I'm a Special Snowflake?

Findekano

(Cross-posted from my blog, because, really, nobody reads it, but I wanted it somewhere I could always easily find it as well as somewhere that people could share similar stories, comment, etc. without having to dig up my blog. Let me know if cross-posting violates a rule I didn't see in the TOS and I'll take it down.)

Interesting development:

I normally subscribe to the "You're not a special snowflake" variety of diet and weight-loss advice - wherein "I have a high/low metabolism" is a bull**** excuse to not attain a healthy weight or eating habits.

But for the past month, I have been eating almost exactly the same number of calories every single day in order to determine my exact metabolic rate for maintenance and/or a slight weight gain (to make sure that I'm eating enough to support muscle growth and make gains in strength-training).

Theoretically, this should be somewhere between 1400 and 1600 calories per day. I figured that I should be at a sizable surplus to take advantage of "newbie gains" and decided to consume 2000 calories per day. I did this for thirty days. I started at 119 pounds.

According to my maintenance-rate based on bodyfat%, height, weight, sex, and age, I should have gained a hair over 5 pounds. I lost 2. During a good deal of this time, my dance classes were on break, and I had almost NO physical activity.

So, I am a nearly sedentary, short, average-body fat, normal lower-quadrant weight (by BMI), female, with a history of significant weight-loss (and therefore, loss of lean mass, which typically leads to a significant reduction in metabolic rate compared with naturally-normal-weight peers), who burns a hair over 2100 calories per day doing almost nothing. My BMR is higher than what most calculators give me for maintenance.

I guess I'm a special snowflake?

The takeaway here, is that for ANYONE monitoring weight, for whatever reason, calibrating TDEE is something you should do at least once. You could inadvertently be severely undereating or overeating based on what should be "normal".

To test your own metabolism, I highly suggest the page below. It calculates what you "should" be eating based on your stats and goals, and walks you through the calibration process so that you can adjust your intake based on what your body is actually doing.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

FullOfWin

When I switched to trying to gain weight, I found that I had to eat a good deal more than I had thought I would. Well, like 600 more cals per day that I thought.

neverstray

Not a SS. The physics of weight loss apply to almost everyone, with some exceptions for those with medical conditions.

Findekano

Not a SS. The physics of weight loss apply to almost everyone, with some exceptions for those with medical conditions.

Yes, obviously. What I was saying was I had previously believed that, barring thyroid or other conditions (which I do not have) BMR/TDEE could easily be estimated with fairly decent accuracy. That happened to not be the case. Mine, as estimated by every method I could find, was at least 400-800 calories too low in every case. Apparently I need a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: I don't think I'm a Special Snowflake for realz. I just thought it was funny and slightly shocking that there was such a difference and thought I would share my experience under the humorous title, "I'm a Special Snowflake?"

Firefox7275

Nearly sedentary? Either you are sedentary or you are in a different category, these are based on your overall activity level - sedentary is less than around 6000 steps a day (NB different authorities use slightly different numbers). But it's more complicated than that, the body of a fit temporarily sedentary person will not function exactly the same as a unfit chronically sedentary person. You may have trained your muscles to hold more glycogen, you may have trained your body to become more efficient at breaking down and using fat as fuel.

I don't see many special snowflakes at work (lifestyle healthcare) or here on MFP just a lot of people under or over estimating their activity, under or overestimating their food intake, a lot of people making up their own definitions for terms like sedentary or exercise. There are curveballs so if you want more accuracy use a heart rate monitor.

Some people fidget more than others, some stand up to complete every task that is not at their desk, others 'save up' tasks and do them in one hit, some always take the elevator or escalator, some never, others if it's two plus flights but not for one, some will always park in a favourite spot further away from the building, some always in a spot closest to the door. Studies suggest that the bodies of fitter or slimmer people can sometimes compensate for increased calorie intake, they burn more off as heat and/ or through unconsciously being more active such as fidgeting for example.

Findekano

Nearly sedentary? Either you are sedentary or you are in a different category, these are based on your overall activity level - sedentary is less than around 6000 steps a day (NB different authorities use slightly different numbers). But it's more complicated than that, the body of a fit temporarily sedentary person will not function exactly the same as a unfit chronically sedentary person. You may have trained your muscles to hold more glycogen, you may have trained your body to become more efficient at breaking down and using fat as fuel.

I don't see many special snowflakes at work (lifestyle healthcare) or here on MFP just a lot of people under or over estimating their activity, under or overestimating their food intake, a lot of people making up their own definitions for terms like sedentary or exercise. There are curveballs so if you want more accuracy use a heart rate monitor.

Some people fidget more than others, some stand up to complete every task that is not at their desk, others 'save up' tasks and do them in one hit, some always take the elevator or escalator, some never, others if it's two plus flights but not for one, some will always park in a favourite spot further away from the building, some always in a spot closest to the door. Studies suggest that the bodies of fitter or slimmer people can sometimes compensate for increased calorie intake, they burn more off as heat and/ or through unconsciously being more active such as fidgeting for example.

I'm going by what most calculators give as the categories:

Sedentary - Desk job with little or no exercise: pretty much what I did this whole time. Sitting on my butt all day, and occasionally getting up to cook or clean for myself.

Lightly Active - 1-3 hours per week of exercise: what I normally do. About 60 minutes a day, three days a week, of light-moderate intensity dancing.

It would be really weird if I managed to under/overestimate that much, but stranger things have happened. I read about a woman who was asked to food-journal, came up with barely 1200 cals/day, and when watched, actually consumed several thousand and didn't notice/underestimated/flat out lied about the excess.

shmoony

Not that this is true on your case, but I saw a similar intensive controlled study that that showed across the board that chronically obese people consistently underestimated the amount they were eating on a daily basis and thin people overestimated the amount they were consuming. The basic assumption was that there is a subconscious memory block or redirection that takes place wherein you actually convince yourself that you are eating more/less depending on how you view your body. As part of the study, they followed two girlfriends, one obese one lean. The obese woman said things like," I barely eat, and I still gain weight while my girlfriend eats like a pig and never gains a pound". When carefully followed over several months, it was found that in fact the obese woman was actually eating on average 800 more calories / day. When interviewed again before being shown the results, both maintain their stance that the obese woman was eating less.

What does this tell you?

neanderthin

The math is never 100% and measuring food and expenditure is never 100% right. What is right though is your recording your calories over a set time period to figure out your maintenance calories....keep in mind this is never going to perfectly linear, nevertheless yuou were losing weight, therefore you were in a deficit. Add a few hundred calories and see what happens.....your ahead of the curve.

Firefox7275

I'm going by what most calculators give as the categories:

Sedentary - Desk job with little or no exercise: pretty much what I did this whole time. Sitting on my butt all day, and occasionally getting up to cook or clean for myself.

Lightly Active - 1-3 hours per week of exercise: what I normally do. About 60 minutes a day, three days a week, of light-moderate intensity dancing.

It would be really weird if I managed to under/overestimate that much, but stranger things have happened. I read about a woman who was asked to food-journal, came up with barely 1200 cals/day, and when watched, actually consumed several thousand and didn't notice/underestimated/flat out lied about the excess.

I'm going by the official guidelines, including what we are taught as fitness professionals - it's based on physical activity not simply formal exercise habits (exercise being a subset of physical activity not interchangeable terms). It's quite possible to be doing three hours of light to moderate exercise a week and still be in the sedentary category or even be in the active category.

Calculators likely assume people don't have pedometers or heart rate monitors and they can't interview you in detail about your habits so 'dumb down' the explanation. Many people don't have a clue about exercise intensity anyway, many a time I have doubled the weight a female is lifting or halved the weight a male is lifting, yet in both cases made the exercise tougher by teaching proper technique and pace.

Weigh or measure everything and add it to your food diary as you eat it, not at the end of the day research has proven that people forget.

PhearlessPhreaks

Thanks for the link, OP. I'm wondering if, being pregnant, I'm not eating enough. I'm set at 2260 calories, but, at my weight, it's saying my BMR is 2163. If nothing else, it's definitely something to think about.

neverstray

I wasn't taking you seriously, BTW.

I was just commenting that you are not special. The physics still work. That doesn't mean finding yoru BMR and TDEE are easy. Websites just have formulas that are averages for most people. Obviously, everyone is a little different in how that really works. And, some people might say they are sedentary, but really get up amd move a lot, even though they have a desk job. For instance, I have a desk job, but getting up to go pee, get coffee, endless meetings walking from bldg to bldg, but if you ask me, I'll say I'm sedentary. To me, I am. But, I'm probably not, really. Things like that factor in. Plus, just biology. Some people run hot. Brain activity can cause the metabolism to rise, and stress. There are so many factors involved. The websites out there I think give a good starting point, but you have to adjust up or down and find that point.

I think once anyone truly finds their TDEE, they got the battle won at that point. They know exactly what to do and there is no more question about it. That's my opinion, of course.

gboybama

I, for one, appreciated the OP's observation. I've tracked 24 weeks of food, website TDEE and scale results and then compared what I should have gained/lost versus the actual result. I've found some trends that are hard to explain. Over 8 week blocks (which sound long enough to control for fluctuations), I've found anywhere between 5 and 25 percent difference when comparing expected results to actual results.

I know it will be chalked up to poor logging, over/under value of activity or bad math, but I think we should be willing to challenge our notions about this kind of stuff without being defensive that we're challenging the central eat less, move more truism.

Confuzzled4ever

Well... idk what to tell ya.. I'm not trying to lose weight.. I'm trying to eat healthy and exercise for fitness. Not that I don't need to lose weight.. it's just not my focus.. and it's coming off about 2 pounds a week.. I know i need to increase what i eat.. but i'm so full all the time.. it's hard. I think I over estimate what I eat and i'm sure the exercise carloies burned are overstated since I just use wheatever MFP says they are. but if I eat a scoop of something i'll log it as higher then I think it is. Maybe the exception is meat.. i might under estimate the oz of meat I eat. But it doens' seem to be affecting me negatively. And i'm managing to reach my health and fitness goals slowly. So I guess it all balances out in the end.

neverstray

I, for one, appreciated the OP's observation. I've tracked 24 weeks of food, website TDEE and scale results and then compared what I should have gained/lost versus the actual result. I've found some trends that are hard to explain. Over 8 week blocks (which sound long enough to control for fluctuations), I've found anywhere between 5 and 25 percent difference when comparing expected results to actual results.

I know it will be chalked up to poor logging, over/under value of activity or bad math, but I think we should be willing to challenge our notions about this kind of stuff without being defensive that we're challenging the central eat less, move more truism.

Good point. I've been at this for a while, but never ran stats. Mostly because of what you said. Some days, when I just say f*** it, and cheat all day, I don't log. But, I know that week my weight will be up a little probably. And, other variables ahving to do with are the listed calories even correct. Ive heard theres a 20% margin, but sho is monitoring? LOL. Also, who knows how much you really burn? No one. It's not practical to be precise. So, we just trudge along and do our best. Hopefully, we can find that point where we are happy with our intake and output to find a satisfying trend and an ultimate place where we stop and stay.

Nataliaho

I've always been interested in understanding the weight-gain side of this equation a little better. The majority of people here are trying to lose weight, I think most understand the underlying physics of how we can lose weight through a deficit. I'm not sure that the other side is so well understood, at least by me. Anecdotally it does seem that some people are hard gainers vs easy gainers... but maybe that is just perception.

cmriverside

2100 being maintenance and 1400-1600 BMR are two different calculations.

If you are close to your healthy weight and you do anything at all other than stay in bed all day, you will need about 400-600 calories above your BMR to Maintain.....so, I'm missing your point.

You have to make your bed, get dressed, walk to your car or the bus to go anywhere, walk around the store, brush your teeth, take a shower, change clothes, presumably do a little cooking and housekeeping....so, BMR being what you would burn laying in bed all day, and your maintenance calories will be different by 400-600 cals. Even without exercise.

gboybama

Good point. I've been at this for a while, but never ran stats. Mostly because of what you said. Some days, when I just say f*** it, and cheat all day, I don't log. But, I know that week my weight will be up a little probably. And, other variables ahving to do with are the listed calories even correct. Ive heard theres a 20% margin, but sho is monitoring? LOL. Also, who knows how much you really burn? No one. It's not practical to be precise. So, we just trudge along and do our best. Hopefully, we can find that point where we are happy with our intake and output to find a satisfying trend and an ultimate place where we stop and stay.

And that, my friends, is the MFP Zen mission statement in a nutshell. QFT

Firefox7275

I know it will be chalked up to poor logging, over/under value of activity or bad math, but I think we should be willing to challenge our notions about this kind of stuff without being defensive that we're challenging the central eat less, move more truism.

Dismissive and closed minded. Nobody said that bar you, it's dumbed down and the science is far more complex. I quite regularly advise people to move less or move the same but more intensely or to do a different type of exercise altogether. I also regularly tell people to eat more: either more calories, or more of food groups they are omitting, or more volume and quality albeit fewer calories.

MegDaig

Women often underestimate their maintenance. Most of us of average height and build (5'6 and 150 for example) should maintain on anywhere between 1800 and 2100. My current maintenance is 2500; desk job + 5 days lifting and 7 days of 50 minutes cardio (only during contest prep).

When we increase calories up to or above maintenance we often see a large increase on the scale, this is mostly just glycogen and glycogen bound water weight....give it two weeks to level off then you will truly find your maintenance.

gboybama

I know it will be chalked up to poor logging, over/under value of activity or bad math, but I think we should be willing to challenge our notions about this kind of stuff without being defensive that we're challenging the central eat less, move more truism.

Dismissive and closed minded. Nobody said that bar you, it's dumbed down and the science is far more complex. I quite regularly advise people to move less or move the same but more intensely or to do a different type of exercise altogether. I also regularly tell people to eat more: either more calories, or more of food groups they are omitting, or more volume and quality albeit fewer calories.

I'm not sure my meaning was clear. I was saying that there is room for all kinds of possibilities and tweaking and one can accept that without saying we're invalidating the mathematical calories in / calories out science. So, I'd rather think my statement was open minded instead of closed and we agree?

Findekano

2100 being maintenance and 1400-1600 BMR are two different calculations.

If you are close to your healthy weight and you do anything at all other than stay in bed all day, you will need about 400-600 calories above your BMR to Maintain.....so, I'm missing your point.

You have to make your bed, get dressed, walk to your car or the bus to go anywhere, walk around the store, brush your teeth, take a shower, change clothes, presumably do a little cooking and housekeeping....so, BMR being what you would burn laying in bed all day, and your maintenance calories will be different by 400-600 cals. Even without exercise.

No, most calcs give me 1400-1600 as my TDEE.

babyskunkles

You know, people used to think the world was flat, til they found out it wasn't. I think there is always at least a tiny bit of room for the given weight loss science to be off.

waldo56

Do you strength train?

If so, chances are you discovered the fact that strength training burns WAY more calories than commonly thought. The strength training entry in MFP is laughably low. HRM's are a waste of time and likewise laughably low.

Most people that strength train will underestimate their maintenence/bulking calories the first time. Often by a lot (like 500+ cal/day off). The major culpit is awful strength training calorie estimation.

The "circuit training" entry or "high effort calisthenics" entry are good starting points, though chances are they too are low, but at least somewhere in the ballpark.

If you are "lifting heavy" and not using those entries (or similarly high numbers), you are underestimating your strength training calories big time.

I track a lot of data, every day, and have for a long time, and know with a high degree of precision what my non-exercise maintenence calorie amount is and about how many calories various exercise activites burn. I gain, lose, and maintain at expected rates almost perfectly.

Findekano

Do you strength train?

If so, chances are you discovered the fact that strength training burns WAY more calories than commonly thought. The strength training entry in MFP is laughably low. HRM's are a waste of time and likewise laughably low.

Most people that strength train will underestimate their maintenence/bulking calories the first time. Often by a lot (like 500+ cal/day off). The major culpit is awful strength training calorie estimation.

The "circuit training" entry or "high effort calisthenics" entry are good starting points, though chances are they too are low, but at least somewhere in the ballpark.

If you are "lifting heavy" and not using those entries (or similarly high numbers), you are underestimating your strength training calories big time.

I track a lot of data, every day, and have for a long time, and know with a high degree of precision what my non-exercise maintenence calorie amount is and about how many calories various exercise activites burn. I gain, lose, and maintain at expected rates almost perfectly.

This is actually a really good point, and probably the source of the numbers being off, although I think I only lifted maybe once per week during this time, so I'm not sure how much that really accounts for it. Good to know. And a good incentive to keep up with the lifting. I like eating.

Findekano

I don't log exercise, btw, just for simplicity's sake, since I'm already accounting for it in the original equation when I select "lightly active"

WendyTerry420

(Cross-posted from my blog, because, really, nobody reads it, but I wanted it somewhere I could always easily find it as well as somewhere that people could share similar stories, comment, etc. without having to dig up my blog. Let me know if cross-posting violates a rule I didn't see in the TOS and I'll take it down.)

Interesting development:

I normally subscribe to the "You're not a special snowflake" variety of diet and weight-loss advice - wherein "I have a high/low metabolism" is a bull**** excuse to not attain a healthy weight or eating habits.

But for the past month, I have been eating almost exactly the same number of calories every single day in order to determine my exact metabolic rate for maintenance and/or a slight weight gain (to make sure that I'm eating enough to support muscle growth and make gains in strength-training).

Theoretically, this should be somewhere between 1400 and 1600 calories per day. I figured that I should be at a sizable surplus to take advantage of "newbie gains" and decided to consume 2000 calories per day. I did this for thirty days. I started at 119 pounds.

According to my maintenance-rate based on bodyfat%, height, weight, sex, and age, I should have gained a hair over 5 pounds. I lost 2. During a good deal of this time, my dance classes were on break, and I had almost NO physical activity.

So, I am a nearly sedentary, short, average-body fat, normal lower-quadrant weight (by BMI), female, with a history of significant weight-loss (and therefore, loss of lean mass, which typically leads to a significant reduction in metabolic rate compared with naturally-normal-weight peers), who burns a hair over 2100 calories per day doing almost nothing. My BMR is higher than what most calculators give me for maintenance.

I guess I'm a special snowflake?

The takeaway here, is that for ANYONE monitoring weight, for whatever reason, calibrating TDEE is something you should do at least once. You could inadvertently be severely undereating or overeating based on what should be "normal".

To test your own metabolism, I highly suggest the page below. It calculates what you "should" be eating based on your stats and goals, and walks you through the calibration process so that you can adjust your intake based on what your body is actually doing.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

Findekano

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

I think we may be in the same boat with the strength-training thing. I just thought it was odd because a 500-700 cal difference is quite a bit for someone who is 5'2 and 120-ish pounds.

WendyTerry420

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

I think we may be in the same boat with the strength-training thing. I just thought it was odd because a 500-700 cal difference is quite a bit for someone who is 5'2 and 120-ish pounds.

Yep. I figured it out when I ran my numbers after six months of logging. I do believe that strength training makes all the difference.

When I first joined MFP, it wanted me on 1270 calories to lose 2 pounds, so I decided I would be patient and switch it to 1 pound, then I was losing *more* two pounds anyway while eating at 1700ish. I'm on 1900ish now and averaging 1.3 pounds a week.

cmriverside

2100 being maintenance and 1400-1600 BMR are two different calculations.

If you are close to your healthy weight and you do anything at all other than stay in bed all day, you will need about 400-600 calories above your BMR to Maintain.....so, I'm missing your point.

You have to make your bed, get dressed, walk to your car or the bus to go anywhere, walk around the store, brush your teeth, take a shower, change clothes, presumably do a little cooking and housekeeping....so, BMR being what you would burn laying in bed all day, and your maintenance calories will be different by 400-600 cals. Even without exercise.

No, most calcs give me 1400-1600 as my TDEE.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Findekano

2100 being maintenance and 1400-1600 BMR are two different calculations.

If you are close to your healthy weight and you do anything at all other than stay in bed all day, you will need about 400-600 calories above your BMR to Maintain.....so, I'm missing your point.

You have to make your bed, get dressed, walk to your car or the bus to go anywhere, walk around the store, brush your teeth, take a shower, change clothes, presumably do a little cooking and housekeeping....so, BMR being what you would burn laying in bed all day, and your maintenance calories will be different by 400-600 cals. Even without exercise.

No, most calcs give me 1400-1600 as my TDEE.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Ones that are based on my bf% - currently 26. those give me around 1450, mfp says 1560, others say 1690-1710. Most of these I set to sedentary because I figured I was not getting the kind of burn out of strength training as I would be out of cardio, but even at lightly active, I get nothing above about 1850 from any calculator.

cmriverside

2100 being maintenance and 1400-1600 BMR are two different calculations.

If you are close to your healthy weight and you do anything at all other than stay in bed all day, you will need about 400-600 calories above your BMR to Maintain.....so, I'm missing your point.

You have to make your bed, get dressed, walk to your car or the bus to go anywhere, walk around the store, brush your teeth, take a shower, change clothes, presumably do a little cooking and housekeeping....so, BMR being what you would burn laying in bed all day, and your maintenance calories will be different by 400-600 cals. Even without exercise.

No, most calcs give me 1400-1600 as my TDEE.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Ones that are based on my bf% - currently 26. those give me around 1450, mfp says 1560, others say 1690-1710. Most of these I set to sedentary because I figured I was not getting the kind of burn out of strength training as I would be out of cardio, but even at lightly active, I get nothing above about 1850 from any calculator.

Okay, one more time. BMR and TDEE are NOT the same thing....I used your weight and height (which takes into account bf) and your age, gender, got around 1400 for your BMR.

If you get out of bed, you need more. Are we on the same page? If you are doing weights, and going to work every day, and you are trying to use a TDEE calculator - you are not going to get 1400-1600 as a TDEE. 1800 maybe, but even that seems too low, unless you are tuly doing nothing but sit on your backside all day. With 26% BF, you should be eating no less than 200-300 below your TDEE.

This site uses different calculations. If it tells you 1560 (you should be set at lightly active, and "Lose 1/2 lb per week") - then it wants you to be eating MORE when you exercise. You do understand the difference between this site and using TDEE calculators, right?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets