I've noticed women who have high cal diets...how?

How are you losing weight eating 1700 to 2100 cals a day? I mean not that I'm jealous or anything:sad:

For me, I think that I have a high LBM. I played endless team sports all the way into my 20s. But I lose a pound a week on 1900 calories without exercise other than walking. I don't have time to play team sports these days.

My BMR is about 1750 and my TDEE is about 2500. I guess it seems strange to me that someone would have a BMR of less than 1000. I'm not sure how that happens. :ohwell:

because calories in calories out is a crock. Quality calories and workouts are a whole nother story...

This implies that I am only able to maintain on 2800 because I only eat 'quality calories' and workout a lot. This is not true, I fit plenty of junk into my day (as well as healthy food - I love all food). I don't workout heaps but I am pretty active in everyday life.

I do not own a car. I cycle everywhere. I lift heavy weights 3 times per week. I work full time in a non sedentary job. I eat 1800 - 2000 cals per day.

I'm not understanding this concept and I know its so repetitive and annoying... But I was eating around 1200 calories a day before workouts where I was burning almost 1000 Calories. Anyway, scale wasnt moving so I upped my calories to 1200 net, eating back what I burn each day. I'm losing inches but not lbs... And every cal calculator and app I've looked at tells me I need to eat wayyyy more than what I am. That just makes no sense to me what so ever. I don't feel like I could eat more than I am now... And I have a lot to lose and am sick of seeing the scales not moving and working my butt off!!!

Please don't focus only on the scale weight, it only tells a small part of the story. Loss of inches means far more than what the scale says! Your body fat percentage (i.e. how much of your body is fat) is far more important, both for health and what you look like. The fact you're losing inches means that you are losing fat, i.e. your body fat percentage is going down and you're carrying less fat. That means far more than scale weight going down.

Healthy bones and muscles are heavier than weak, unhealthy ones. Undereating causes your bones and muscles to get weaker and lighter. People on low calorie diets see this as success because they see the scale weight going down, but actually it's bad for health and does not make you look good either. Weighing less only improves health if what you're losing is all fat. Strong, healthy bones and muscles are heavier and healthy muscles are what gives fit people a more firm, fit appearance. If you were undereating before but are eating more now while also exercising, your body is probably rebuilding your bones and muscles, so they're getting heavier. The fact that you're losing inches means that you ARE losing fat, and if the scale doesn't show it (yet) then it's because your body's still rebuilding your bones and muscles. Eating more than what you're currently eating, so long as it's less than your TDEE, will help your body to do that and continue to lose fat.

Working out tons and eating to match your activity will make your metabolism soar. I found out the hard way

Working out tons isn't the answer either - in fact over training can be detrimental to weight/fat loss!

I am 44, 5'8", between 137-140lbs on any given day, and eating 1700 to 2000 calories per day. My average workout is less than an hour per day, alternating weights (I have dumbbells, would lift heavy with barbells if I had the funds for a gym or the big weights at home!) and running 3-6 miles, 3 days of each, and at least one rest day. I generally burn 250-350 calories per workout, except of the days when I run over 4 miles.

For most of us women in our 40s, this equates to 'working out tons'! lol

6 days a week, burning 250-350 in the gym 3 days and running 4 miles the other 3 days, is not the typical activity level for your average 40 something woman, or any person these days.
Bottom line is, if you want to eat more and still lose weight, you have to work out.. a LOT!

I beg to differ

I am 45 years old, weight train 4 days a week, have a desk job and lose on 2,000.

How are you losing weight eating 1700 to 2100 cals a day? I mean not that I'm jealous or anything:sad:

They work their butts off! You can eat more calories if you burn them off. No magic formula.

I actually only work out (lifting heavy) 3 days a week, less than an hour usually. I don't do any cardio. I think there may be several others on here too that would say that they do not live in the gym, either. If you know your numbers and where you can lose weight most efficiently (I said efficient, not fast!) then you don't have to really kill yourself doing it!

You burn over 700 calories in one workout. That is hard to do. You have to be working hard to burn at that rate. You may not be running or using the elliptical, but if you are elevating your heart rate and working up a sweat, then you are doing cardio as well as lifting.
700 X 3days a week equals 2100 calories. You don't have to have much of a diet deficit to lose weight when you burn this much. You could eat at maintenance and burn 3/4 of a pound.

1. They know what their actual TDEE is through experience or prediction formulas.
2. They do some form of regular exercise such as cardio, strength-training, or both which raises TDEE.
3. They understand there is a limit to how much fat mass that can be oxidized in one day thus choose a suitable deficit.
4. They eat the maximum amount of calories for steady fat loss instead of eating the minimum.

Eat more to lose more works for me! Currently eating 2000 per day.

I was starving and grumpy and not losing at 1200. Glad I smartened up!

I have a question about how to figure my tdee. What activity level should I enter? I am a stay at home mom so I think I am sedentary other than when I workout. Most days I am sitting doing school with my kids (we homeschool). I do the normal chores of housework, but those aren't strenuous. I workout about 6 days a week for 40-60 minutes. Burning anywhere from 300-600 calories per HRM. What I have done is put my activity level in as sedentary and then I try to eat back most of my exercise calories. So, right now I eat 1600 calories + exercise calories. I am 5'6" and 197 lbs. If I enter my activity as working out 3-5 hours per week the calculator tells me I can eat about 2000. Is that the same as what I am doing now?

If you have lost your weight so far at this calorie level and are continuing to lose now, then stick with what works for you. If your weight loss has stalled, then you might need to lower your cals just a bit to see if that helps.
I am 5'6" and 197 now after losing 31 pounds since August. I am 49, so probably a few years older than you, and my TDEE without exercise is around 1600. I eat around 1200 to lose less than a pound a week and burn an average 250-300 per day extra without eating them back to give me another 1/2 pound loss per week.
You being younger, probably have a higher BMR than I do. My BMR is only 1300.

I find it interesting how much variation there is with how much people can eat to maintain.

My TDEE, excluding exercise is about 2,000 - I am 45 years old, 5 6", 152lb and have a desk job.

BF% makes a HUGE difference. At 197, my BF% is still way over 40%. I am a housewife, no outside job, so other than riding my bike a few days a week, I get very little exercise thruout the day. The lower my weight drops, and the more I work out, the stronger I am getting. The extra activity now is making up for the decreased BMR due to the weight loss, so I can still eat at the same level I started at 4 months ago.
I also have a spinal disease and arthritis in my joints that has prevented me from lifting heavy weights and working out intensively, but I am improving and am able to do more than I could when I started. I did actually start doing a few dumbell curls (ok, I can do 5) with my real iron weights (15 lbs) I still have from my lifting days when I was 30. Before my accident. I have to be very careful not to aggravate my neck, but I am getting there. My 20s and 25s are still in the closet, where my hubby uses them now. Not sure if I will be able to get back to those again, but one can hope!
I have also added some Wii workouts, boxing and Wii Fit programs. That is helping as well.

I have a question about how to figure my tdee. What activity level should I enter? I am a stay at home mom so I think I am sedentary other than when I workout. Most days I am sitting doing school with my kids (we homeschool). I do the normal chores of housework, but those aren't strenuous. I workout about 6 days a week for 40-60 minutes. Burning anywhere from 300-600 calories per HRM. What I have done is put my activity level in as sedentary and then I try to eat back most of my exercise calories. So, right now I eat 1600 calories + exercise calories. I am 5'6" and 197 lbs. If I enter my activity as working out 3-5 hours per week the calculator tells me I can eat about 2000. Is that the same as what I am doing now?

If you have lost your weight so far at this calorie level and are continuing to lose now, then stick with what works for you. If your weight loss has stalled, then you might need to lower your cals just a bit to see if that helps.
I am 5'6" and 197 now after losing 31 pounds since August. I am 49, so probably a few years older than you, and my TDEE without exercise is around 1600. I eat around 1200 to lose less than a pound a week and burn an average 250-300 per day extra without eating them back to give me another 1/2 pound loss per week.
You being younger, probably have a higher BMR than I do. My BMR is only 1300.

I am curious to know how you calculated a bmr of 1300? I am 37 btw. I have tried to lose weight and preserve as much lean body mass as I can so that my metabolism will stay charged. Everything I have read says not to eat below bmr. Why do you eat below it? Do you gain weight if you eat above? Just curious.

http://www.cordianet.com/calculator.htm

This calculator gives a more accurate number for me than the MFP does. I am 49, 5'6", and at 197 still over 40% BF. A higher BF% lowers your BMR.
If you have a considerable amount of weight to lose, it is perfectly safe to eat a little below your BMR. 100-200 below is ok for those in the Obese category. The added fat stores provide extra fuel for my body to use. And burning those fat stores is how I am losing weight!

Experience over the past few years supports that I maintain on around 1600 cals without exercise. I could eat at only a 100 cal deficit, but then it would take over a month to lose one pound. I still have over 40 pounds to lose. I can lose 6-8 pounds per month without losing a lot of muscle mass, altho the closer I get to goal weight, the lower my deficit will need to be.

I'm not understanding this concept and I know its so repetitive and annoying... But I was eating around 1200 calories a day before workouts where I was burning almost 1000 Calories. Anyway, scale wasnt moving so I upped my calories to 1200 net, eating back what I burn each day. I'm losing inches but not lbs... And every cal calculator and app I've looked at tells me I need to eat wayyyy more than what I am. That just makes no sense to me what so ever. I don't feel like I could eat more than I am now... And I have a lot to lose and am sick of seeing the scales not moving and working my butt off!!!

You may be overestimating your calorie burns. Do you wear a HRM? or are you going by the MFP database or computers on the machines? If you are eating 2200 total cals per day, you are probably not too far below maintenance. But you show a good loss on your ticker, and if you are losing inches, that is good. Just be patient. And make sure your exercise cal numbers are accurate. It takes a lot to actually burn 1000 cals in one workout.

BF% makes a HUGE difference. At 197, my BF% is still way over 40%. I am a housewife, no outside job, so other than riding my bike a few days a week, I get very little exercise thruout the day. The lower my weight drops, and the more I work out, the stronger I am getting. The extra activity now is making up for the decreased BMR due to the weight loss, so I can still eat at the same level I started at 4 months ago.
I also have a spinal disease and arthritis in my joints that has prevented me from lifting heavy weights and working out intensively, but I am improving and am able to do more than I could when I started. I did actually start doing a few dumbell curls (ok, I can do 5) with my real iron weights (15 lbs) I still have from my lifting days when I was 30. Before my accident. I have to be very careful not to aggravate my neck, but I am getting there. My 20s and 25s are still in the closet, where my hubby uses them now. Not sure if I will be able to get back to those again, but one can hope!
I have also added some Wii workouts, boxing and Wii Fit programs. That is helping as well.

Slightly off topic, but have you thought about swimming? - it is a form of resistance exercise (not progressive loading type but definitely beneficial) and low impact.

I do spend time in the pool during the summer months. I can't exactly 'swim' as to do so irritates my spinal nerves, but I do walk in the pool and do stretches and my version of water aerobics. It does help my flexibility, and is very relaxing, and probably does burn a few calories, but not a great deal. I will be curious to see how much more I am capable of doing by this summer. There isn't an indoor pool anywhere close to me.

Working out tons and eating to match your activity will make your metabolism soar. I found out the hard way

Working out tons isn't the answer either - in fact over training can be detrimental to weight/fat loss!

I am 44, 5'8", between 137-140lbs on any given day, and eating 1700 to 2000 calories per day. My average workout is less than an hour per day, alternating weights (I have dumbbells, would lift heavy with barbells if I had the funds for a gym or the big weights at home!) and running 3-6 miles, 3 days of each, and at least one rest day. I generally burn 250-350 calories per workout, except of the days when I run over 4 miles.

For most of us women in our 40s, this equates to 'working out tons'! lol

6 days a week, burning 250-350 in the gym 3 days and running 4 miles the other 3 days, is not the typical activity level for your average 40 something woman, or any person these days.
Bottom line is, if you want to eat more and still lose weight, you have to work out.. a LOT!

I beg to differ

I am 45 years old, weight train 4 days a week, have a desk job and lose on 2,000.

And my point is that the typical 45 yo woman today does not weight train 4 days a week. Most of the women I know in real life, do not get ANY exercise. The 40 somethings that have been on this site for any length of time, are exercising more than their peers in real life. Different people can also have different BMRs just due to genetics, or BF%, or activity levels. I don't lift heavy weights 4 days a week. I don't work outside the home. I have a BF% of well over 40%. I can't lose on 2000 cals a day. You can, and that is great, but you aren't the typical 45 yo woman today.
Just because you can lose on 2000 cals per day, doesn't mean that every 45 yo woman can. We have to burn more than we eat, to lose weight.

Everyone has to burn more than they eat to lose. If one is sedentary, it is likely they will not lose on 2,000 calories (female). But if one is active enough they can most certainly lose on 2,000 calories if 2,000 calories is less than they need to maintain or gain.

For example, my net goal is 1,800, but I usually consume gross calories around 2,050 because I've burned 250 calories doing my exercise for the day...my net stays the same because I've earned those extra 250 calories. And yes, I'm losing and have been since October @ a 1.3 Lb per week clip with a goal of 1Lb per week. So yes...it is possible

Most of the women I know in real life, do not get ANY exercise. The 40 somethings that have been on this site for any length of time, are exercising more than their peers in real life.

I'm 40, and exercise about 30-45 minutes a day, six days a week, and eat about 2300 calories to maintain.

Honestly, I do exercise more than most of my peers in real life. I'm also a lot happier with both my body and food consumption than most of my peers. I don't consider the 3-4 hours I spend each week weight lifting or running to be an excessive amount of exercise. I think of it as a damn good hobby to have, and a wonderful trade-off for being able to live the rest of my life the way I want.

By comparison, I spend about 5 hours a week watching Big Bang Theory reruns. I spend about 10 hours a week with Good Morning America on in the background. I don't want to think about the amount of time I spend on Words with Friends, SongPop, Facebook or MFP. I just know it's a lot more than the amount of time I spend exercising.

Bump

Working out tons and eating to match your activity will make your metabolism soar. I found out the hard way

Working out tons isn't the answer either - in fact over training can be detrimental to weight/fat loss!

I am 44, 5'8", between 137-140lbs on any given day, and eating 1700 to 2000 calories per day. My average workout is less than an hour per day, alternating weights (I have dumbbells, would lift heavy with barbells if I had the funds for a gym or the big weights at home!) and running 3-6 miles, 3 days of each, and at least one rest day. I generally burn 250-350 calories per workout, except of the days when I run over 4 miles.

For most of us women in our 40s, this equates to 'working out tons'! lol

6 days a week, burning 250-350 in the gym 3 days and running 4 miles the other 3 days, is not the typical activity level for your average 40 something woman, or any person these days.
Bottom line is, if you want to eat more and still lose weight, you have to work out.. a LOT!

I beg to differ

I am 45 years old, weight train 4 days a week, have a desk job and lose on 2,000.

And my point is that the typical 45 yo woman today does not weight train 4 days a week. Most of the women I know in real life, do not get ANY exercise. The 40 somethings that have been on this site for any length of time, are exercising more than their peers in real life. Different people can also have different BMRs just due to genetics, or BF%, or activity levels. I don't lift heavy weights 4 days a week. I don't work outside the home. I have a BF% of well over 40%. I can't lose on 2000 cals a day. You can, and that is great, but you aren't the typical 45 yo woman today.
Just because you can lose on 2000 cals per day, doesn't mean that every 45 yo woman can. We have to burn more than we eat, to lose weight.

Everyone has to burn more than they eat to lose. If one is sedentary, it is likely they will not lose on 2,000 calories (female). But if one is active enough they can most certainly lose on 2,000 calories if 2,000 calories is less than they need to maintain or gain.

For example, my net goal is 1,800, but I usually consume gross calories around 2,050 because I've burned 250 calories doing my exercise for the day...my net stays the same because I've earned those extra 250 calories. And yes, I'm losing and have been since October @ a 1.3 Lb per week clip with a goal of 1Lb per week. So yes...it is possible

I'm sorry but this is a very confusing post. What are you saying is possible? We were discussing the exercise levels of the average 45 yo woman, so why are you, as a 38 yo man, comparing your calorie intake to mine? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Do you think that I should be eating the same amount as you do?

If you are losing 1.3 lbs per week, then you are eating at a 1300 calorie per day deficit. And your BMR and TDEE are considerably higher than mine.