Not getting the whole "Eat more to lose more" mentality

This forum has me so confused. What is TDEE and BMR? Have I been missing something to help me lose weight!? :huh: How do I calculate these? can someone give me some info on these. Thanks!

I just read the Road Map post everyone talks about. First of all, I am confused in general, but basically according to that I should be eating close to 1900 calories a day.

MFP has me at 1810 a day if I want to lose one lb a week. I never even get close to that (I probably average around 1500-1600 a day) unless I make a conscious effort to eat 1800 calories - and usually that involves me having two helpings of dinner to get there (so I think I am doing it wrong...)

So if I don't eat 1800 calories a day, and only eat 1500 people say "YOU ARE NOT EATING ENOUGH!" and tell me that is why I am not losing weight. However, if I change my goals in MFP to where I want to lose two lbs a week, MFP tells me I shoudl be eating 1320 calories a day.

So, it makes sense to me that, as long as I am eating between 1320-1800 calories a day, I should be losing, right? Which means, if I am averaging 1500 calories a day, I should be losing 1-2 lbs on a weekly basis, but I have lost only one pound in the last three weeks.

As for "starvation" mode, I would think that if I were eating below 1200 calories, that my body would freak out, but I really don't understand how 1500-1600 calories would send my body into starvation mode, especially if MFP says I could eat 1320 and lose weight.

I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And beyond frustrated.

(It all makes me want to go eat a donut then take a nap. Kidding - kind of).

think of it this way... if you eat too low for too long, there are internal metabolic changes relating to hormones that can affect the efficiency at which your body burns stored fat. you "eat more" to avoid those internal changes.

also, based on your stats, your BMR is 1726, but a sedentary TDEE is 2072. Small difference, but you would take your percentage from 2072.

Where did you find this? I used the fit2befit link that was posted in message boards a while ago, and it said my BMR was 1733 (and my TDEE 2383 - I don't know, that was the number associated with "light activity" that I was told to use). So the TDEE - 20% was 1906.

I don't know if I am using the right link/calculator...

BMR comes from one of these equations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

You multiply the BMR by an activity factor to get your total energy expenditure:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5686e/y5686e07.htm

I truly believe it is about how often you eat...I notice that I can workout 2+ hours and eat about 1200 calories and not lose weight, but when I workout 1 hr a day, and make sure to eat at least every 2-4 hrs and not more than 1600 calories a day, I lose weight like crazy, I have lost at most 5 pounds per week, eating more than ever! High protein foods, enough water, and please make sure that you eat something within the 1st hour of waking up, I often wake up and drink a glass of cold water then 30 minutes later i have 1/2 banana...2 hrs later I have a small breakfast...2 hours later another snack...2 hrs later small lunch...get it? be consistent and keep that metabolism reved up!!! i PROMISE it will work for you, just like it has worked for me in the past when I have hit a plateau. Good Luck!

you are attributing your weight loss to a behavioral pattern that has no actual effect on it.

all 3 things i boldfaced have been shown to be irrelevant to weight loss by researchers.

sorry, not trying to be harsh. continue doing those things for yourself if you believe them to be helpful, but as advice for newbies, these tips won't make any difference.

per MFP member WBB55

DOUBLE UNDERSCORE & EXCLAMATION POINTS--> make every calorie count

The way I visualize it reminds me of an old video game from the 80's called Track & Field. You ran the 100 yard dash by spazzing on the left/right buttons, the faster you pushed them the faster your runner went. Your opponent was the computer player, who would run at a slow pace for the first second, and then do exactly everything you did from then on, with a one second delay.

So if you started out super fast and then slowed down (like everyone naturally does) the computer would be behind for the first second, and then it would have the burst of speed you started with, and pass you up, and then you would never be able to catch up because you had already used up your biggest burst you were capable of. The winning strategy was to start slower and build up speed so your top speed was all in the last second of the race and the computer was always too late to keep up with you.

What you have to realize in that your metabolic rate decreases in response to a caloric deficit.

So, let's say you're eating 1500 calories and losing one pound a week at a 500 cal/day deficit. After a while, through several mechanisms, you don't have a 500 cal/day deficit anymore. So, to reestablish a deficit, you have to lower calories a bit more and/or increase your calorie expenditure. You can stave off this lowering of your metabolic rate for a longer time by taking frequent diet breaks.

The problem with jumping right into something like 1,100 calories a day is that yes, initially you will lose weight, but, just as before, your body will catch up, and you'll stall. So what do you do then? Lower calories? Not likely. Increase activity? You're luck if you have the energy. The only solution at that point is to increase your caloric intake for an extended period of time, where weight loss will eventually stall, and you may even gain some, and give your hormones a chance to return to baseline. Most people on MFP aren't going to do that. So, the most intelligent course of action is to use the smallest deficit possible that allows you to lose weight, so you have more wiggle room to adjust things later.

As for people that "eat more and start losing," I suspect that an increase in calories relieves some of those stress hormones which cause you to hold on to some water, causing people to see relatively rapid weight loss after raising calories. I also suspect that eating enough food gives people enough energy to train with intensity, which actually leads to a higher net deficit.

The thing I don't get with scooby's calc is that apparently you cannot do 1-3 hours of strenuous exercise, nor can anyone do 5-7 hours of light exercise. Maybe it's just poorly worded, but I found that part annoying.

If I enter lightly active on scooby and MFP, my goals are 1980 and 1910 respectively. They're well within tolerance considering I probably miscount more than that per day since I don't measure/weigh everything to death.

I think a lot of people also have problems with determining their activity level due to a Dunning-Kruger corollary where everyone thinks of themselves as typical, so it's hard to decide what is "moderate" or whether one's exertion is more than or less than moderate, or actually moderate.

I didn't read most of the responses, but just wanted to jump in and add that those online calculators can be very inaccurate for some people. They take the information you plug in and give you an estimate based on the average for someone with your stats. We all know people's bodies and metabolisms are different. A couple of years ago I had my RMR tested in a lab and found it was like 300 calories lower than the online calculators. I don't know why because I wasn't in starvation mode or anything (it was done as part of a study at the university here). I don't know if it's related, but my resting heart rate is also particularly low (42ish).

Anyway, my point is to realize that what the online calculators give you are estimates. It's up to you to do your own research and figure out what works for your body. That will likely involve some trial and error, but be sure you're giving what you're trying enough time to see if it's working before you give up completely and go try something else.

This is precisely why I have a BodymediaFit on the way, since there is simply too much loosy-goosyness in these calculations for my taste. I don't want to waste 4 weeks operating at an inaccurate TDEE, only to discover the issue and have to change it then.

The thing I don't get with scooby's calc is that apparently you cannot do 1-3 hours of strenuous exercise, nor can anyone do 5-7 hours of light exercise. Maybe it's just poorly worded, but I found that part annoying.

If I enter lightly active on scooby and MFP, my goals are 1980 and 1910 respectively. They're well within tolerance considering I probably miscount more than that per day since I don't measure/weigh everything to death.

I think a lot of people also have problems with determining their activity level due to a Dunning-Kruger corollary where everyone thinks of themselves as typical, so it's hard to decide what is "moderate" or whether one's exertion is more than or less than moderate, or actually moderate.

This is what works for me...every time, and if it can work for someone else that would be great! and no you are not being harsh, and as for the studies...there are also studies that support some of the items that you have mentioned...This was actually advice I received from a personal trainer at my gym who just so noticed that I worked out a lot but did not lose weight...we met and discussed my eating pattern and he suggested i eat more often at only 1200 calories, and still I did not lose weight, so he suggested I add another 200 calories, and then another 200, until BOOM, I was losing weight and eating constantly (healthy food) I honestly lost that stubborn last 25 pounds in about 2 months and this he did for FREE! I did not pay him nor did I come to him for advice, that was very nice of him to help me out just because.

Things work for different people, our bodies are all different, so this here is just an idea!