Fat2Fit

bitterbrownie
bitterbrownie Posts: 369
in Health and Weight Loss
Who's used the calculator here: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

and found it to be good/accurate/useful?

I'm currently netting 1400 (exercise 5-6 days a week burning 450-650 calories per session so eat most of these calories back) so while Fat2Fit says at my goal weight I'll need 1600 at sedentary activity....

however, i don't seem to be losing, anyone else used this calculator? :)

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Any metabolic rate calculator is no better than +/- 10% and about 1/3 of individuals will fall outside that.

    So if you don't lose at a given calorie intake you have an indication that you're below the predicted value.

    Having said that, are you sure that you burn 450-650 extra calories a day ?
  • scoutfinchie
    scoutfinchie Posts: 39 Member
    I use it and love fat2fit radio podcasts. My BMR form my goal weight (150) is about 1450 so I set my calories at 1600 and then eat most/all my exercise calories.
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    Any metabolic rate calculator is no better than +/- 10% and about 1/3 of individuals will fall outside that.

    So if you don't lose at a given calorie intake you have an indication that you're below the predicted value.

    Having said that, are you sure that you burn 450-650 extra calories a day ?

    i use a HRM and then calories-burned-calculator so i think it's pretty accurate. That said, I don't eat all my exercise cals back just in case, never less than 50-100 left usually
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    I use it and love fat2fit radio podcasts. My BMR form my goal weight (150) is about 1450 so I set my calories at 1600 and then eat most/all my exercise calories.

    thanks. My BMR now is currently 1332 and at goal weight would be 1224 so I don't really get why Im not losing averaging 1400 :L
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    the readout from an HRM includes the calories that MFP has already assumed you're using. For example if mine reported 400 calories in an hour at least 75 of them would be my sedentary calorie burn so I would log that as 325 cals.

    I have mine setup for my personal aerobic fitness - VO2 max - which further refines the accuracy. Heybales has a spreadsheet and a posting about that, probably in the Fitness section.
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    Yeah i sometimes do this but figures i still should be losing? Guess I'll go back to doing it and see what happens :L
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Yeah i sometimes do this but figures i still should be losing? Guess I'll go back to doing it and see what happens :L

    how much are you eating per day ? and how much weight you looking to lose. Your tracker confused me.
  • chunkydunk714
    chunkydunk714 Posts: 784 Member
    Love new tools! Thanks for sharing :)
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    I've got 10-15lbs to lose and i net 1350-1400 calories so eating 1800-1950 usually
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I've got 10-15lbs to lose and i net 1350-1400 calories so eating 1800-1950 usually

    Let's hypothesise that your BMR might be 1200, add 20% for sedentary and 400 for additional exercise calories takes us to 1840. So it's conceivable you're in energy balance.

    Eating half the exercise cals may be one option to consider.
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    Or lowering my goal would have same effect? It's just i tend to feel hungry under 1400 net haha but i could try it again, thanks
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Or lowering my goal would have same effect? It's just i tend to feel hungry under 1400 net haha but i could try it again, thanks
    Lowering your goal would, yes.

    The fat2fit method can take a long time to reach goal, they acknowledge this by saying "As you get closer to your goal weight, your weight loss will start to slow down. It is OK to eat a few hundred calories less per day (200-300) to speed up your weight loss at this point."

    You might also have put in your % body fat and got two BMR readings, but it only works on one. They have tools for %fat on the site. The Katch-McArdle formula for BMR uses %fat.

    But in the end, if not losing then eat a bit less :-)
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    yeah i put in body fat because i have that accurately at around 18% :) thanks for your help

    i think I'll do one more week netting 1400 and see what happens and then try decreasing down to 1300 or something. Just a bit worried about eating my BMR and feeling energy-less xD
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Hmm, 18% is about the minimum body fat for "women of reproductive age".

    What were the two BMRs fat2fit gave you ? I got 1673 for Harris-Benedict and 1617 for Katch-McArdle which is practically the same thing.
  • bitterbrownie
    bitterbrownie Posts: 369
    1403 (harris) and 1352 (Katch) which is why I'm a bit worried to go below 1400/1350...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    1403 (harris) and 1352 (Katch) which is why I'm a bit worried to go below 1400/1350...
    No evidence that eating less than BMR is a problem in itself. If the figure is 10% out for you (which it could well be) how would you even know ?

    If you're at a place where you aren't losing for a few weeks, then taking 200 calories per day off should be appropriate.

    Nobody outside of MFP uses "net calories", the whole "eating below your BMR" thing is MFP group think, so I don't see any real world risks as you'll be eating enough on account of your exercise regime.

Categories