Has anyone followed the calorie suggestion in NROLFW?

teachmissg

Since the beginning of March I have been eating at TDEE-5% which equals 2198, and have not seen any changes in my body. No weight loss, and no inches lost, pants still feeling tight and to be honest, I feel like my legs might look a little fleshier--but I could be paranoid

Anyway, I want to try to shake things up a little bit, I'm ready to see some inches lost. I have the New Rules of Lifting for Women and according the book for weight loss my cals should look like this:

No workout: 1645
Active workout: 1888
Strenuous Workout: 2132

Has anyone followed the suggestions in the book? If so did it work? Going from 2198 to 1645 seems like a pretty drastic reduction, especially if I am maintaining on 2198. I don't want to make excuses, if this is what I need to do I want to do it, but I also don't want to sacrifice where my metabolism might have healed over the last month.

Any thoughts?

Greenrun99

You wouldn't drop to 1645 because you are active... these numbers are all a guess, pick one, stick with it for a decent amount of time, if no change in anything try a different number.

heybales

Since the beginning of March I have been eating at TDEE-5% which equals 2198, and have not seen any changes in my body. No weight loss, and no inches lost, pants still feeling tight and to be honest, I feel like my legs might look a little fleshier--but I could be paranoid

Anyway, I want to try to shake things up a little bit, I'm ready to see some inches lost. I have the New Rules of Lifting for Women and according the book for weight loss my cals should look like this:

No workout: 1645
Active workout: 1888
Strenuous Workout: 2132

Has anyone followed the suggestions in the book? If so did it work? Going from 2198 to 1645 seems like a pretty drastic reduction, especially if I am maintaining on 2198. I don't want to make excuses, if this is what I need to do I want to do it, but I also don't want to sacrifice where my metabolism might have healed over the last month.

Any thoughts?

So 5% means very narrow margin for error, both on needing to log everything correctly and weigh it, and in selecting the right TDEE for the burning side of the equation.
And may need a month to see much of anything anyway.

Did you base BMR on Katch BMR with BF estimate? That could be 200-400 below a Harris BMR that was used.

After that is checked and values used, it's the activity level itself to adjust. You may be able to hone in on better estimate with this.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

teachmissg

I used this calculator http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ to figure everything out.

Thanks for your advice, however, the spreadsheet you linked to makes my head hurt and I honestly, can't imagine adding that kind of stress right now.

You are right about 5% being a small margin for error, and all the weighing and measuring does get a little obsessive at times. That's why I was thinking I should try to use the numbers from the book.

All I'm really wondering is if anyone else used the info from the book, and how it worked for folks.

heybales

Good, but did you use the Most Accurate link and use the Katch BMR?

Again, your foundation for the math may be way off.

The spreadsheet can have that effect on people, usually when they don't look around the colors and read what it is actually asking for.
4 stats you have memorized.
8 measurements you better have to see progress.
Loose idea of your exercise time.

Nothing else.

For weighing food super accurately, really only need to do that a couple weeks to see if you are badly off using normal methods of serving size and such.

But here is thread on the NROLFW with comments throughout.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538943-how-to-calculate-calorie-goals-according-to-nrolfw?hl=nrolfw

Not really sure how you think using the numbers from the book is going to remove the requirement for logging food accurately.
Ball park figures are going to give you ball park results.