects preserved ALL lean body mass, and INCREASED their BMR. Cardio group lost a significant amount of muscle mass and lowered BMR.

bcattoes

I'm not sure I understand where they are getting the "current intake" from

It's their TDEE estimate. The RMR element is from the Livingston-Kohlstadt model as described at http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/about/

"EE was modeled as the sum of resting metabolic rate (RMR), voluntary physical activity (PA), dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT), and spontaneous physical activity (SPA)" - their estimates of these elements are also outlined at the above ref

I went back to see if I missed a physical activity setting, but still didn't see one. I guess they are assuming I burn a lot more calories than I do.

Olive32214

bump..thanks

almc170

I'm not sure I understand where they are getting the "current intake" from

It's their TDEE estimate. The RMR element is from the Livingston-Kohlstadt model as described at http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/about/

"EE was modeled as the sum of resting metabolic rate (RMR), voluntary physical activity (PA), dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT), and spontaneous physical activity (SPA)" - their estimates of these elements are also outlined at the above ref

I went back to see if I missed a physical activity setting, but still didn't see one. I guess they are assuming I burn a lot more calories than I do.

Mine was pretty ridiculous too--something like 2700(!). Now I like my food, but I'm pretty sure I'd be gaining weight on that amount.

FiercelyBeautiful

Actually seems about right because I am eating at a 1010 calories deficit regardless of exercise and it says I should be at goal weight in 6 months with an average lass of 6lbs per month which is about what I am at. Interesting!

Drea_ann

Way interesting.

Thanks!!

yarwell

I went back to see if I missed a physical activity setting, but still didn't see one. I guess they are assuming I burn a lot more calories than I do.

there isn't one, you're right. They are using general population numbers I guess -

" PA is modeled by a term that is directly proportional to weight:

PA = mW "

so it assumes your activity cost in calories is proportional to your weight. Makes it simpler to use I guess.

For me, the simpler Pennington tool assumes I use more calories than Hall's calculator, but then puts me on a bigger deficit to hit the same goal - so I end up being advised the same calories to eat in each case. Which seems a bit odd to be honest, I was expecting the deficits to be similar so I'll have to lie down in a dark room and think about it.

hippietofugirl

Bump

foranagirl

bump

dare2love81

bump

tzeoli86

bump....bumpitybumpbump........bump,bump

needamulligan

bump

mmapags

Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss negates much of if not all of the decrease in metabolism that usually follows weight loss...

This.

http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf

Even on a VLCD, weight training subjects preserved ALL lean body mass, and INCREASED their BMR. Cardio group lost a significant amount of muscle mass and lowered BMR.

Interestiing! Great point. Kinda makes sense though.

DiabolicBooger

the weight i lost in the last 47 days is off thier charts...i cant reproduce my results on thier calculator....i must be doing something the creators of the chart thought was impossible.....for thier chart to reflect my current weight i would have to have been calorie reduced by 1500 (the max the chart allows) for 7 months...not 1.5 months like my results prove possible

NagG23

Bump

cyndispot

bump

marjen002

dump

(...'bump' is played out.)

Ambition00

Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss negates much of if not all of the decrease in metabolism that usually follows weight loss...

This.

http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf

Even on a VLCD, weight training subjects preserved ALL lean body mass, and INCREASED their BMR. Cardio group lost a significant amount of muscle mass and lowered BMR.

so you're saying that it is best to strength train more than do cardio in order to maintain lean body mass on a VLCD...although I don't prefer a VLCD this arouses my interest...I'm curious to read what do others people think, can someone break this down on here? I'm going to spend some time analyzing this more.


The initial article goes back to what they said about the hunter and gatherer lifestyle where they do low key walking for hours of the day, spontaneous sprints, occasional heavy lifting...See Marks Daily Primal diet...

Also...I see what others are saying that the TDEE doesn't make sense...the question that I think most people are wondering is how does this calculator know how much I burn doing spontaneous activities? It does make sense as on my workout days I usually get to 2220-2300 and if I workout hard or on a busy day then I'm up to 2500/2600, but then what if someone doesn't workout at all or on some days?. But with a higher or extremely lower active day that number is not going to go to reflect more or less activity so that's confusing.

The calculator is neat though, but for me it doesn't dismiss the myths around netting your BMR and not eating below 1200 calories. Although I don't support a 1200 calorie diet it's the netting your BMR that I' scratching my head over.

RoxyLDN

Bump to read it later

yarwell

so you're saying that it is best to strength train more than do cardio in order to maintain lean body mass

That seems to be a common finding, there's usually some benefit to maintaining LBM of exercise, just like there is with high protein, but resistance training seems to do best.

Doing cardio and "eating back the calories" would appear to be of practically no value to weight loss.