I'm a Special Snowflake?

babyskunkles · January 2013

You know, people used to think the world was flat, til they found out it wasn't. I think there is always at least a tiny bit of room for the given weight loss science to be off.

waldo56 · January 2013

Do you strength train?

If so, chances are you discovered the fact that strength training burns WAY more calories than commonly thought. The strength training entry in MFP is laughably low. HRM's are a waste of time and likewise laughably low.

Most people that strength train will underestimate their maintenence/bulking calories the first time. Often by a lot (like 500+ cal/day off). The major culpit is awful strength training calorie estimation.

The "circuit training" entry or "high effort calisthenics" entry are good starting points, though chances are they too are low, but at least somewhere in the ballpark.

If you are "lifting heavy" and not using those entries (or similarly high numbers), you are underestimating your strength training calories big time.

I track a lot of data, every day, and have for a long time, and know with a high degree of precision what my non-exercise maintenence calorie amount is and about how many calories various exercise activites burn. I gain, lose, and maintain at expected rates almost perfectly.

Findekano · January 2013

Do you strength train?

If so, chances are you discovered the fact that strength training burns WAY more calories than commonly thought. The strength training entry in MFP is laughably low. HRM's are a waste of time and likewise laughably low.

Most people that strength train will underestimate their maintenence/bulking calories the first time. Often by a lot (like 500+ cal/day off). The major culpit is awful strength training calorie estimation.

The "circuit training" entry or "high effort calisthenics" entry are good starting points, though chances are they too are low, but at least somewhere in the ballpark.

If you are "lifting heavy" and not using those entries (or similarly high numbers), you are underestimating your strength training calories big time.

I track a lot of data, every day, and have for a long time, and know with a high degree of precision what my non-exercise maintenence calorie amount is and about how many calories various exercise activites burn. I gain, lose, and maintain at expected rates almost perfectly.

This is actually a really good point, and probably the source of the numbers being off, although I think I only lifted maybe once per week during this time, so I'm not sure how much that really accounts for it. Good to know. And a good incentive to keep up with the lifting. I like eating.

Findekano · January 2013

I don't log exercise, btw, just for simplicity's sake, since I'm already accounting for it in the original equation when I select "lightly active"

WendyTerry420 · January 2013

(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/

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

Findekano · January 2013

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

I think we may be in the same boat with the strength-training thing. I just thought it was odd because a 500-700 cal difference is quite a bit for someone who is 5'2 and 120-ish pounds.

WendyTerry420 · January 2013

If that's true, then I'm more special because my TDEE is 2500 a day, and I also do virtually no exercise, well no cardio. I do strength training.

ETA: The calculators always think that I should have a TDEE of only 2000ish. But seriously, I've always known that I was above average. :laugh:

I think we may be in the same boat with the strength-training thing. I just thought it was odd because a 500-700 cal difference is quite a bit for someone who is 5'2 and 120-ish pounds.

Yep. I figured it out when I ran my numbers after six months of logging. I do believe that strength training makes all the difference.

When I first joined MFP, it wanted me on 1270 calories to lose 2 pounds, so I decided I would be patient and switch it to 1 pound, then I was losing *more* two pounds anyway while eating at 1700ish. I'm on 1900ish now and averaging 1.3 pounds a week.

cmriverside · January 2013

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.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Findekano · January 2013

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.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Ones that are based on my bf% - currently 26. those give me around 1450, mfp says 1560, others say 1690-1710. Most of these I set to sedentary because I figured I was not getting the kind of burn out of strength training as I would be out of cardio, but even at lightly active, I get nothing above about 1850 from any calculator.

cmriverside · January 2013

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.

When I enter your numbers into a BMR calculator, I get 1360something....what sites are giving you a TDEE of 1400-1600 at your age and height and lightly active?

Ones that are based on my bf% - currently 26. those give me around 1450, mfp says 1560, others say 1690-1710. Most of these I set to sedentary because I figured I was not getting the kind of burn out of strength training as I would be out of cardio, but even at lightly active, I get nothing above about 1850 from any calculator.

Okay, one more time. BMR and TDEE are NOT the same thing....I used your weight and height (which takes into account bf) and your age, gender, got around 1400 for your BMR.

If you get out of bed, you need more. Are we on the same page? If you are doing weights, and going to work every day, and you are trying to use a TDEE calculator - you are not going to get 1400-1600 as a TDEE. 1800 maybe, but even that seems too low, unless you are tuly doing nothing but sit on your backside all day. With 26% BF, you should be eating no less than 200-300 below your TDEE.

This site uses different calculations. If it tells you 1560 (you should be set at lightly active, and "Lose 1/2 lb per week") - then it wants you to be eating MORE when you exercise. You do understand the difference between this site and using TDEE calculators, right?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

Findekano · January 2013

Okay, one more time. BMR and TDEE are NOT the same thing....I used your weight and height (which takes into account bf) and your age, gender, got around 1400 for your BMR.

If you get out of bed, you need more. Are we on the same page? If you are doing weights, and going to work every day, and you are trying to use a TDEE calculator - you are not going to get 1400-1600 as a TDEE. 1800 maybe, but even that seems too low, unless you are tuly doing nothing but sit on your backside all day. With 26% BF, you should be eating no less than 200-300 below your TDEE.

This site uses different calculations. If it tells you 1560 (you should be set at lightly active, and "Lose 1/2 lb per week") - then it wants you to be eating MORE when you exercise. You do understand the difference between this site and using TDEE calculators, right?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

Yes. I know the difference between TDEE and BMR. I am set to maintain because I do not want to lose weight. There is no deficit built in. Harris-Benedict based calcs set to light activity give me the highest numbers at 1700-1800. MFP's maintenance at sedentary was the lowest at 1560. Don't remember the original one that gave me 1450. I believe it was Scooby's. Others are somewhere in between.

My typical week - half-assed lifting once or twice 20 minutes at the most, three one-hour dance rehearsals (during which I actually dance full-tilt, maybe 20 minutes), and a whole lot of sitting on my butt. The month I was talking about, no dance, minimal half-assed lifting. IDK if this helps give an idea of how active I am, but I'd consider it either sedentary or lightly active. Barely 1.5 hours of activity at the most is not much.

I was surprised that I managed to gain no weight during a month of eating over 2000cals/day and not moving much. The calculators would indicate that I should have gained quite a bit of weight after that.

I just wonder how many people are taking those sorts of numbers at face value and undereating. Or, overeating, on the other end of things. I'm sure there are those that the same calculators might show a number that is a bit higher than what they really need.