why is 1200 cal/day too low?
Options
Replies
-
Lol well that touched a nerve!
So at higher cals you didn't lose any fat or weight.
Training was perfect and nutrition was perfect?
How long did you attempt the higher cals?
Yes, I find it extremely frustrating that people treat a number that is, at best, an estimate based on averages and mathematical modeling as an absolute when I (and plenty of scientific researchers) have found that it is often off. Mathematical modeling cannot and does not take into account all variables and will probably never be able to account for genetic differences. Additionally when your post is so single purposed as to completely ignore all other scientific measurements that show significant progress for me, it is irritating. 1200 calories works for me. (Please note the 'for me' part of this as I have no doubt that it would not work for everyone).
I had tried 1800 calories (upon the recommendation of my PT) for about 3-4 months in the early part of last year (starting around March and quit that around June/July). Was nutrition perfect? No, it never is. Was I counting calories as accurately and recording as rigorously as I am now? Yes. Was training perfect? Again, no it never is. Was I training as hard as I am now? Absolutely. I experienced some LBM gains but no BF loss. In fact, I gained a bit of weight. I gained about 3-5 lbs over that period of time and by my best calculations, it was almost evenly split between body fat and lean mass. At that time, I was not having DXA scans done so I couldn't actually tell you with any certainty what the split was there.
I'm more than satisfied on 1200 calories (physically and mentally) and as long as I'm not losing LBM (which I'm not) I am satisfied with the results. The next time I go in for a DeXA scan, I will probably try to get my RMR actually checked so that I can work out the numbers for maintenance. I am not planning on going back in until I hit my goal of 155 which should put me at about 19%bf.
I'm curious what starting stats you had.
Age
Weight
Body fat%
And current
Age
Weight
Body fat%
I highly doubt you've lost no LBM.
I also can tell you are suffering from metabolic damage.
I have women in their 60s at 5' eating closer to 2k a day and losing fat.
How long have you been dieting?
What's ultimate goal?
As for OP and the original question:
PM me:
Age
Height
Weight
Body fat%
Occupation
Routine
Ill help you with ideal weight for your body type and get you losing fat.
1200 is too low for most but if you follow MFPs way then make sure you eat back your exercise calories.0 -
It depends on your situation entirely.. I'm 5'1', 91lbs and my BMR is 1100 calories a day. 1200 wouldn't be too little for me to eat when I'm NOT trying to lose weight.
You have a goal of losing 12 more pounds and you are only 91 pounds? Your goal weight is 80 pounds? Even at 5'1", that is really concerning.
I'm hoping that you mistyped your current weight?0 -
How do you not lose body mass? That's insane..
Last month I ate anywhere from 1600-2000 cals a day, lifted + cardio everyday and lost 6% BF.. the month before that, I lost over 10%!! Something is amiss
Even as a young child I ate very little. I always played at least two sports simultaneously including competitive swimming and soccer. As part of both of those, I have lifted heavy since I was in my early teenage years (I also rode horseback and played tennis, etc...). When I was young (12-13?) people used to say things about how little I ate. It made me feel very awkward when eating with friends etc (which is the only reason it ever meant anything to me) I never cared about how much I ate because I was never overweight (and was always in the upper end of the healthy range for weight and height) until I blew out my ankle. There is a significant portion of BMR that is most likely related to genetics (or at least cannot be accounted for by body composition, age or gender). It is entirely probable that the portion related to my genetics makes my overall BMR lower than average. It doesn't bother me because it's not like I'm going hungry or anything. I have no problem maintaining a healthy LBM, etc...
That's my whole point. There is so much difference that cannot be accounted for by an estimate that can be off from person to person. Each person's process is the same but the base numbers can be pretty wildly different for each person. Either you adjust (not you specifically, but each person) your calories to where they work for you or go get RMR/BMR checked by someone equipped to do the actual measurements and use those as a jumping off point. Just because the numbers aren't the same for everyone doesn't mean anything. That's to be expected. (see the study I posted earlier that shows a significant difference between people not related to age, body composition, or sex)0 -
It depends on your situation entirely.. I'm 5'1', 91lbs and my BMR is 1100 calories a day. 1200 wouldn't be too little for me to eat when I'm NOT trying to lose weight.
Yes...it would....BMR isn't your energy expenditure dear...not unless someone konked you out with a baseball bat and you were unconscious in the hospital. I don't think you'd be typing then and at your weight I hope they'd give you more then 1200 calories anyhow lol.
And even if you weren't under weight and it wasn't the case (which it is) generally when most people answer questions on these boards I would hope that there is an assumption that people are doing this to get to a healthy weight...and if they are tiny I would hope they move more then a snail. And judging by the fact your goal weight is 80lbs well...I think you have a unhealthy goal. At which point yep, 1200 cals is still to low. Not to mention at that weight one would still be able to maintain at higher then 1200.0 -
Thank you! ????0
-
I highly doubt you've lost no LBM.
I also can tell you are suffering from metabolic damage.
I have women in their 60s at 5' eating closer to 2k a day and losing fat.
How long have you been dieting?
What's ultimate goal?
Everybody is an expert on the internet. That's the saying right? You got your internet PhD?
I regret having continued this conversation for as long as I have. I thought that it might provide a slightly different view point. Clearly, you cannot wrap your head around the fact that BMR varies from person to person in spite of the numerous scientific studies out there.
I have "dieted" 3 times (including now) my all time high weight was after my first ankle surgery before I gave birth to my daughter at 240 lbs. Immediately after I gave birth I weighed 228 when I did weight watchers down to 190 (about 6 months) and had a second ankle surgery that gave me a bit more mobility back. I quit weight watchers and over the next several years slowly lost down to about 180. When I got divorced and moved back home, etc... I ended up back at 190 something (my scale wasn't working and kept telling me 185 so I couldn't figure out why I had to buy clothes a size bigger). I got a new scale after I had started losing weight again and I was at 193. That's when I got a personal trainer to work with me on modifying lifts/work out issues that came from the couple ankle surgeries. During that time (the first time I had counted calories) I gained a few pounds. I have been losing weight for a total of about 3 months now. My ultimate goal is to get back down to the 18-20% body fat I was before I busted up my ankle. I'm only telling you this because I don't want you thinking I am trying to hide something and that's why I'm not answering but I'm super done with this conversation.
As far as I can tell, your advice is good for the people whose BMR is average. You have nothing to offer other than explaining very simple mathematical concepts and advising people on how they should be working the equation to lose a small amount of weight per week/month. That's great and probably works for a good many people but not for me.
Whether you think I've lost LBM or not is of no consequence. I have the DXA scan results and the body that show that I haven't. Like I said in my first post, what I'm doing works for me and am not concerned about what other people are doing that works for them. If I ever run into a problem, I'll go seek advice from a registered dietician or one of the awesome folks on campus who do research into nutrition. The last place I'm going to look is to some guy online who is stuck on a one size fits all approach to weight loss. For those people who do and have good results, more power to them. It just isn't my style.0 -
Dear OP,
My (no I'm not a doctor, fitness professional or the like, but this is just from my personal experience) answers to your questions:
1. I'd be going by body fat percentage if I were you. If that is your current photo, you look pretty good IMHO. Search around the internet for ideal body weight images and percentages and decide where you would like to fit in, and what is sensible based on your age and height. Go and visit a PT or dietitian and get some advice if you really don't know.
You may only lose 2kg but your body composition can change dramatically depending what you are doing with your diet and training.
2. If I were you, I would track for a week what you are currently eating and exercising to maintain your current weight. This should give you your current TDEE numbers to maintain. Subtract 20% from that number and you will start to see some losses. Add resistance training to your exercise and make yourself your new fitness hobby.
You should not be aiming for any greater than 1% of your weight per week for good safe weight loss, which you will be able to maintain long term.
Again, do some research. Experiment on yourself, you will soon find out if eating at 1200, 1600 or greater suits your body.
I did also love the above suggestion to work out your goal weight TDEE and TDEG and eat that amount of calories. That isn't "dieting" but a life long lifestyle change.
Good luck!0 -
That's my whole point. There is so much difference that cannot be accounted for by an estimate that can be off from person to person. Each person's process is the same but the base numbers can be pretty wildly different for each person. Either you adjust (not you specifically, but each person) your calories to where they work for you or go get RMR/BMR checked by someone equipped to do the actual measurements and use those as a jumping off point. Just because the numbers aren't the same for everyone doesn't mean anything. That's to be expected. (see the study I posted earlier that shows a significant difference between people not related to age, body composition, or sex)
I think your point is also the point as to why to trust that 1200, which is considered safety level, must be the magical number. Whole lot of trust put in that 1200 by people with no clue how much they used to eat.
And want such immediate results they'd never test for a few weeks to nail where they are at. But they'll sit on a stall for 3-9 months spinning their wheels wondering what's going on, do the same old or worse.
Kind of like the blind trust in HRM calorie burn estimates. The common phrase is "it's a different value than anything else I've been shown, therefore it must be accurate".
The scary thing about getting an RMR check after you've already been dieting is the fact you can lower it by bad diet, undereating.
So eating to an RMR value that is suppressed more than it needs to be is chasing a downward spiral that won't end well.
Notice in that study that none of the participants had any diets or weight change in previous 3 months.0 -
It depends on your situation entirely.. I'm 5'1', 91lbs and my BMR is 1100 calories a day. 1200 wouldn't be too little for me to eat when I'm NOT trying to lose weight.
Given your aim is to be really underweight, and most here strive for health, I don't think your post has much relevance,0 -
-
Nice. really...
You are demonstrating that you'd rather use word salad instead of giving us facts.
Answer the simple question or stfu about it.
Starting stats:
Age: 28
Height:5'7''
Weight: 196
Body fat% 35.5
Routine Same as now, variable, gym 3x per week, school, when no school, work
Current stats
Age 29
Height 5'7''
Weight 171
Body fat%26.3
Routine same as I described before. Variable usually school, gym 3x per week lifting.
You don't have to take my advice but I've personally pulled people out of the metabolic slump you proudly display as being normal and okay.
So for now I'm calling this witchcraft and wizardry!
Pro bodybuilders have the hardest time doing what you claim you so effortlessly do.
So give us the stats!
You must be the enigma!
The special snowflake!
I gave you my stats but just because you don't know the research doesn't make me a special snowflake. Here is a little bit so that maybe you can educate yourself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571
In this study the patients lost appx 1.5 lbs per week and were on a 1000 cal/day diet and lost no muscle mass.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short
QUOTE:
It was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.
Here DPE is diet with exercise, EO is exercise without diet and DO is diet without exercise. You can see that at a deficit, these folks were able to raise their LBM as measured with DXA scans. This study also references another study that had similar results.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/79/3/818.short
QUOTE:
RT increases strength with and without weight loss. Furthermore, RT and RTWL increase fat-free mass and RMR and decrease percent fat in postmenopausal women.
This study was specific to postmenopausal women but there is no reason that the results wouldn't be similar. This is discussing resistance training and weight loss.
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/70038
This study is actually just about lap bands and shows that even in a VLCD (like the one that accompanies a lap band) fat free mass is mostly maintained.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2613421
QUOTE:
There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of weight loss achieved by VLCD is associated with any detriment to body composition or metabolic rate.
This one doesn't even have a group that exercises but instead studies people losing weight on a VLCD whereby they lost 4.24 pounds per week and came to the above conclusion.
Again, I'm not a special snowflake. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is not true or does not exist. Most of these diets in the studies are VLCDs. Obviously, 1200 cal/ day is not a VLCD. You can say whatever you want but you haven't backed it up with anything other than anecdotes and websites that don't have a scientific basis.
These 5 studies were very easy to find and show that my results are not unique. They used to call things witchcraft because they didn't understand them. Apparently, the same thing still happens. Are you going to burn me as a witch because I float too? I can explain that and link a study for you if you need me to.
These all show similar results to the ones I have had. Loss of bf without loss of FFM when diet is combined with exercise. Many of them show similar results even without exercise.Its funny how people give so much resistance to the one guy who offers selflessly his services.
Sheesh!
2 things: 1)I doubt the selflessness of your advice, not only do you have a paypal account for "donations" listed on your homepage but I bet you get a thrill out of people repeating your info and linking to the thread you wrote. 2) You don't really have "services" to provide. You have no qualifications (other than having lost weight yourself). You might have advice to offer but realistically, your advice is only applicable to some people. It is all just opinions. You still haven't even responded to the fact that BMR varies from person to person. Does that not fit into your narrow view of weight loss?0 -
Anyone who doesn't have metabolic disease can lose fat eating the ways I suggest.
Personally I'd love to eat the proper amount of food as opposed to slowing their metabolic rate.
I used to sit for hours running numbers for the early crew.
I did it on my free time and its certainly thrilling to get an email gearing one of your girls no longer has to rely on insulin shots or leg pressed 1000lbs.
I wrote the road map to help people figure their own numbers out and show the new mfp members that 1200 isn't the answer.
So if people don't want to read the road map and do their own numbers then yes ill dedicate the time to run them.
My last question to you is this:
With the most important machine in the world, your body, why would you insist and defend giving it the absolute minimum amount of nutrients to survive?
Why would I ever suggest anyone do that when I myself have proven that higher calories work.
Its worked for about 400 of my members.
Enjoy your 1200 cal diet.
Its certainly made you an enjoyable person to chat with.0 -
Anyone who doesn't have metabolic disease can lose fat eating the ways I suggest.
Personally I'd love to eat the proper amount of food as opposed to slowing their metabolic rate.
I used to sit for hours running numbers for the early crew.
I did it on my free time and its certainly thrilling to get an email gearing one of your girls no longer has to rely on insulin shots or leg pressed 1000lbs.
I wrote the road map to help people figure their own numbers out and show the new mfp members that 1200 isn't the answer.
So if people don't want to read the road map and do their own numbers then yes ill dedicate the time to run them.
My last question to you is this:
With the most important machine in the world, your body, why would you insist and defend giving it the absolute minimum amount of nutrients to survive?
Why would I ever suggest anyone do that when I myself have proven that higher calories work.
Its worked for about 400 of my members.
Enjoy your 1200 cal diet.
Its certainly made you an enjoyable person to chat with.
Of the 5 studies I linked above, not one showed that BMR or RMR was slowed even when fed a VLCD for extended periods of time.
Again, anecdotal evidence with no scientific backing means as much as the paper it is written on... What no paper? Just the internet? Oh, okay.
Nothing to say about BMR being extremely different from person to person? That's fine.
And, I'm not saying the method you used or describe doesn't work for probably most people but it doesn't work for me.
Lastly, let's don't pretend like I am the only one who was being snarky here. You completely ignored the vast majority of what I wrote in response to your questions, acted like I did not provide adequate responses to your questions, acted as though I did not spend a good bit of time doing research. And you are still acting like I am some dumb**s who has no clue what I am doing even though I have posted, in total, six scientific studies backing up what I have said. Not only are my results consistent with scientific research published in pub-med, the american journal of clinical nutrition, and many others, but all my lab work and DXA scans have shown that what I'm doing is right for me.
Like I said before, my results are working for me and what helps others is their business. I don't judge other people because they don't do the same thing as me. I absolutely do get annoyed and frustrated when someone acts like their way is the only way and ignores most of what I have said, making assumptions about me that are off base, and acts like their opinion is superior to mine even though mine is backed up by research.
At the end of the day (which is right about now for me) you are going to continue on believing whatever you believe and I will continue on towards my goal of losing about 6-8% body fat in a manner consistent with what is best for me.
Have a good night.0 -
A little bit more research (I am mostly putting this here so I can find it again later);
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract
RMR for people who used to be obese and lost weight over various time periods and through various methos and RMR for people who were never obese is the same. Average 1415 cal/day for mixed groups of men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665679?dopt=Abstract
People who lost weight and kept it off long term consume an average of 1383 cal/day. 25% calories from fat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
Quote:
Successful maintainers of weight loss reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306 kcal/day (24.3% of energy from fat); men reported consuming 1,685 kcal (23.5% of energy from fat). Subjects in the registry reported consuming less energy and a lower percentage of energy from fat...
Because continued consumption of a low-fat, low-energy diet may be necessary for long-term weight control, persons who have successfully lost weight should be encouraged to maintain such a diet.0 -
But really, for every study you find where they didn't have problems (and some of those studies comment specifically on using participants that have never dieted before. Most of course try to use otherwise healthy folks, some studies don't comment one way or another), you can find studies where there are changes.
Some have to do with where you are on the journey. Bunch to lose, huge window of opportunity. Later on, great chance of difficulty.
The question is for people - where is your body going to sit in the scheme of easy, or difficult?
If it's easy, great. If it's not, starting on the low end really just causes the problems.
Perhaps the advice would be, don't start at 1200, start reasonable. If you have no weight loss and not doing tons of new exercise that would actually cause body improvement and gain, then slowly lower, wait 3 weeks and see what really happens. It beats having 3-9 month stall and slowly moving up until you start losing again, after already having lost muscle mass because you also did the exercise and protein aspect worst way it could be done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305
Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
TEE, NREE, and (to a lesser extent) REE were significantly lower in the Wt(loss-sustained) and Wt(loss-recent) groups than in the Wt(initial) group. Differences from the Wt(initial) group in energy expenditure were qualitatively and quantitatively similar after recent and sustained weight loss.
CONCLUSION:
Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11010936
The TEE inside Biosphere 2, assessed 3 wk before exit, averaged 10700 +/- 560 kJ/d (n = 8). Within 1 wk after exit, the adjusted 24-h EE and spontaneous physical activity were lower in the biospherians (n = 5) than in 152 control subjects (6% and 45%, respectively; both P: < 0.01). Six months after exit and return to an ad libitum diet, body weight had increased to preentry levels; however, adjusted 24-h EE and spontaneous physical activity were still significantly lower than in control subjects.
CONCLUSIONS:
In lean humans, an adaptive decrease in EE appears to occur not only in states of life-threatening undernutrition, but also in response to less severe energy restriction sustained over several years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
May recover, and lucky for women perhaps.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
Only about half the women got off lucky in this one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
This issue has been documented in recent studies that have shown in obese individuals adhering to a weight reduction program a greater than predicted decrease in EE, which in some cases was quantitatively sufficient to overcome the prescribed energy restriction, suggesting a role for adaptive thermogenesis in unsuccessful weight loss interventions and reduced body weight maintenance. As also discussed in this paper, this 'adaptive thermogenesis' can be influenced by environmental factors, which have not been frequently considered up to now. This is potentially the case for plasma organochlorine concentration and oxygen desaturation in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. It is concluded that health professionals should be aware that in some vulnerable individuals, adaptive thermogenesis can be multi-causal, and has the capacity to compensate, at least partly, for the prescribed energy deficit, possibly going beyond any good compliance of some patients.
For that last one, besides genetics - what else is going on in life that could be stressful?
Which perhaps is the reason for the difference in study results. Besides their weight, how stressed are the participants? And for those that did different types of exercise, usually at reasonable levels, what would have been the results at what is observed to be little more unreasonable levels, 6 x weekly for 1 hr daily intense something?
What if these folks had 60 hr jobs too, and care-giving, ect?
I dare say for some of these studies, the folks that have the ability to give that much time to being locked up for couple days at a time may not have much else going on in life, except perhaps stress over needing a job.0 -
But really, for every study you find where they didn't have problems (and some of those studies comment specifically on using participants that have never dieted before. Most of course try to use otherwise healthy folks, some studies don't comment one way or another), you can find studies where there are changes.
Some have to do with where you are on the journey. Bunch to lose, huge window of opportunity. Later on, great chance of difficulty.
The question is for people - where is your body going to sit in the scheme of easy, or difficult?
If it's easy, great. If it's not, starting on the low end really just causes the problems.
Perhaps the advice would be, don't start at 1200, start reasonable. If you have no weight loss and not doing tons of new exercise that would actually cause body improvement and gain, then slowly lower, wait 3 weeks and see what really happens. It beats having 3-9 month stall and slowly moving up until you start losing again, after already having lost muscle mass because you also did the exercise and protein aspect worst way it could be done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305
Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
TEE, NREE, and (to a lesser extent) REE were significantly lower in the Wt(loss-sustained) and Wt(loss-recent) groups than in the Wt(initial) group. Differences from the Wt(initial) group in energy expenditure were qualitatively and quantitatively similar after recent and sustained weight loss.
CONCLUSION:
Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11010936
The TEE inside Biosphere 2, assessed 3 wk before exit, averaged 10700 +/- 560 kJ/d (n = 8). Within 1 wk after exit, the adjusted 24-h EE and spontaneous physical activity were lower in the biospherians (n = 5) than in 152 control subjects (6% and 45%, respectively; both P: < 0.01). Six months after exit and return to an ad libitum diet, body weight had increased to preentry levels; however, adjusted 24-h EE and spontaneous physical activity were still significantly lower than in control subjects.
CONCLUSIONS:
In lean humans, an adaptive decrease in EE appears to occur not only in states of life-threatening undernutrition, but also in response to less severe energy restriction sustained over several years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
May recover, and lucky for women perhaps.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
Only about half the women got off lucky in this one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
This issue has been documented in recent studies that have shown in obese individuals adhering to a weight reduction program a greater than predicted decrease in EE, which in some cases was quantitatively sufficient to overcome the prescribed energy restriction, suggesting a role for adaptive thermogenesis in unsuccessful weight loss interventions and reduced body weight maintenance. As also discussed in this paper, this 'adaptive thermogenesis' can be influenced by environmental factors, which have not been frequently considered up to now. This is potentially the case for plasma organochlorine concentration and oxygen desaturation in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. It is concluded that health professionals should be aware that in some vulnerable individuals, adaptive thermogenesis can be multi-causal, and has the capacity to compensate, at least partly, for the prescribed energy deficit, possibly going beyond any good compliance of some patients.
For that last one, besides genetics - what else is going on in life that could be stressful?
Which perhaps is the reason for the difference in study results. Besides their weight, how stressed are the participants? And for those that did different types of exercise, usually at reasonable levels, what would have been the results at what is observed to be little more unreasonable levels, 6 x weekly for 1 hr daily intense something?
What if these folks had 60 hr jobs too, and care-giving, ect?
I dare say for some of these studies, the folks that have the ability to give that much time to being locked up for couple days at a time may not have much else going on in life, except perhaps stress over needing a job.
I definitely agree with what you are saying. I think that people should get a good idea of where they are either by having an initial RMR test done (which I wish I had done) or by estimating based on TDEE estimates. However, estimates are often off by quite a bit and if a person finds that they are not working (in either direction, unhealthy levels of weight loss or no weight loss) they should feel free to change those calorie goals until they find something that works for them. (This was one part of what I was trying to say).
When I did my research, I definitely looked for the research that applied to me. Overweight/obese women who participate in a strength training program and consume appropriate levels of macro nutrients. Some of the studies you cited have restricted calories over several years by quite a bit more than 1200cal. Several of the studies you quoted here discuss lean or healthy weight people. I am definitely not in either category.
What works for one person does not necessarily work for another. I think that each person should do whatever they think is best. My point was certainly not to argue that 1200 calories is a better way to lose weight but to show that it is working well for me. With only small differences in the parameters of a study, the answer can go one way or another (as you mentioned) this is the reason I had the DXA scans and lab work done in the first place, I want to know which way my weight is going.
TL:DR version: I agree with most of what you are saying, my point is just "different strokes for different folks."0 -
Oh my, my goal weight on here is 80lbs! That isn't actually my goal weight. When I signed up I just rushed to input some data. I don't even use the goal weight thing on here because I have no goal weight as such. Haha.
I'm not aspiring to be that weight.0 -
For more information on variances in BMR between individuals, this study is very interesting:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.fullLike all previous studies (50–55), we found enormous variation in between-subject BMR (26%) that was not explained by differences in body composition or age (or sex). This variation could not be attributed to either within-subject error or analytic error, which together only summed to 2% of the total variance (less than one-tenth of the unexplained variation). In part, this unexplained variance may reflect the inadequacies of our characterization of body composition into only 3 compartments (FFM, FM, and bone mineral content).
...
Like many other studies, our work has indicated a large between-individual variation in BMR that cannot be explained by morphologic characteristics, including sex and age.
Basically, there was a 26% variance in BMR between individuals not related to LBM (or ffm whichever you prefer), age, sex, or fat mass.
If I take this and extrapolate with a number given for bmr, let's say 1600 for the sake of round easy numbers, I would get a variance of 416 cal/day.
416 cal/day for BMR alone, so the differences in TDEE would be much higher. 1600 x 1.55 (for moderately active) would give 2480. If the BMR measurement were over by 416 cal/day actual BMR would be 1184, 1184 x 1.55 would give 1835 for TDEE.
If I used the higher number (the online estimate) when in fact my BMR was actually 26% different, and I did the TDEE-20%, it would tell me to consume 1984 cal/day which would be 149 calories higher than actual TDEE causing me to gain a pound every 23.5 days.
My point in all of this is that without actually going and having my BMR or RMR tested, they are all estimates that can be pretty far off. If this were the method I wanted to follow, I would go have my RMR tested so that I would know where to set my goals. There have been other studies that showed BMR to be closer to 30% different than estimates.
If the variance is 26% (nice article) the actual estimated difference you should see from the mean is less than 13% (ie +- 26%). Given that the distribution is likely Gaussian, I'd say there is a 99% chance that personal measures fall within +- 11%.
So a TDEE -20% is still at least TDEE-9% to TDEE-31% for 99 out of a hundred people.
Feel free to correct me or do the actual standard deviations.
The thought crossed my mind but in this particular article, it compares people to people not people to estimates (given by mathematical modeling). The people to estimates articles which I have read (and I cannot find them right now, but they are out there) showed a greater variance so for the purposes of simplicity, I assumed that the person at the highest end was at the estimate. There are very obvious problems with this but I wasn't shooting for a real number so much as trying to demonstrate issues with basing everything on a number that could be off by quite a bit in either direction (again, this article doesn't state what the variance from the estimated value is, it only measures the variance between people).
So yes you are more right but I think the actual number for measured BMR to calculated BMR was more like 30 something percent (but again, I couldn't find the article right now and I'm trying to spend some time actually doing homework in addition to responding to this
)
Variance is a reality of any model and sampling process. So I think that when you re-find those articles we can discuss what they mean by variance but if they published using that word it should be based on the exact definition of the average of the squared difference of the mean.
And this article does provide a model:
So here is my math:
if the residual variance = 26%
then the standard deviation is 5% (the square root of variance)
which means that the residual variance not accounted by age, LBM, body fat (this is interesting btw) is +-10% eBMR for 95% of the population and +-15% for 99.7% of the population.
So, that means that if the estimated BMR is 1400, the cutoffs at that estimate are only off by 140 cals for 95% of the population.
If the model calculates a BMR of 1200, 99.7% of the population should fall within 1020 and 1380.
In reality the model does not seem to have huge differences, the real issue is how you measure LBM and bf% - the variability of the tools used to measure that will give more variance that the equation does for most people.
But, thank you, I've been meaning to look at the SD of these models for a while.
Good luck with your studies!0 -
Lets all do some simple math shall we?
If we need .70-1g protein per pound of lbm to maintain LBM.
And we need .45-.70g fat per pound of LBM to maintain good hormonal levels.
If protein =4cals per gram and fat =9cals per gram....
Most people at 1200cals won't get proper nutrients from food to maintain LBM while cutting nor would the help their hormonal state.
Discuss
I understand that people can lose and lose quite successfully on 1200 calories a day. What I want to know is are they able to keep it off long-term? I highly doubt it. I lost 30 pounds twice by eating 1200 calories a day and walking. I was eating healthier and felt great but I was skinny-fat and the weight piled back on when I began to eat normally.
I think people like me comprise the 90% of the population that regain the weight. Low calorie diets are effective in scale loss but you usually end up with a slowed metabolism and high bf %. This time I have upped my calories to around 1600-2000 a day. I still eat junk (working on that) and am lifting weights three times a week. I don't feel deprived, I'm not hungry and in the month and half I have not had one binge episode. The scale isn't moving much but my body fat % is going down and I am losing inches. I feel this is maintainable.
Thanks for the IPOARM Dan. I'm following the guidelines and am seeing success without much effort at all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions