In Place of a Road Map: Short N' Sweet

Mischievous_Rascal

Bumping for awesomeness.

JG762

Tag for later review...

Helloitsdan

Hello! This is a great post so thank you so much for creating a simpler, clearer version.

I would like to clarify my BMR and especially my TDEE. My stats are:
Age: 22
Height: 5 ft 1
CW: 116 lbs
GW: 105 lbs
Body fat % : on average 24.4% (working to get it down to 20%)

Based on the calculations here http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/, I get the following TDEE:

Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) - 1612
Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) - 1847
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) - 2082
Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) - 2317
Extremely Active (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.) - 2552

I am sitting down at the desk all day long, barely going over 1,000 steps a day based on my pedometer, sometimes even less. However, I started Fitnessblender's 8 week Fat Loss program this Jan 1, 2014 and I work out 5x a week, averaging 30~60 minutes per workout. So literally, I am only active for 30~60 minutes of the day. Currently, I have increased by calories to 1,300 (used to be 1,200). I take 2 days off during the weekend or substitute 1 day during the weekday if my muscles are sore.

Thus, based on my activity level, should I still be considered sedentary? Really need some clarification on this.

Finally, if I eat 1,300 calories a day, should I eat back exercise calories?

Thanks!

1000 steps a day will surely have you riding a motorized wheelchair when you are 60....

First simply add walking to your day.
If you use fitness blender, do it maybe 3 days a week for strength then the rest should simply be walking.
Just walk.
Everywhere!
Eat at full moderate TDEE till you maintain your weight, then you'll notice the fat slowly drop.
That is as long as you do the strength training.
If you forgo strength training and opt strictly for cardio, kiss mobility at older age goodbye.

dapunks

BUMP

2bfit4me4ever

Bump.

Stephiestephs

would you mind giving your opinion?
after my first baby i found your threads and followed bmr/tdee method and was losing 1 lb a week. i got pg again, after having my second healthy baby boy this past december, i had to take it easy for 6 wks so i was eating around 13-1400 cals a day because i wasnt moving too much. some nights a little less just because of how the day went by.
also i am pumping my breast milk 3-4 times per 24hr period. (but i dont want to add cals for this because with first baby i did and gained weight)
so after i left hosp i lost 13 pounds eating avg 13-1400 cals a day in about 5 weeks.
the last 2 weeks i have been stuck at 174-175
last week i started T25 at home

so, last night i did my numbers according to this post. i found out my bmr according to katch on fat 2 fit is 1509 harris 1553

do you think the weight loss stall is due to not eating my bmr for 8 weeks?

also do you prefer to use the tdee numbers from fat 2 fit or the manual calculations you provide (bmr x 1.3 etc etc) to find calorie deficit because there is a large discrepancy between the two by 100 calories give or take.

do i follow katch bmr or harris provided on fat2fit? i did do an avg bf% as you suggested.

any help would be appreciated!

ggeise14

Bump (want the short version)

heybales

would you mind giving your opinion?
after my first baby i found your threads and followed bmr/tdee method and was losing 1 lb a week. i got pg again, after having my second healthy baby boy this past december, i had to take it easy for 6 wks so i was eating around 13-1400 cals a day because i wasnt moving too much. some nights a little less just because of how the day went by.
also i am pumping my breast milk 3-4 times per 24hr period. (but i dont want to add cals for this because with first baby i did and gained weight)
so after i left hosp i lost 13 pounds eating avg 13-1400 cals a day in about 5 weeks.
the last 2 weeks i have been stuck at 174-175
last week i started T25 at home

so, last night i did my numbers according to this post. i found out my bmr according to katch on fat 2 fit is 1509 harris 1553

do you think the weight loss stall is due to not eating my bmr for 8 weeks?

also do you prefer to use the tdee numbers from fat 2 fit or the manual calculations you provide (bmr x 1.3 etc etc) to find calorie deficit because there is a large discrepancy between the two by 100 calories give or take.

do i follow katch bmr or harris provided on fat2fit? i did do an avg bf% as you suggested.

any help would be appreciated!

First, and you may be commenting on noticing this - the fat2fit site TDEE eating levels is based on Harris BMR, despite the fact they are showing Katch. So yes that table is inflated from what it should be.

Second, your body is expending extra energy making milk, it does count. As such, you create too big a deficit your body will fight you.

Are you close to 5" for that low of TDEE?

You might get a best estimate of BF%, and BMR, and activity level, and TDEE, from the Simple Setup tab in my spreadsheet on my profile page.

I'm betting you are undercutting too much, body is stressed out, and it's slowed down your spontaneous activity and lowered your metabolism some to adapt.

Since it sounds like you've been on a diet for 6-8 weeks while body was trying to recovery, probably time to work your way slowly up to estimated TDEE to get a diet break, which is always useful anyway.

Stephiestephs

would you mind giving your opinion?
after my first baby i found your threads and followed bmr/tdee method and was losing 1 lb a week. i got pg again, after having my second healthy baby boy this past december, i had to take it easy for 6 wks so i was eating around 13-1400 cals a day because i wasnt moving too much. some nights a little less just because of how the day went by.
also i am pumping my breast milk 3-4 times per 24hr period. (but i dont want to add cals for this because with first baby i did and gained weight)
so after i left hosp i lost 13 pounds eating avg 13-1400 cals a day in about 5 weeks.
the last 2 weeks i have been stuck at 174-175
last week i started T25 at home

so, last night i did my numbers according to this post. i found out my bmr according to katch on fat 2 fit is 1509 harris 1553

do you think the weight loss stall is due to not eating my bmr for 8 weeks?

also do you prefer to use the tdee numbers from fat 2 fit or the manual calculations you provide (bmr x 1.3 etc etc) to find calorie deficit because there is a large discrepancy between the two by 100 calories give or take.

do i follow katch bmr or harris provided on fat2fit? i did do an avg bf% as you suggested.

any help would be appreciated!

First, and you may be commenting on noticing this - the fat2fit site TDEE eating levels is based on Harris BMR, despite the fact they are showing Katch. So yes that table is inflated from what it should be.

Second, your body is expending extra energy making milk, it does count. As such, you create too big a deficit your body will fight you.

Are you close to 5" for that low of TDEE?

You might get a best estimate of BF%, and BMR, and activity level, and TDEE, from the Simple Setup tab in my spreadsheet on my profile page.

I'm betting you are undercutting too much, body is stressed out, and it's slowed down your spontaneous activity and lowered your metabolism some to adapt.

Since it sounds like you've been on a diet for 6-8 weeks while body was trying to recovery, probably time to work your way slowly up to estimated TDEE to get a diet break, which is always useful anyway.

thank you for responding. yes i am bout 5'3"-5'4". ok i will take a look at your profile page.

heybales

thank you for responding. yes i am bout 5'3"-5'4". ok i will take a look at your profile page.

Nope, short is 5'1" or less to probably have a TDEE that includes everything that low. Now, perhaps with Katch BMR you are that low because you've lost some muscle mass compared to others your age, weight, height.
That would be a bummer of course, but can work within that constraint by eating less than others.
But you don't want to go too low and risk more loss if that's the case.

Stephiestephs

thank you for responding. yes i am bout 5'3"-5'4". ok i will take a look at your profile page.

Nope, short is 5'1" or less to probably have a TDEE that includes everything that low. Now, perhaps with Katch BMR you are that low because you've lost some muscle mass compared to others your age, weight, height.
That would be a bummer of course, but can work within that constraint by eating less than others.
But you don't want to go too low and risk more loss if that's the case.

bmr on your google file is 1475. it may be that i have a lot of belly still from pregnancy and i have to be careful when i am pregnant first one i was on bedrest and this one pretty much no walking, lifting etc. not bedrest but had to be very careful. so i am sure i have lost a ton of muscle mass??

heybales

bmr on your google file is 1475. it may be that i have a lot of belly still from pregnancy and i have to be careful when i am pregnant first one i was on bedrest and this one pretty much no walking, lifting etc. not bedrest but had to be very careful. so i am sure i have lost a ton of muscle mass??

If your Katch BMR based on decent estimate of BF% is 1475, and by age, weight, height is 1553, then not that bad at all, good job. Katch is usually within 5-7%.

Now though, you say you are eating 1300-1400 and not losing weight.

So either your logging is sloppy and you are eating much more than that, and whatever that true higher figure is is really your true TDEE and you have no deficit in place.
or ....
Your logging is decent enough, and you have suppressed your body down so bad the 1300-1400 is your TDEE now, and your real BMR is a tad lower.

If it is the former, then you would just take out some calories from your incorrect 1300-1400 knowing you are actually eating more.
But if you are not sure you are logging decently, and you do that - you'll just be chasing a falling metabolism right on in to the ground.

Now, eventually, you can only suppress it so much, couple studies have said 20% max they saw, and eventually if you cut enough you will start losing.

So up to you to answer - how accurate is your logging?

You feel confident enough it's accurate enough to eat less and not be crashing your daily burn even more?
One study showed improvement eating at maintenance after only 3 months, though it was still lower than it could have been if it had not been adapted.
Another study showed it took upwards of 6 years to recover, in which case finish the weight loss and accept that maintenance eating is going to suck big time for potentially a long time, as any extra eaten is easily going to end up as fat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401

Stephiestephs

bmr on your google file is 1475. it may be that i have a lot of belly still from pregnancy and i have to be careful when i am pregnant first one i was on bedrest and this one pretty much no walking, lifting etc. not bedrest but had to be very careful. so i am sure i have lost a ton of muscle mass??

If your Katch BMR based on decent estimate of BF% is 1475, and by age, weight, height is 1553, then not that bad at all, good job. Katch is usually within 5-7%.

Now though, you say you are eating 1300-1400 and not losing weight.

So either your logging is sloppy and you are eating much more than that, and whatever that true higher figure is is really your true TDEE and you have no deficit in place.
or ....
Your logging is decent enough, and you have suppressed your body down so bad the 1300-1400 is your TDEE now, and your real BMR is a tad lower.

If it is the former, then you would just take out some calories from your incorrect 1300-1400 knowing you are actually eating more.
But if you are not sure you are logging decently, and you do that - you'll just be chasing a falling metabolism right on in to the ground.

Now, eventually, you can only suppress it so much, couple studies have said 20% max they saw, and eventually if you cut enough you will start losing.

So up to you to answer - how accurate is your logging?

You feel confident enough it's accurate enough to eat less and not be crashing your daily burn even more?
One study showed improvement eating at maintenance after only 3 months, though it was still lower than it could have been if it had not been adapted.
Another study showed it took upwards of 6 years to recover, in which case finish the weight loss and accept that maintenance eating is going to suck big time for potentially a long time, as any extra eaten is easily going to end up as fat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401

i am pretty accurate and honest about my logging. if there are inaccuracies its because i chose inaccurate MFP entries. or times when i have eaten out. last time i was losing at about 1650 cals and incline walking with some weights. so this time around, i was eating at 13-1400 because i wasnt working out. but i guess i should've tried to figure out my bmr from the beginning. i dont want to mess up my metabolism at all. i want to do this right. and i love eating i dont wasnt to end up having to eat next to nothing.

heybales

i am pretty accurate and honest about my logging. if there are inaccuracies its because i chose inaccurate MFP entries. or times when i have eaten out. last time i was losing at about 1650 cals and incline walking with some weights. so this time around, i was eating at 13-1400 because i wasnt working out. but i guess i should've tried to figure out my bmr from the beginning. i dont want to mess up my metabolism at all. i want to do this right. and i love eating i dont wasnt to end up having to eat next to nothing.

If the glove fits then you must ...... oh wait, wrong situation. ;-)

It never hurts to go a tad higher to see if some recovery can be had.

It's either that or cut some calories from what you are eating.
If an initial loss stops quickly, then you'll know that wasn't the right direction and your body had room to adapt even more, erasing your deficit.
At which point you could decide to try going down even more. And hope it doesn't happen again or too many times.

Or, go higher, 100 daily for a week at a time. If truly eating over your TDEE, it would take you 7 weeks to gain 1 lb.
If anything faster, you were at suppressed TDEE and body finally got to top off some glycogen stores with water.
Keep heading up weekly, another 100 cal daily, to an estimated TDEE.
If you gain fast water weight several times, good, that's increased metabolism right there, because that is more LBM. May not be muscle, but managing that extra water in the cells takes energy from the body.

Helloitsdan

i am pretty accurate and honest about my logging. if there are inaccuracies its because i chose inaccurate MFP entries. or times when i have eaten out. last time i was losing at about 1650 cals and incline walking with some weights. so this time around, i was eating at 13-1400 because i wasnt working out. but i guess i should've tried to figure out my bmr from the beginning. i dont want to mess up my metabolism at all. i want to do this right. and i love eating i dont wasnt to end up having to eat next to nothing.

If the glove fits then you must ...... oh wait, wrong situation. ;-)

It never hurts to go a tad higher to see if some recovery can be had.

It's either that or cut some calories from what you are eating.
If an initial loss stops quickly, then you'll know that wasn't the right direction and your body had room to adapt even more, erasing your deficit.
At which point you could decide to try going down even more. And hope it doesn't happen again or too many times.

Or, go higher, 100 daily for a week at a time. If truly eating over your TDEE, it would take you 7 weeks to gain 1 lb.
If anything faster, you were at suppressed TDEE and body finally got to top off some glycogen stores with water.
Keep heading up weekly, another 100 cal daily, to an estimated TDEE.
If you gain fast water weight several times, good, that's increased metabolism right there, because that is more LBM. May not be muscle, but managing that extra water in the cells takes energy from the body.

I have programs that use this type of adaptation to its advantage for fat loss and muscle gain.
Patience and a little elbow grease and you'll get strong and lean!

Stephiestephs

You think I destroyed my metabolism/bmr in the 5 weeks I ate 13-1400 cals post partum?

heybales

You think I destroyed my metabolism/bmr in the 5 weeks I ate 13-1400 cals post partum?

What was your body really desiring during that time?

Do you have good or bad genetics for fast body adapting when it feels stressed?

Helloitsdan

Adaptation takes 3+ weeks so using the word "destroy" is a bit harsh.
I think Dr Layne Norton says for every month of LCD you should double that in maintenance to "recover".
Some people diet for years and they come out of it a little leaner....and unable to have kids.
Yikes!!!!

How about we all eat in good health and lift and the lean bodies just simply happen!

pinkLyfe

Following

Tasha2121

Bump.

tambam69

bump

beawych

bump

Helloitsdan

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153827138905471&id=535740470&set=o.342385002516919&notif_t=wall&ref=m_notif

a_d_t

Hate to jump on the end of a long (and super helpful) thread, but figured it's the same topic and no need to start new! I need some opinions on the activity level to choose, as I am a recovering "need to eat little calories to be little" and the TDEE I come up with is terrifying!

Stats:
29 yr old female
5'2

Each of the BF calc (respective to the OP):
26.4%
24.8%
36%
Avg: 29%

Avg BMR from the calcs: 1586 (but I am thinking I should stick with the Mifflin total of 1501 due to stated over-inflation of the figures)

Now to the activity level; yep, desk job..yada yada. However, I do pole fitness 6 days a week, totaling 6-7 hours per week. No need to insert gifs here, I've seen them Pole is not easy, but it is hard to identify my "level" as I'm not lifting weights (aside from my entire body!) or running/cardio in a traditional sense. Also, the activity level hangup I'm certain is in my head, as when I put in 1.7 for the active level (working out 6-7 days), my TDEE is crazy high at 2552.

Essentially, if someone can confirm the activity level, I would feel better eating so much as it seems crazy that I should be eating 2042 calories a day and would lose weight. Preaching to the choir as you hear this often...but that is a lot of food!

Sorry for the book, but while the inches are coming off from muscle gains, lbs coming off would be nice as it's a lot of work to lift all that body weight off the ground! Thank you!

heybales

Hate to jump on the end of a long (and super helpful) thread, but figured it's the same topic and no need to start new! I need some opinions on the activity level to choose, as I am a recovering "need to eat little calories to be little" and the TDEE I come up with is terrifying!

Stats:
29 yr old female
5'2

Each of the BF calc (respective to the OP):
26.4%
24.8%
36%
Avg: 29%

Avg BMR from the calcs: 1586 (but I am thinking I should stick with the Mifflin total of 1501 due to stated over-inflation of the figures)

Now to the activity level; yep, desk job..yada yada. However, I do pole fitness 6 days a week, totaling 6-7 hours per week. No need to insert gifs here, I've seen them Pole is not easy, but it is hard to identify my "level" as I'm not lifting weights (aside from my entire body!) or running/cardio in a traditional sense. Also, the activity level hangup I'm certain is in my head, as when I put in 1.7 for the active level (working out 6-7 days), my TDEE is crazy high at 2552.

Essentially, if someone can confirm the activity level, I would feel better eating so much as it seems crazy that I should be eating 2042 calories a day and would lose weight. Preaching to the choir as you hear this often...but that is a lot of food!

Sorry for the book, but while the inches are coming off from muscle gains, lbs coming off would be nice as it's a lot of work to lift all that body weight off the ground! Thank you!

Use Katch BMR actually based on that avg BF%, you may have less, or more, LBM than the average study participants in the Mifflin BMR study results.

The body weight stuff is great, though it may not balance muscle use as much, but it's very strength training.

How long are the holds where you are straining as if lifting something, and how long are the rests between those?

If it varies all over the place, I'd consider it high cardio level of calorie burn. While not cardio, it's like circuit training, long reps (or holds), brief rests, moving from muscle group to muscle group and back around again.

Why do I say high cardio? From the spreadsheet on my profile page that can help with that activity calc.

Basically add to a sedentary TDEE the results of the following count.
0.1743456 x current weight x minutes a week / 7 = average daily calories added to sedentary level.

Now, see if you can figure out exactly how much you've been eating on average for however long.

Because if you are losing inches and getting stronger - your are eating at maintenance.

You could just chop 250 calories off what you eat. That takes care of perhaps sloppy logging causing you to eat more than you think.
Or burning more than you think. Just find 250 calories daily you can remove.
Then you don't have to get more accurate on eating or burning.

Now, as the spreadsheet deals with, and that formula shows - you weigh less you burn less - you eat less.

a_d_t

Thanks for the help! I downloaded your spreadsheet (thanks!) and tried to input the info correctly. Based on your advice I used the 7 hours a week of High Cardio as the workouts are very similar to circuit based. Not sure if this helps, or is un-useful data, but my HR monitor shows an average burn of 305 cal per hour. The first 30 mins is conditioning (squats, lunges, pushups, burpees, abs, abs, abs), second half of class is pole (lifts, body resistance, holds, climbs). The burn ranges from 270-465 depending on the class type for the day

The spreadsheet shows TDEE of 2895, TDEG of 2316. The equation of "0.1743456 x current weight x minutes a week / 7 = average daily calories added to sedentary level" puts me over 3800 cals so I must've done something incredibly wrong!

The eating/calorie question (insert your grumble and shaking head): I didn't track - shocking I know-- I eat whole, and primal-y. After being diagnosed with Celiac, I ate carefully, and very similar each day. My weight has stayed within 2.6 lbs for the last 14 months. Calculated average intake was 1650-1800 give or take. I followed the, "eat whole food when I am hungry- don't eat when you're not" thought. I wasn't working out consistently during that time (yoga once a week, a run here and there), so while my weight was not moving around, I was in the truest sense of the word, getting "fatter". BF increase, LBM decreased, clothes became tighter. Enter my workouts. For 3 months I have done the above workout schedule consistently, come hell or high water, and have been eating 1750-1850 cals a day. Macros of 40F, 35P, 25C. I assumed keeping my calories fairly close to what they were, and adding in my fitness routine, the weight would come off and the muscles would come back Obviously, that is currently only half true. So, do I try and cut 250 off of my 1800 avg, or follow the TDEE-20% from your spreadsheet and eat 2300? I apologize for the lengthy response! You probably thought you could be done after this! lol!

heybales

Oh no, I had more questions, you gave more answers and more questions. No problem.

So that line where you put your high cardio weekly 420 minutes, actually uses that formula already, and added it to sedentary TDEE to give you Your Results TDEE.

You didn't need to do that separate if using the spreadsheet. I provided it separate in case you didn't or couldn't.

The HRM for that type of activity is going to be inflated to some degree, depending on how un-steady-state it is.
HRM formula for calorie burn is only valid in the aerobic exercise range for steady-state HR 2-4 min.
You are doing non-steady-state, and likely decent anaerobic for short periods just like the conditioning part.
So if using HRM, forget calories, watch the avgHR to watch improvements in fitness, should see avgHR come down as you get more fit, and weigh less.

Can't really use the method I gave to drop 250 calories then, because you really don't know how much you were eating.
But you are correct, if you were eating at potential maintenance, you could have just added in the exercise to create a deficit, and confirm you eat the same amount.
But you don't know if you were at potential maintenance, or still suppressed maintenance.

So testing the TDEG, and actually the TDEE, would be good.
Add 100 daily each week to your eating goal, slowly making your way up to TDEG, then keep heading up to TDEE for a diet break.
Expect small water weight increases as body is finally able to store more glycogen with attached water in the muscle.

Always keep the math in mind, you'd have to eat 250 calories daily over maintenance (potential or suppressed) for 2 weeks straight to see 1 lb of weight gained, and with your workout, not even much of it fat.
If it's more than 1 lb quicker - wasn't fat, wasn't surplus, but rather water weight.

a_d_t

Thank you so much! Makes sense on the spreadsheet now!

I've noticed my HR improving over the last two months (decreasing really, as my heart gets stronger), so I wondered about the actual burn seeing as it does not calculate my BF or other changes, only weight. I wore it for 14 hours one day to see if it would say anything near a fractional TDEE. 14 hours indicated over 2100 calories...again this was just sitting and living, no working out, but that was my first indicator that my body might need more than 1700 calories a day!

I will slowly add 100 to get to the TDEG of 2300. Yikes. Scary. I thought I was being brave by trying to eat 1850-1900 a day for the last month and have seen no change! Thank you again for the time and suggestions! Keeping the math in mind...it's not scary, and math doesn't lie...repeat Thank you!

heybales

The formula's used in HRM for calculating calories from HR are only valid in the exercise aerobic range, steady-state HR as I mentioned.
So lower than exercise is inflated just as anaerobic and non-steady state is. Invalid use of the tool for TDEE. Sorry.

Garmin using Firstbeat algorithms are the only ones claiming to have below exercise decent estimate, and I think they just use BMR/RMR for any HR below 90.

So your HR going lower means your heart isn't getting as much of a workout - but if your intensity and weight are exactly the same - you are burning the same calories.

But that's where a cheaper HRM doesn't know that, it assumes lower HR, easier workout.
Unless it has a VO2max stat. Because if that goes higher, that means the same HR is actually burning more, and lower HR is burning the same as lower VO2max stat HR would be higher.

Yes, repeating the math is always good.

Really brave is doing the 2 week test after you think you ate at TDEE for 2 weeks.
Take 2 more weeks and really eat 250 above TDEE.
Again, should only be 1 lb more gain slowly. But it proves the TDEE out for whatever the workout routine is.

Then you adjust the Activity Calc to reach that tested TDEE.

Then as weight drops and calorie burns on activity is less, Activity Calc takes that in to account and lowers correctly, even if your BMR stays the same by retaining LBM.

Cath_Taylor

Bump for book marking!