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

This is entertaining! Two thumbs up for the best thread ever. :drinker:

Dude, who are you?

this exactly. excellent question.
And as you're so confident in your omniscience OP, they're looking for a new pope, maybe you could apply?

I think it is his gorgeous eyes that have us all mesmerized. For some reason, it is hard to disagree with anything he says, or point out his inconsistencies. He could have a great future as a cult leader! :flowerforyou:

Interesting how you haven't responded to the question of "who are you?" Why should anyone listen to what you have to say? What is your background? Anyone that has googled info can sound like they know what they are talking about but it doesn't make it so.

does it always have to be calories per day to loose weight or can I (pretty please) eat under my calories for 5 days and then over for 2 days but all the while maintaining my weekly calorie goal?

I practice the Daily approach to under eating my calories but the 5:2 diet which incorporates 2 days of fasting plus 5 days of normal eating, proves that yes, averaging it per week does have benefits and will work. Whether it's a slower or quicker method to aid your weight loss can only be proven by trial and error!

Do you do a fast 2 days a week as well as 16/8?

I was enjoying this thread until, unfortunately I came across this improper use of "you're". That's when you lost all credibilty with me. It sounded so well thought out up to that point.

I'm sure at one point in your life, you have made a mistake in spelling. Per your own thinking, your very own existence is now null and void. Grow up. The whole Grammar Nazi thing is completely old.

GREAT thread. I find it wonderful when somebody goes out of their way to help others.

It's called a joke!
I couldn't care less about his grammar.

In case you don't know, here is the definition of:

joke

/jōk/

Noun
A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline.

Verb
Make jokes; talk humorously or flippantly.

Synonyms

noun.
jest - fun - jape - gag - trick - pleasantry - lark

verb.
jest - jape - banter - lark - kid - josh

Interesting how you haven't responded to the question of "who are you?" Why should anyone listen to what you have to say? What is your background? Anyone that has googled info can sound like they know what they are talking about but it doesn't make it so.

Move along lady. I'm enjoying this thread

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/