Netting above BMR reminder

HappilyLifts

Sorry this took so long, lost track of it.

13469 weekly = 1924 daily eaten
2759 weekly = 394 daily exercise burn
No weight lost = 0 daily deficit

If you didn't gain either, just means TDEE is 1924.

I will probably have a lot of questions to ask later (so what''s new?!) but this is the one that puzzles me the most. I understand that if I didn't lose or gain then I must have eaten at TDEE, which for that week was 1924. What I don't understand is why this is so different numerically from the TDEE of 2763 that I get when I input adjusted HRM readings into your spreadsheet (tab 2, section 2) and use the 1.45 multiplier for that week.

I think I am going to have to surrender, as the maths is getting a bit beyond me, such vastly different numbers...if I eat 20% below 2763 or at 20% below 1924 that's a huge difference in calories.

So frustrated! I think my best bet is to stick with your simple set up tab, predict my exercise minutes at each intensity level for this coming week and stick with the TDEG and see if that produces a loss next week.

skbarton

Early morning musing or a potential light going on - would this potentially explain why MFP's calorie burn for exercises is usually less than a HRM? It is deducting the "just sitting around" calories and then gives the "net" burn?

heybales

Early morning musing or a potential light going on - would this potentially explain why MFP's calorie burn for exercises is usually less than a HRM? It is deducting the "just sitting around" calories and then gives the "net" burn?

Nope, they actually use the exact same database as many other sites, and do no math on the resulting figure.

Most people complain actually that MFP is much higher than their HRM, very few are opposite.

Most don't know that MFP and treadmill calorie burns for level treadmill walking at the specific speed mentioned are more accurate than HRM, though still Gross calories.

heybales

thanks heybales, sorry it was tricky to read, I was thinking aloud! Just finished a workout and my brain never functions too clearly after, so I will have to reread this later. Lifting heavy is out of the question at the moment, I have some sternum pain and am taking it easy, just cardio (average HR 155 today, so unlike me, that's twenty something below my usual, didn't get the endorphin rush today!) with squats and lunges for strength until the end of the week, so I doubt I'll get my figures right this week, but I will rethink the figures anyway.
Lost another 0.4 pounds yesterday.
What do you think of the argument that weight loss isn't linear and you can end up losing a nice number weeks after you put the effort in? Is there some truth in that or is it something we just say to encourage ourselves when we don't see a loss?

It's probably more linear than not, but the problem is the points of measure are inflated or deflated for some very well known reasons.
For instance, if you measure morning after a big cardio workout and didn't eat back that many carbs nor drink enough, you have false weight loss.
Then the next weigh-in you had a big sodium meal the day before and lifted the night before and are really sore, false weight gain.
Now the 3rd week out you finally have a weigh-in closer to the first one, still false weight loss above what really happened.

So the actual loss was linear in there - but you'd never see it.

But there are effects too of hormones, you finally have an easier week and body is less stressed from anything, cortisol drops and water flushes out.

heybales

I will probably have a lot of questions to ask later (so what''s new?!) but this is the one that puzzles me the most. I understand that if I didn't lose or gain then I must have eaten at TDEE, which for that week was 1924. What I don't understand is why this is so different numerically from the TDEE of 2763 that I get when I input adjusted HRM readings into your spreadsheet (tab 2, section 2) and use the 1.45 multiplier for that week.

I think I am going to have to surrender, as the maths is getting a bit beyond me, such vastly different numbers...if I eat 20% below 2763 or at 20% below 1924 that's a huge difference in calories.

So frustrated! I think my best bet is to stick with your simple set up tab, predict my exercise minutes at each intensity level for this coming week and stick with the TDEG and see if that produces a loss next week.

3 weeks minimum, 1 week isn't enough.

Gain or lose what?

I've don't think I recall you mentioning measurements in this topic. Weight can NOT be the only measurement, as there are very valid reasons LBM would go up as you lost fat. Therefore you are at a deficit, even if not by weight showing up.

Is your HRM setup correctly, to even have a chance of getting to the 20% accuracy possible?
You seem to have a lot of trust in those numbers, but if you don't have stats correct, it is not.
You might try the HRM tab. Get the stats filled in correctly at the top, and then see what some calorie burns would be in the table at the bottom. Your HRM should tell you avgHR and time of past workouts to compare.

Also, that TDEE calc 2 is adding the HRM calories (which could be off 33% one way or another, usually inflated for women) to still a self-selected non-exercise maintenance level.

Did you use 1.45 for Active for non-exercise part of day, AND added on your exercise calories?
You got a 40 hr week with physical job?

Or is that 1.45 the end result of say Sedentary or Lightly Active and then your HRM calories?
That sounds more realistic.

Vast majority with FitBit's and BodyMediaFit's discovery they are Lightly Active on non-exercise days. Let that help you decide which non-exercise maintenance level to use.

HappilyLifts

thanks heybales, sorry it was tricky to read, I was thinking aloud! Just finished a workout and my brain never functions too clearly after, so I will have to reread this later. Lifting heavy is out of the question at the moment, I have some sternum pain and am taking it easy, just cardio (average HR 155 today, so unlike me, that's twenty something below my usual, didn't get the endorphin rush today!) with squats and lunges for strength until the end of the week, so I doubt I'll get my figures right this week, but I will rethink the figures anyway.
Lost another 0.4 pounds yesterday.
What do you think of the argument that weight loss isn't linear and you can end up losing a nice number weeks after you put the effort in? Is there some truth in that or is it something we just say to encourage ourselves when we don't see a loss?

It's probably more linear than not, but the problem is the points of measure are inflated or deflated for some very well known reasons.
For instance, if you measure morning after a big cardio workout and didn't eat back that many carbs nor drink enough, you have false weight loss.
Then the next weigh-in you had a big sodium meal the day before and lifted the night before and are really sore, false weight gain.
Now the 3rd week out you finally have a weigh-in closer to the first one, still false weight loss above what really happened.

So the actual loss was linear in there - but you'd never see it.

But there are effects too of hormones, you finally have an easier week and body is less stressed from anything, cortisol drops and water flushes out.

that makes sense. I do see weight go up and down throughout the week and I have noticed the weight typically drops after a weekend of rest, but when I look at the bigger picture on my calendar I can see a gradual linear loss, as you say.

HappilyLifts

3 weeks minimum, 1 week isn't enough.

good point, I am learning patience for the most part, really I am :-)

Gain or lose what?

I've don't think I recall you mentioning measurements in this topic. Weight can NOT be the only measurement, as there are very valid reasons LBM would go up as you lost fat. Therefore you are at a deficit, even if not by weight showing up.

yes, I tend to forget that sometimes, you've told me often enough about LBM. I do measure and record weekly. 14cm from my belly this year! Other places don't show much change on the tape measure, but I am very happy with the belly loss.
I get hung up on the scales because this is all the NHS here in the UK seems to focus on and I have one final appointment with the nurse in December and so want to be able to show her a nice pound loss since our last meeting (August). There has been a loss, just not what she would expect (1 pound pw). Yeah, I know, I should ignore what she expects!

Is your HRM setup correctly, to even have a chance of getting to the 20% accuracy possible?
You seem to have a lot of trust in those numbers, but if you don't have stats correct, it is not.
You might try the HRM tab. Get the stats filled in correctly at the top, and then see what some calorie burns would be in the table at the bottom. Your HRM should tell you avgHR and time of past workouts to compare.

my HRM doesn't give me a VO2 reading, so I tend to ignore that tab.
I recall a thread about changing set up in the HRM and at the time, although being 43, I seem to remember reading that mine might be better set for a twenties age, something you said about having a good LBM for my age, I think. The thread fell off the bottom of My Topics and I haven't been able to find it again, so my HRM is set for my true age at the moment. I do change my weight as it goes down though.
Since reading your first post in this thread I intend to do some more calcs and use the more accurate burn, taking into account cals that would have been burned anyway had I not been exercising, like you pointed out. That will help improve accuracy.

Also, that TDEE calc 2 is adding the HRM calories (which could be off 33% one way or another, usually inflated for women) to still a self-selected non-exercise maintenance level.

Did you use 1.45 for Active for non-exercise part of day, AND added on your exercise calories?
You got a 40 hr week with physical job?

good point! I know better! Apart from my time at the gym I am a housewife and tutor, so nothing fantastic burned off there! I don't know why I did that, I did say I was getting confused :happy:

Thanks again, for you patience.

heybales

Is your HRM setup correctly, to even have a chance of getting to the 20% accuracy possible?
You seem to have a lot of trust in those numbers, but if you don't have stats correct, it is not.

You might try the HRM tab. Get the stats filled in correctly at the top, and then see what some calorie burns would be in the table at the bottom. Your HRM should tell you avgHR and time of past workouts to compare.

my HRM doesn't give me a VO2 reading, so I tend to ignore that tab.
I recall a thread about changing set up in the HRM and at the time, although being 43, I seem to remember reading that mine might be better set for a twenties age, something you said about having a good LBM for my age, I think. The thread fell off the bottom of My Topics and I haven't been able to find it again, so my HRM is set for my true age at the moment. I do change my weight as it goes down though.
Since reading your first post in this thread I intend to do some more calcs and use the more accurate burn, taking into account cals that would have been burned anyway had I not been exercising, like you pointed out. That will help improve accuracy.

Don't ignore that tab, it's meant as a HRM calorie burn replacement - with better accuracy potential.
It does have VO2max, and means to get yours.
It does have HRmax, and means to get good estimate.
It has calorie burn table.

So as I said, find out how much trust you should put into that HRM calorie burn estimates. There may be NO adjustment enough to change it enough to be more accurate.

Just compare a couple of past workouts that had big calorie burns, to see how much it would really be.

HappilyLifts

Is your HRM setup correctly, to even have a chance of getting to the 20% accuracy possible?
You seem to have a lot of trust in those numbers, but if you don't have stats correct, it is not.

You might try the HRM tab. Get the stats filled in correctly at the top, and then see what some calorie burns would be in the table at the bottom. Your HRM should tell you avgHR and time of past workouts to compare.

my HRM doesn't give me a VO2 reading, so I tend to ignore that tab.
I recall a thread about changing set up in the HRM and at the time, although being 43, I seem to remember reading that mine might be better set for a twenties age, something you said about having a good LBM for my age, I think. The thread fell off the bottom of My Topics and I haven't been able to find it again, so my HRM is set for my true age at the moment. I do change my weight as it goes down though.
Since reading your first post in this thread I intend to do some more calcs and use the more accurate burn, taking into account cals that would have been burned anyway had I not been exercising, like you pointed out. That will help improve accuracy.

Don't ignore that tab, it's meant as a HRM calorie burn replacement - with better accuracy potential.
It does have VO2max, and means to get yours.
It does have HRmax, and means to get good estimate.
It has calorie burn table.

So as I said, find out how much trust you should put into that HRM calorie burn estimates. There may be NO adjustment enough to change it enough to be more accurate.

Just compare a couple of past workouts that had big calorie burns, to see how much it would really be.

that will teach me to skim read won't it. :blushing: I will definitely read beyond the words VO2 max and make the comparison you suggest.