BMR / Calories Burned / Am I getting this right?

atlantisak
atlantisak Posts: 31
in Health and Weight Loss
So, being 5'9, 222lbs and 27 year old female, my BMR is about 1818 calories. This is what I'd burn if I stayed in bed all day, correct?

If this is the case, then right off the bat I'm burning 1818 calories.

MPF has my goal set at 1,270 calories a day in order to lose the 2 lbs a week that I want to lose. Some days I have to force myself to eat that many calories, but I eat as close to 1,270 as I can.

We started working out almost a month ago and I did gain weight, but it went away after 2 weeks. I work out every other day and make it a goal to burn a MINIMUM of 300 calories with cardio (often it's more, but that's my lowest I'll permit myself to walk out of the gym with. We're usually there only an hour because of my bf's physically demanding job. I burn 300cals in 20 minutes average) and I am doing about 1/2 hour weight training at the gym. I know it's not a lot of working out, but I go out often with my boyfriend and we walk...around the mall, downtown, etc. I keep active and do a lot of cleaning each and every day. All these things burn calories.

My defect has to be at least 800 calories on the days that I'm working out and living life outside of bed at least. On the days that we don't work out, it's likely around 500 calories minimum.

So....why am I stuck? Why is the scale now refusing to budge? The only time I really lost weight in the past was when I was under so much emotional stress that I just basically stopped eating. I lost a total of 65lbs that way. I know it wasn't healthy and that's why I'm following this above mentioned plan of eating and exercising.

I'm kind of frustrated. My goal is to reach 180-200lbs. It's just not really happening. Tips? Advice?
«1

Replies

  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Your body has finally had enough and is rebelling against not being fed. Either that or you are seriously under estimating your food intake and over estimating your calorie burn.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    I've been eating properly for the last year almost, so that can't be it. The 65 lbs was from about a year ago.

    I am not under-estimating either, I've been doing a lot of counting and double checking everything and filling out my diary on here. I also go by the calories that the treadmill suggests I burn (I'm not counting what I burn from weight training). Even if the treadmill is wrong, I still have a deficit that should be enough for weight-loss.
  • EHisCDN
    EHisCDN Posts: 480 Member
    It's great that you calculated your BMR, however that should be the minimum you eat. Any activity (walking, working out, running errands, brushing your teeth etc) is on top of your BMR and part of your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). Find out what that is. You want to eat somewhere between your BMR and TDEE in order to lose fat. You don't want to take too big of a cut off your TDEE because then you begin to lose lean body mass. If you have quite a bit of weight to lose you can take a 20% cut off your TDEE.

    I ran your numbers through this site http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
    If you are lightly active (light exercise 1-3hr/week) your numbers are:
    BMR: 1812
    TDEE: 2491
    TDEE -20%: 1993

    How did MFP give you 1,270? What did you enter your activity level as?

    Like Mokey41 said, you need to make sure you are accurately measuring your foods (food scale) and your calorie burn (HRM, fitbit etc)
  • guroprincess
    guroprincess Posts: 140
    Burn 300 calories in 20 minutes? You do realize MFP heavily overestimates burns, right?
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    EHisCDN:

    So, according to this information I shouldn't be eating any less than the 1993 calories? I think I might make myself sick trying to eat more, it makes my stomach hurt to think about it. :(

    I have the thing set to about 224 (which I forgot to update)lbs. Goal weight is 180, height is 5'9, Female, 27 years old, Sedentary, 3 workouts a week at about 90 minutes a workout (I guess I was kind of factoring in my other activities outside of the gym), and wanting to lose 2lbs a week.

    I have a scale and use measuring cups/portions on packages to get my calorie intake. Trust me, I've been very strict on keeping track of everything. Every spoon of sugar, every drink, everything.

    Guroprincess: I'm not using MPF to calculate what I'm burning. I use it to keep track. I use the treadmill at the workout place to see how many calories I'm burning and what my HR is. I go to the highest incline (15) and at a varying speed of 2.8 to 4.5 speed for about 20 minutes total. I keep changing the speed to keep things 'fresh' for my body, I guess you could say.

    But ok, lets say I don't work out at all though...Eating 1,270 calories with a BRM of 1818...that alone should be weight loss.
  • loneaffliction
    loneaffliction Posts: 81 Member
    If you are logging everything absolutely correctly and if you are accurate in logging your exercise, then your problem is most likely that you are not eating enough. A quick peek at your diary, and it's hard to tell. You have a lot of quick adds and homemade recipes, both of which leave a question of error. Your BMR is the minimum you should be eating, eating below that is neither sustainable long term or healthy. Try adjusting MFP's calculations to the "Lightly Active" setting or set your own goal manually. Your deficit comes from eating below your TDEE, which is the sum total of all of your activity and normal bodily functions (digestion, respiration, etc) in a day, not your BMR. I would go into further detail, but I'm kiiiiind of exhausted. All of the information that you need can be found below, however.

    Important reads that address this (and I highly recommend actually reading them):
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819925-the-basics-don-t-complicate-it?hl=the+basics+keep+it+simple
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1084912-good-starvation-mode-article
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    If you aren't weighing and measuring your food (with a food scale) you're likely over estimating your intake. If you're using the calorie burns give to you from a machine, you're definitely over estimating your calorie burns. Those things are notoriously inaccurate.

    There is no way you aren't losing weight eating at such a large deficit.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    First off, if you only need to lose 40 lbs the 2 lb per week setting is too aggressive. It may be what you want but it isn't healthy. It seems like you've got your mind set on doing this your way so I'm not sure why we're giving advice but I'll try anyway.

    Your BMR is what you need to survive in a coma. It's the number of calories your body needs to maintain organ function. You should not be eating below it. Doing so you risk losing lean muscle mass and doing permanent damage to organs. There's also something called Adaptive Thermogenisis. It's when your body figures out that you aren't going to feed it what it needs so in order to preserve what it feels is necessary it slows your metabolism to suit the fuel intake. You may be there depending on how long you've been living like you are now.

    Your diary may seem accurate to you but the quick adds and homemade food guesses tell me it isn't. Also, machines lie. Most of the give greatly exaggerated burns so it's not a good idea to take that burn as the truth.

    Take from this what you will. We're trying to help so digest some of this, do some research and then decide if you want to continue with your approach. Life isn't always about what we want to happen. Also you can eat more. Eat calorie dense foods like full fat dairy, eggs, nuts, oils. Peanut butter is high calorie good fat that is easy to get down.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    loneafflictio:

    I'm logging as closely as I possibly can. Sometimes you can't log accurately if you eat out somewhere that doesn't have a nutritional list available. I eat good quality food for the most part, so if I can't find nutritional info on something (like grilled salmon with rice and veggies), I'll look at a bunch of restaurants and their nutritional info, figure out the average of the calories and pick the point between middle and highest. That's where most of my quick add calories come from. I ask for no butter, no or little cheese, etc, so it is my best guess in those cases...If anything, I think I might be aiming a little high on the calorie counts for the dishes.

    I haven't read all the links you sent to me yet, but I plan to when I have time to sit down for more than a few minutes at a time (this post is being done in increments as I'm able to). I did a little bit of brief reading on not enough calories and that might be the case. I'm going to try and see about eating at least 1,818 calories or more (once I figure out the best number) and see where that ends up taking me. I'm just worried about gaining weight AND inches, but I don't think a few weeks of eating more should really hurt too bad, right?

    The biggest problem I'm going to run into is eating enough calories. I feel like I'm constantly stuffing my face at my current calorie count as it already is.

    Thank you, your approach has been very helpful, I think.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    i_will_end_you: "There is no way you aren't losing weight eating at such a large deficit."

    That's kind of why I'm here...trying to figure out WHY I wasn't losing weight at that deficit. I mentioned before that I measure and scoop and use a scale to figure things out with calories. I read labels a lot, double check portions, etc. So I'm fairly confident that my calculations are pretty accurate.

    With the exercise thing, I might be a bit off. But, I've looked around at how many calories someone of my height, weight, gender would be burning at the exercise level I've been doing on the treadmill and it matches up quite well with what the machines have been telling me. I don't have the money to shell out for an arm or wristband right now for 'accurate readings' but I think that going around 2.8 to 4.5 miles an hour (intermittently) at a 15 incline for 20 minutes is going to burn at least 300 calories...I mean, show me an accurate treadmill calculator if you know of one.
  • coral_b
    coral_b Posts: 264 Member
    Just experience here, I started at 1200 cals and lost nothing for almost 3 months. I'd fluctuate down and go right back up. My BMR was 1370. The week I upped to my BMR and ate back exercise cals I dropped weight (2.5lbs) and am now consistent with 1lb every 10 days. I'm only 5"2 and have about 15-20lbs to lose.
    Seems to me like your calories are too low and you're over estimating the calories burned. If you aren't using a HRM then only eat back half or 3/4. You need to eat at least your BMR for you body to function. If you're exercising you need more. You have to fuel your body properly.
    If you're 100% sure you're logging correctly you need to try something new. Also make sure your water intake is decent.
    if you struggle with numbers try setting MFP to lose 1lb or 1.5lb, and eat back exercise cals. Good luck!
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    Mokey41:

    I'm not sure how I'm coming off as having my 'mind set on doing this my own way' or am being stubborn. I'm explaining that I'm measuring as accurately as I possibly can and how things are CURRENTLY being done. I'm not an idiot and have done as much reading as I can possibly think of but there are some things that you just don't think of or know to search for. That's why you ask questions....So please don't try to make me feel like I am stupid. I feel you're almost trying to belittle me. Perhaps this isn't your intent, but how your post is written makes it seem like that.

    I know calories are hard to burn and supposedly easy to underestimate. And trust me, I know life isn't about what we want to happen. I've lived a life that's taught me that all too clearly about a LOT of subjects.

    Anyway, onto the heart or intent of your post:

    This is an answer that I'm looking for. Information as to what's going on or what I may be doing wrong. I'm seeing advice that I'm possibly not eating enough (when before I was being told I was underestimating my calories consumed and overestimating my calories burnt).

    With the quick add calories, read my previous posts. And with homemade foods, I can't get an accurate tally on something that a friend makes, so I do my best to count that up. Or, because my time here is sometimes so short but I need to log info, I combine all that I've recently eaten (lets say a banana, a yougurt and a glass of milk, 1/8 cup of walnuts and a graham cracker sheet) and combine them all into one listing, round up slightly and add those calories into my database. I don't have a ton of time to be finding each listing one by one, weeding through them to make sure they're all accurate. I know how many calories on average are in a banana, in a yougurt that I eat, etc. From there, that math is pretty basic.

    So ok, machines lie. I understand they can't be 100% accurate. And how do you suggest 100% or even 90% accuracy?

    How many calories does 20 minutes at a 15 incline and a speed of 2.8 to 4.5 burn?
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    Also, why would MPF make their goals thing so confusing then for me to eat at? That's the irritating part that they want me to end up at around 1,270cals after everything is all said and done. That info is all wrong then?
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Not saying this is right or wrong but throughout my weight loss journey I entered half of what the treadmill said I'd burnt and ate that back.

    I'd have 11.0 incline and 4.0kph for 40 minutes. Treadmill said 640 calories I'd eat back 320. Treadmills over estimate.

    Hope this helps.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    Coral_B:

    Thanks for your input on this. I decided I'm going to try and force myself to eating at a higher BMR, If I start losing weight, that'd be wonderful. Once you upped the BMR and ate back your exercise calories...how long did it take you to start losing the weight? 1lb every 10 days would be great at this point but I'd prefer more.

    I assume HRM is a heart rate monitor. I use the machine to monitor my heart rate and I meet target and stay at target the entire exercise. It's been a little higher than normal lately because I'm getting over being sick. Should I worry about a HRM only during exercise?

    With my fluid intake, it's actually pretty good. I drink a lot of green, white and herbal teas without sugar and drink at least 4 cups of straight water a day (that's something I'm bad about logging in my book) in addition to lord only knows how many cups of tea I drink.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    RoyBeck: I do scale down a bit. If it says 325 or 350 calories, I count that as if it's a 300 calorie burn. Do you have any idea about how much the machines could be off? Are they usually double what you actually burn?
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    RoyBeck: I do scale down a bit. If it says 325 or 350 calories, I count that as if it's a 300 calorie burn. Do you have any idea about how much the machines could be off? Are they usually double what you actually burn?

    It's a hot topic and I wouldn't say anyone knows for sure but compared to my HRM I now wear I'd say 20-25%.

    I run for 5k Monday. Treadmill said 556 burnt and my HRM said 484. I still only eat back half of my HRM reading just to be sure.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    MFP does math, it expects you to supply common sense which if you know little about metabolism etc is really not fair to the beginner. It won't go below 1200 calories a day but for someone younger that's often not enough.

    A heart rate monitor is the answer to getting accurate readings for calorie burns when doing steady state cardio. Even then I wouldn't eat back exactly what it says.

    Weight loss is tricky and what works for one may not work for another. No one can tell you exactly what will work for you but what you're doing now isn't working so I'd suggest using a TDEE calculator and giving it go with no more than a 20% reduction. Make sure you put in your usual exercise level and it will give you a calorie budget to stick to every day.

    You may gain a few pounds in the first week or two as your body replenishes itself from the low calories you've been doing but you should start to see progress again after that. If you think about it, do want to spend the rest of your life living on 1200 calories because if you aren't losing on that then it would be assumed it is your maintenance.
  • Roaringgael
    Roaringgael Posts: 339 Member
    I'm no expert. I have yo-yo dieted a lot of my life. I am 54. In all the years I menstruated I always gained a kilo the week before my periods. It is literally impossible to maintain a 2 Lb a week weight loss, don't care about the science, that's been my experience.
    Barometric surgeons (obesity doctors) claim that most people who lose large amounts of weight mostly have to maintain a lower level of calories to keep their weight off. I'm sure at maintenance exercising can make the difference.
    Stop thinking you can lose that kind of weight per week, its just not possible! Accept it. I lost 100 grams this week. I didn't do anything wrong, I probably ate a bit too much protein and fat, who knows.
  • atlantisak
    atlantisak Posts: 31
    RoyBeck: I know guys burn more calories than women in general...and it does depend on your weight too. I'll knock 30% off for calories next time I exercise and just stick to that number until I can get a HRM.

    Also...how do you 'quote' people?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,096 Member
    RoyBeck: I know guys burn more calories than women in general...and it does depend on your weight too. I'll knock 30% off for calories next time I exercise and just stick to that number until I can get a HRM.

    Also...how do you 'quote' people?

    You quote people by clicking on "quote" below the comment you want to quote (below their ticker, if they have one.

    Regarding the 300-calorie treadmill workout in 20 minutes, that works out to 900 calorie per hour workout, which is really pretty darn intense. I'm a 5'4" moderately obese woman, and I walk/jog outside on hilly roads at 3 to 3.5 miles an hour (so roughly in the middle of your range), and I use database entries that are around 300 calories an hour. Obviously, over the Internet, none of us can guess how intense your workouts are, but it seems unlikely they're the equivalent of 900 calories an hour. If you feel like it's moderately intense, I would log it as 150 to 200 calories.
  • coral_b
    coral_b Posts: 264 Member
    I upped on the Monday, and was down 2lbs by Saturday, then I continue to drop 1lb every 10 days or so. It is slow but I'm only 20lbs from my top goal, so slow suits me. Also I have IBS so my body is a bit slow with digestion. I'm currently stuck due to being ill (suspected glandular fever, 3 weeks and counting...)
    I aim for about 10 glasses of water a day then fruit tea on top. Which is a lot; however it's helping with skin so i'm sticking with it.
    I use a Polar Heart rate monitor to judge calories, It is always much lower than machines or MFP sets burn as, but if you use machines just only eat 60-70% of calories back.
    I'm sure if you exercise you will see a change in inches as well as weight. When I first started I did Jillian Michaels 30 Day Shred, and in the month I only lost 2lbs but changed my body shape and lost inches.
    Good luck with finding something that works for you- I'm still trying to figure it out but as long as the number goes down not up, then I'm okay with it- I know I'm getting healthier.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Burn 300 calories in 20 minutes? You do realize MFP heavily overestimates burns, right?

    That is easily attainable, especially if moving a lot of mass.

    And MFP exercise calories for walking and jogging flat, if you really do that pace, is going to be more correct than a HRM without enough stats.

    Should match good treadmills where you can punch in your own weight.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Regarding the 300-calorie treadmill workout in 20 minutes, that works out to 900 calorie per hour workout, which is really pretty darn intense.

    At 220 pounds, it's basically 2 miles running, which is well within the realm of doable. The treadmill should be at 2% or so incline, too.

    For someone out of shape, that would be challenging, but it would only be a matter of weeks of C25k to work up to it.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    RoyBeck: I know guys burn more calories than women in general...and it does depend on your weight too. I'll knock 30% off for calories next time I exercise and just stick to that number until I can get a HRM.

    Also...how do you 'quote' people?

    You quote people by clicking on "quote" below the comment you want to quote (below their ticker, if they have one.

    Regarding the 300-calorie treadmill workout in 20 minutes, that works out to 900 calorie per hour workout, which is really pretty darn intense. I'm a 5'4" moderately obese woman, and I walk/jog outside on hilly roads at 3 to 3.5 miles an hour (so roughly in the middle of your range), and I use database entries that are around 300 calories an hour. Obviously, over the Internet, none of us can guess how intense your workouts are, but it seems unlikely they're the equivalent of 900 calories an hour. If you feel like it's moderately intense, I would log it as 150 to 200 calories.

    200 lb person, 4 mph, 8 % grade for 60 min.

    887 calories.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Of course that is gross, what a HRM and MFP database would give you.
    For purpose of eatback, it would only be net 791.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • Daisy80
    Daisy80 Posts: 755 Member
    Check out those two groups on here

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/3817-eat-more-to-weigh-less

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/8017-in-place-of-a-road-map

    They have all the information you need and more. It'll help you to understand your calorie needs and what to expect once you up your calories! I am so glad I found this information and can't even imagine anymore eating at 1200...I did struggle in the beginning but now it just feels right!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So, being 5'9, 222lbs and 27 year old female, my BMR is about 1818 calories. This is what I'd burn if I stayed in bed all day, correct?

    If this is the case, then right off the bat I'm burning 1818 calories.

    MPF has my goal set at 1,270 calories a day in order to lose the 2 lbs a week that I want to lose. Some days I have to force myself to eat that many calories, but I eat as close to 1,270 as I can.

    We started working out almost a month ago and I did gain weight, but it went away after 2 weeks. I work out every other day and make it a goal to burn a MINIMUM of 300 calories with cardio (often it's more, but that's my lowest I'll permit myself to walk out of the gym with. We're usually there only an hour because of my bf's physically demanding job. I burn 300cals in 20 minutes average) and I am doing about 1/2 hour weight training at the gym. I know it's not a lot of working out, but I go out often with my boyfriend and we walk...around the mall, downtown, etc. I keep active and do a lot of cleaning each and every day. All these things burn calories.

    My defect has to be at least 800 calories on the days that I'm working out and living life outside of bed at least. On the days that we don't work out, it's likely around 500 calories minimum.

    So....why am I stuck? Why is the scale now refusing to budge? The only time I really lost weight in the past was when I was under so much emotional stress that I just basically stopped eating. I lost a total of 65lbs that way. I know it wasn't healthy and that's why I'm following this above mentioned plan of eating and exercising.

    I'm kind of frustrated. My goal is to reach 180-200lbs. It's just not really happening. Tips? Advice?

    So MFP has your maintenance at 2270 calories, which means you selected Sedentary activity level for non-exercise daily life.

    Is that really true, 45 hr desk job sitting with commute time, not active on weekends, ect? Except for exercise sessions?

    And then doing MFP, any exercise day you'd eat more than that as it's been mentioned and you say you do, so you are actually eating more than 1270, right?

    Treadmill is accurate enough, though it starts to lose accuracy over 4-5 % grade.

    But are you correctly eating all that back to keep a reasonable 1000 cal deficit?
    Or do you think making it 2000 deficit on most days is better?

    Do you weigh your foods (not measure for volume, weigh for mass)?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    200 lb person, 4 mph, 8 % grade for 60 min.

    887 calories.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Of course that is gross, what a HRM and MFP database would give you.
    For purpose of eatback, it would only be net 791.

    I originally thought your net number was way to high, but at that grade you're looking at approximately 400m elevation change equivalent. Using the rule of thumb of 1 calorie per kg-metre, roughly half the burn is coming from the elevation change itself. And that isn't subject to "50% discount" of flat walking.

    I'd estimate 650ish myself, but at that point we're quibbling in the noise, lots of other, bigger sources of error! :smile:
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    So, being 5'9, 222lbs and 27 year old female, my BMR is about 1818 calories. This is what I'd burn if I stayed in bed all day, correct?

    IMO, based on what you have shared, that's too high. Estimating your BF% at 50, I get a BMR in the 1400s.
  • Windzer
    Windzer Posts: 104
    Also, why would MPF make their goals thing so confusing then for me to eat at? That's the irritating part that they want me to end up at around 1,270cals after everything is all said and done. That info is all wrong then?

    MFP makes a goal based on your activity level, and the amount you want to lose.

    You set it at sedentary, and want to lose 2lbs a week. So 1900 cals for a BMR + ~300 for presumed activity, then you subtract 1000 calories for a 2lb a week loss and you are at ~1200 calories. Makes sense to me.

Categories