In Place of a Road Map: Short N' Sweet

Options
1…1920212325

Replies

  • tambam69
    tambam69 Posts: 270 Member
    Options
    bump
  • beawych
    beawych Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Options
    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153827138905471&id=535740470&set=o.342385002516919&notif_t=wall&ref=m_notif
  • a_d_t
    a_d_t Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Hate to jump on the end of a long (and super helpful) thread, but figured it's the same topic and no need to start new! I need some opinions on the activity level to choose, as I am a recovering "need to eat little calories to be little" and the TDEE I come up with is terrifying!

    Stats:
    29 yr old female
    5'2

    Each of the BF calc (respective to the OP):
    26.4%
    24.8%
    36%
    Avg: 29%

    Avg BMR from the calcs: 1586 (but I am thinking I should stick with the Mifflin total of 1501 due to stated over-inflation of the figures)

    Now to the activity level; yep, desk job..yada yada. However, I do pole fitness 6 days a week, totaling 6-7 hours per week. No need to insert gifs here, I've seen them :) Pole is not easy, but it is hard to identify my "level" as I'm not lifting weights (aside from my entire body!) or running/cardio in a traditional sense. Also, the activity level hangup I'm certain is in my head, as when I put in 1.7 for the active level (working out 6-7 days), my TDEE is crazy high at 2552.

    Essentially, if someone can confirm the activity level, I would feel better eating so much as it seems crazy that I should be eating 2042 calories a day and would lose weight. Preaching to the choir as you hear this often...but that is a lot of food!

    Sorry for the book, but while the inches are coming off from muscle gains, lbs coming off would be nice as it's a lot of work to lift all that body weight off the ground! Thank you!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Hate to jump on the end of a long (and super helpful) thread, but figured it's the same topic and no need to start new! I need some opinions on the activity level to choose, as I am a recovering "need to eat little calories to be little" and the TDEE I come up with is terrifying!

    Stats:
    29 yr old female
    5'2

    Each of the BF calc (respective to the OP):
    26.4%
    24.8%
    36%
    Avg: 29%

    Avg BMR from the calcs: 1586 (but I am thinking I should stick with the Mifflin total of 1501 due to stated over-inflation of the figures)

    Now to the activity level; yep, desk job..yada yada. However, I do pole fitness 6 days a week, totaling 6-7 hours per week. No need to insert gifs here, I've seen them :) Pole is not easy, but it is hard to identify my "level" as I'm not lifting weights (aside from my entire body!) or running/cardio in a traditional sense. Also, the activity level hangup I'm certain is in my head, as when I put in 1.7 for the active level (working out 6-7 days), my TDEE is crazy high at 2552.

    Essentially, if someone can confirm the activity level, I would feel better eating so much as it seems crazy that I should be eating 2042 calories a day and would lose weight. Preaching to the choir as you hear this often...but that is a lot of food!

    Sorry for the book, but while the inches are coming off from muscle gains, lbs coming off would be nice as it's a lot of work to lift all that body weight off the ground! Thank you!

    Use Katch BMR actually based on that avg BF%, you may have less, or more, LBM than the average study participants in the Mifflin BMR study results.

    The body weight stuff is great, though it may not balance muscle use as much, but it's very strength training.

    How long are the holds where you are straining as if lifting something, and how long are the rests between those?

    If it varies all over the place, I'd consider it high cardio level of calorie burn. While not cardio, it's like circuit training, long reps (or holds), brief rests, moving from muscle group to muscle group and back around again.

    Why do I say high cardio? From the spreadsheet on my profile page that can help with that activity calc.

    Basically add to a sedentary TDEE the results of the following count.
    0.1743456 x current weight x minutes a week / 7 = average daily calories added to sedentary level.

    Now, see if you can figure out exactly how much you've been eating on average for however long.

    Because if you are losing inches and getting stronger - your are eating at maintenance.

    You could just chop 250 calories off what you eat. That takes care of perhaps sloppy logging causing you to eat more than you think.
    Or burning more than you think. Just find 250 calories daily you can remove.
    Then you don't have to get more accurate on eating or burning.

    Now, as the spreadsheet deals with, and that formula shows - you weigh less you burn less - you eat less.
  • a_d_t
    a_d_t Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the help! I downloaded your spreadsheet (thanks!) and tried to input the info correctly. Based on your advice I used the 7 hours a week of High Cardio as the workouts are very similar to circuit based. Not sure if this helps, or is un-useful data, but my HR monitor shows an average burn of 305 cal per hour. The first 30 mins is conditioning (squats, lunges, pushups, burpees, abs, abs, abs), second half of class is pole (lifts, body resistance, holds, climbs). The burn ranges from 270-465 depending on the class type for the day

    The spreadsheet shows TDEE of 2895, TDEG of 2316. The equation of "0.1743456 x current weight x minutes a week / 7 = average daily calories added to sedentary level" puts me over 3800 cals so I must've done something incredibly wrong!

    The eating/calorie question (insert your grumble and shaking head): I didn't track - shocking I know-- I eat whole, and primal-y. After being diagnosed with Celiac, I ate carefully, and very similar each day. My weight has stayed within 2.6 lbs for the last 14 months. Calculated average intake was 1650-1800 give or take. I followed the, "eat whole food when I am hungry- don't eat when you're not" thought. I wasn't working out consistently during that time (yoga once a week, a run here and there), so while my weight was not moving around, I was in the truest sense of the word, getting "fatter". BF increase, LBM decreased, clothes became tighter. Enter my workouts. For 3 months I have done the above workout schedule consistently, come hell or high water, and have been eating 1750-1850 cals a day. Macros of 40F, 35P, 25C. I assumed keeping my calories fairly close to what they were, and adding in my fitness routine, the weight would come off and the muscles would come back :) Obviously, that is currently only half true. So, do I try and cut 250 off of my 1800 avg, or follow the TDEE-20% from your spreadsheet and eat 2300? I apologize for the lengthy response! You probably thought you could be done after this! lol!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Oh no, I had more questions, you gave more answers and more questions. No problem.

    So that line where you put your high cardio weekly 420 minutes, actually uses that formula already, and added it to sedentary TDEE to give you Your Results TDEE.

    You didn't need to do that separate if using the spreadsheet. I provided it separate in case you didn't or couldn't.

    The HRM for that type of activity is going to be inflated to some degree, depending on how un-steady-state it is.
    HRM formula for calorie burn is only valid in the aerobic exercise range for steady-state HR 2-4 min.
    You are doing non-steady-state, and likely decent anaerobic for short periods just like the conditioning part.
    So if using HRM, forget calories, watch the avgHR to watch improvements in fitness, should see avgHR come down as you get more fit, and weigh less.

    Can't really use the method I gave to drop 250 calories then, because you really don't know how much you were eating.
    But you are correct, if you were eating at potential maintenance, you could have just added in the exercise to create a deficit, and confirm you eat the same amount.
    But you don't know if you were at potential maintenance, or still suppressed maintenance.

    So testing the TDEG, and actually the TDEE, would be good.
    Add 100 daily each week to your eating goal, slowly making your way up to TDEG, then keep heading up to TDEE for a diet break.
    Expect small water weight increases as body is finally able to store more glycogen with attached water in the muscle.

    Always keep the math in mind, you'd have to eat 250 calories daily over maintenance (potential or suppressed) for 2 weeks straight to see 1 lb of weight gained, and with your workout, not even much of it fat.
    If it's more than 1 lb quicker - wasn't fat, wasn't surplus, but rather water weight.
  • a_d_t
    a_d_t Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Thank you so much! Makes sense on the spreadsheet now!

    I've noticed my HR improving over the last two months (decreasing really, as my heart gets stronger), so I wondered about the actual burn seeing as it does not calculate my BF or other changes, only weight. I wore it for 14 hours one day to see if it would say anything near a fractional TDEE. 14 hours indicated over 2100 calories...again this was just sitting and living, no working out, but that was my first indicator that my body might need more than 1700 calories a day!

    I will slowly add 100 to get to the TDEG of 2300. Yikes. Scary. I thought I was being brave by trying to eat 1850-1900 a day for the last month and have seen no change! Thank you again for the time and suggestions! Keeping the math in mind...it's not scary, and math doesn't lie...repeat :) Thank you!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    The formula's used in HRM for calculating calories from HR are only valid in the exercise aerobic range, steady-state HR as I mentioned.
    So lower than exercise is inflated just as anaerobic and non-steady state is. Invalid use of the tool for TDEE. Sorry.

    Garmin using Firstbeat algorithms are the only ones claiming to have below exercise decent estimate, and I think they just use BMR/RMR for any HR below 90.

    So your HR going lower means your heart isn't getting as much of a workout - but if your intensity and weight are exactly the same - you are burning the same calories.

    But that's where a cheaper HRM doesn't know that, it assumes lower HR, easier workout.
    Unless it has a VO2max stat. Because if that goes higher, that means the same HR is actually burning more, and lower HR is burning the same as lower VO2max stat HR would be higher.

    Yes, repeating the math is always good.

    Really brave is doing the 2 week test after you think you ate at TDEE for 2 weeks.
    Take 2 more weeks and really eat 250 above TDEE.
    Again, should only be 1 lb more gain slowly. But it proves the TDEE out for whatever the workout routine is.

    Then you adjust the Activity Calc to reach that tested TDEE.

    Then as weight drops and calorie burns on activity is less, Activity Calc takes that in to account and lowers correctly, even if your BMR stays the same by retaining LBM.
  • Cath_Taylor
    Cath_Taylor Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    Bump for book marking! :)
  • rworton
    rworton Posts: 28
    Options
    bump
  • ChoiceNotChance
    ChoiceNotChance Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    Great info. Keeper.
  • Healthy67Chick
    Healthy67Chick Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    bump
  • a_d_t
    a_d_t Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Bummer on the HR info; but it makes sense. Brave is a terrifying concept when adding calories! So, to truly test my TDEE, and determine if that is the correct place to start, I should be eating 2900 calories a day for two weeks (based on the spreadsheet)? Then add 250 a day to that total for two weeks to determine if weight increases by 1 lb to test if my TDEE is really at 2900? Yikes!! My concern (aside from the obvious- gaining weight), is the fact that my weight fluctuates by as much as 4 lbs a day. I only weigh once a week, but things affect me very quickly. Especially sodium, even though I drink nearly a gallon of water a day. Anything over 1500 mg in a day will jump my scale by 2+lbs. I think I am just very fearful to eat that much and see a gain of 10 lbs; even if it is not true "fat" gain, I will feel that in my clothes as well as in my workouts. More weight to lift, oooof!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Bummer on the HR info; but it makes sense. Brave is a terrifying concept when adding calories! So, to truly test my TDEE, and determine if that is the correct place to start, I should be eating 2900 calories a day for two weeks (based on the spreadsheet)? Then add 250 a day to that total for two weeks to determine if weight increases by 1 lb to test if my TDEE is really at 2900? Yikes!! My concern (aside from the obvious- gaining weight), is the fact that my weight fluctuates by as much as 4 lbs a day. I only weigh once a week, but things affect me very quickly. Especially sodium, even though I drink nearly a gallon of water a day. Anything over 1500 mg in a day will jump my scale by 2+lbs. I think I am just very fearful to eat that much and see a gain of 10 lbs; even if it is not true "fat" gain, I will feel that in my clothes as well as in my workouts. More weight to lift, oooof!

    I would NOT jump straight up, because if your system is suppressed somewhat, best to wake it up gently.
    So extra 100 or 200 calories daily for a week at a time, working your way up to TDEE for couple weeks, then 2 week test.

    4 lb fluctuate better be expected by this point, as totally valid, even without sodium in the picture.
    That's the difference between topped off glycogen stores with water, and muscle retained water from a workout, to lowered glycogen stores and not sore.

    Find a valid weigh-in day to minimize that too.
    Morning after rest day eating normal sodium levels, not sore from last workout.

    The extra water stored would be in the muscles, and would make them appear bigger.
    It's also extra intra-cellular water that must be managed, therefore part of LBM, therefore increases the metabolism to do so. Also allows workouts to be stronger.

    All win-win for that kind of weight gain. Which frankly is going to come back on everyone who stops eating at a deficit. You lost big first week, you'll gain big first week.
  • noorali9026040
    noorali9026040 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    great and useful info
    well done
  • mrsfyredude
    mrsfyredude Posts: 177 Member
    Options
    :bigsmile:
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Options
    Bummer on the HR info; but it makes sense. Brave is a terrifying concept when adding calories! So, to truly test my TDEE, and determine if that is the correct place to start, I should be eating 2900 calories a day for two weeks (based on the spreadsheet)? Then add 250 a day to that total for two weeks to determine if weight increases by 1 lb to test if my TDEE is really at 2900? Yikes!! My concern (aside from the obvious- gaining weight), is the fact that my weight fluctuates by as much as 4 lbs a day. I only weigh once a week, but things affect me very quickly. Especially sodium, even though I drink nearly a gallon of water a day. Anything over 1500 mg in a day will jump my scale by 2+lbs. I think I am just very fearful to eat that much and see a gain of 10 lbs; even if it is not true "fat" gain, I will feel that in my clothes as well as in my workouts. More weight to lift, oooof!

    Watch the vlogs at www.biolayne.com
    He talks about reverse dieting and it's benefits.
  • Foreverfitnow
    Foreverfitnow Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    This is awesome information! Thank you for sharing!!
  • jaylynny4444
    jaylynny4444 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Hello--- First post here and gingerly poking my head in to ask a question. I'm already muscular in a 'blocky'way--if that makes sense. I did the calculations and I'm about 25% bf, though the measurement may be skewed because I have a tiny waist and flat abs because I had a breast reconstructive procedure ten years ago for breast cancer called a TRAM flap--they basically take fat and muscle from the abs and make a breast out of it--mastectomy and tummy tuck (kind of) in one. I look like a shortish linbacker with a small waist (ooh. Attractive, I know!). 5'4", 162 (down from 174), 53 yrs old, female.

    My question--I can never lose the fat and enough muscle to look.. smaller, can I? According to the calcs, if I wanted to go to 22% fb (which is says is maybe too low wrt my age), my goal wt would be 157 or so, and I'd like to go lower-- but is that a stupid dream? Is the best I can do to be a slightly leaner, very solid, muscle-y linebacker with a small waist?

Categories