I'm a Special Snowflake?
Options
Findekano
Posts: 116
(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/
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/
0
Replies
-
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.0
-
Not a SS. The physics of weight loss apply to almost everyone, with some exceptions for those with medical conditions.0
-
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?"0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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. QFT0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions