ASK ME ANYTHING ABOUT WEIGHT LOSS!!! GREATEST THREAD EVER!!

Only if she is burning around 1500 cals a day in the gym, and lifting heavy weights.

If she is your average middle aged, sedentary woman, at that weight and height, she is close to 70% BF. Her BMR would be around 1250 and sedentary TDEE would put her only around 1500.

The common misconception that body weight alone determines your BMR, is so misleading and confusing for many people trying to lose weight. Body Fat tissue burns very few calories compared to muscle tissue.

You compare this woman to a 300 pound male body builder with 7% body fat, and his BMR is over 3100 and his sedentary TDEE would be over 3700. Add his daily workouts to the equation and he would probably need 8-10k cals a day to maintain.

You just cannot make a blanket statement that everyone would maintain or lose on 10-12 times their body weight. That is just ridiculous.

Nope.

Pretty much everyone, barring those with medical / metabolic issues can successfully lose weight eating at around their BMR (which presumes they are accurately tracking their calorie intake) which is what the 10 cals per 1lbs of body weight formula roughly equates to for women.

BMR is correlated to body weight - that is how they formulas are derived. Whilst body composition does play a part it is not as significant as people may imagine. IIRC 1lb muscle takes 6 cals per 1lb to maintain whilst fat takes 2 cals per 1lb. Yes, there is a difference but is it not as great as people go on about.

As for your fictional, average middle aged woman with a BF% of 70% - even super morbidly obese people do not have a BF% that high....or such a low TDEE.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up any of your statements of fact? Are you not familiar with the Katch Mcardle BMR equation?

I stand by my opinion that 2 people who have nothing in common other than their body weight, could have drastically different BMRs.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a 25 yr old, 6'5" male body builder would have a significantly higher BMR than a 50 yr old, 5'3" morbidly obese woman.

How could anyone possibly argue with that?

Bump!

bump

Only if she is burning around 1500 cals a day in the gym, and lifting heavy weights.

If she is your average middle aged, sedentary woman, at that weight and height, she is close to 70% BF. Her BMR would be around 1250 and sedentary TDEE would put her only around 1500.

The common misconception that body weight alone determines your BMR, is so misleading and confusing for many people trying to lose weight. Body Fat tissue burns very few calories compared to muscle tissue.

You compare this woman to a 300 pound male body builder with 7% body fat, and his BMR is over 3100 and his sedentary TDEE would be over 3700. Add his daily workouts to the equation and he would probably need 8-10k cals a day to maintain.

You just cannot make a blanket statement that everyone would maintain or lose on 10-12 times their body weight. That is just ridiculous.

Nope.

Pretty much everyone, barring those with medical / metabolic issues can successfully lose weight eating at around their BMR (which presumes they are accurately tracking their calorie intake) which is what the 10 cals per 1lbs of body weight formula roughly equates to for women.

BMR is correlated to body weight - that is how they formulas are derived. Whilst body composition does play a part it is not as significant as people may imagine. IIRC 1lb muscle takes 6 cals per 1lb to maintain whilst fat takes 2 cals per 1lb. Yes, there is a difference but is it not as great as people go on about.

As for your fictional, average middle aged woman with a BF% of 70% - even super morbidly obese people do not have a BF% that high....or such a low TDEE.

You are leaving out the part where BMR formulas also use age and height... It's not just weight. Using 11 cals per pound for a man, you get 2200 calories for a BMR. That would be accurate for a 6' tall, 200 pound 20 year old. It's roughly 200 calories too high for a 6' tall, 200 pound 30 year old. So it's a good estimate, as long as the person you're estimating is a 6' tall 20 year old, otherwise, it's going to overestimate, which is why we have actual BMR formulas.

Love this!!

Meanwhile in Russia...

Only if she is burning around 1500 cals a day in the gym, and lifting heavy weights.

If she is your average middle aged, sedentary woman, at that weight and height, she is close to 70% BF. Her BMR would be around 1250 and sedentary TDEE would put her only around 1500.

The common misconception that body weight alone determines your BMR, is so misleading and confusing for many people trying to lose weight. Body Fat tissue burns very few calories compared to muscle tissue.

You compare this woman to a 300 pound male body builder with 7% body fat, and his BMR is over 3100 and his sedentary TDEE would be over 3700. Add his daily workouts to the equation and he would probably need 8-10k cals a day to maintain.

You just cannot make a blanket statement that everyone would maintain or lose on 10-12 times their body weight. That is just ridiculous.

Nope.

Pretty much everyone, barring those with medical / metabolic issues can successfully lose weight eating at around their BMR (which presumes they are accurately tracking their calorie intake) which is what the 10 cals per 1lbs of body weight formula roughly equates to for women.

BMR is correlated to body weight - that is how they formulas are derived. Whilst body composition does play a part it is not as significant as people may imagine. IIRC 1lb muscle takes 6 cals per 1lb to maintain whilst fat takes 2 cals per 1lb. Yes, there is a difference but is it not as great as people go on about.

As for your fictional, average middle aged woman with a BF% of 70% - even super morbidly obese people do not have a BF% that high....or such a low TDEE.

You are leaving out the part where BMR formulas also use age and height... It's not just weight. Using 11 cals per pound for a man, you get 2200 calories for a BMR. That would be accurate for a 6' tall, 200 pound 20 year old. It's roughly 200 calories too high for a 6' tall, 200 pound 30 year old. So it's a good estimate, as long as the person you're estimating is a 6' tall 20 year old, otherwise, it's going to overestimate, which is why we have actual BMR formulas.

Sorry dude but I will have to give yo the same link as I have to run:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

Ok, everyone enjoy yourselves tonight....

BUMP

This is brilliant, I like tips that make me laugh because as far as I'm concerned laughing is a high impact exercise! I think I may even start a class where we can all just sit and lagh at each other, probably wont lose much weight but we will feel awesome! Keep up the good work!

a sense of humour is IMPERATIVE to loosing weight and life altogether...^5's you

Only if she is burning around 1500 cals a day in the gym, and lifting heavy weights.

If she is your average middle aged, sedentary woman, at that weight and height, she is close to 70% BF. Her BMR would be around 1250 and sedentary TDEE would put her only around 1500.

The common misconception that body weight alone determines your BMR, is so misleading and confusing for many people trying to lose weight. Body Fat tissue burns very few calories compared to muscle tissue.

You compare this woman to a 300 pound male body builder with 7% body fat, and his BMR is over 3100 and his sedentary TDEE would be over 3700. Add his daily workouts to the equation and he would probably need 8-10k cals a day to maintain.

You just cannot make a blanket statement that everyone would maintain or lose on 10-12 times their body weight. That is just ridiculous.

Nope.

Pretty much everyone, barring those with medical / metabolic issues can successfully lose weight eating at around their BMR (which presumes they are accurately tracking their calorie intake) which is what the 10 cals per 1lbs of body weight formula roughly equates to for women.

BMR is correlated to body weight - that is how they formulas are derived. Whilst body composition does play a part it is not as significant as people may imagine. IIRC 1lb muscle takes 6 cals per 1lb to maintain whilst fat takes 2 cals per 1lb. Yes, there is a difference but is it not as great as people go on about.

As for your fictional, average middle aged woman with a BF% of 70% - even super morbidly obese people do not have a BF% that high....or such a low TDEE.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up any of your statements of fact? Are you not familiar with the Katch Mcardle BMR equation?

I stand by my opinion that 2 people who have nothing in common other than their body weight, could have drastically different BMRs.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a 25 yr old, 6'5" male body builder would have a significantly higher BMR than a 50 yr old, 5'3" morbidly obese woman.

How could anyone possibly argue with that?

Please don't think this is a cop put but it's Valentine's Day and I have to get home to my wife (or she will do terrible things to me...) so see here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

As I said, it's a reasonable starting point which people can then tweak and adjust as time goes by depending on how they respond...

DebbieLynn: Excellent points! I don't know why anyone would prefer misinformation over a slew of easy to use online BMR/TDEE calculators (that are, even with their own erros, significantly more informed than this post). The point you bring up about a 300lb bodybuilder vs. a 300lb morbidly obese and sedentary woman perfectly encapsulates the error in the OP's method. I don't know how anyone could say that certain variables considered in those calculators are irrelevant (age, body fat %, etc). It's just shocking.

I also want to respond from this statement from Tricksee (page 2 of the thread) "Most importantly, if you were HUGE, don't fall into bad habits like fast food and chocolate. they got you into the 'needing to lose weight' position to begin with." "HUGE"? Really, interesting way to describe people. Also, it's unkind and inaccurate to assume we "HUGE" people have been sucking down fast food and chocolate. "

Pfffft.

Here are some actual tools to use:http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/