Just had a Body Composition Analyzer Session - Confused!
lowerhogan
Posts: 47 Member
Just had a body composition analyzer session in work. Very informative. Has made me think about my goal calorie intake on this site, how it might not be accurate for me.
First of all my height is wrong. (who knew!). She said i should be looking to consume my BMR +30%=Calorie goal. Then less 300cal for weight loss. This leaves me at 2278 Cals a day *for* weight loss. (MFP has me at 1750)
She said not to include any exercise in with my calorie count. hmm
Other interesting things were my fat %. The BMI was a bit on the high side but i knew it might be, but on the plus side i had a high muscle mass.
Do i use this as just information or stick with what i am doing? (it seems to be working for me)
Print out
First of all my height is wrong. (who knew!). She said i should be looking to consume my BMR +30%=Calorie goal. Then less 300cal for weight loss. This leaves me at 2278 Cals a day *for* weight loss. (MFP has me at 1750)
She said not to include any exercise in with my calorie count. hmm
Other interesting things were my fat %. The BMI was a bit on the high side but i knew it might be, but on the plus side i had a high muscle mass.
Do i use this as just information or stick with what i am doing? (it seems to be working for me)
Print out
0
Replies
-
I say stick with what works, if on average you are losing drastic amounts of weight, like 3-4 pounds a week then you need to increase your calories, otherwise why change what works? Im eating 1920 calories a day through MFP at 6'5 and my strength is not decreasing, and im shedding a pound and a half a week on average, but according to the doctor she told me i should be eating 2600-2800 calories for weight loss.0
-
Need a lot more information in order to comment.
Numbers, for one thing.
Height, weight, age, BF % (not BMI, which is pretty useless),0 -
I say stick with what works, if on average you are losing drastic amounts of weight, like 3-4 pounds a week then you need to increase your calories, otherwise why change what works? Im eating 1920 calories a day through MFP at 6'5 and my strength is not decreasing, and im shedding a pound and a half a week on average, but according to the doctor she told me i should be eating 2600-2800 calories for weight loss.
Yeah im airing on the side of just keeping on trucking. I have lost a few lbs using MFP and it seems to work. Im handy enough now after 44 days keeping my calorie limit to the 1750, although i changed my height to what it should be and then set my target to a bit lower which increased my daily calorie allowance.0 -
The calculation of your suggested intake without exercise is essentially the same as 1750 plus exercise, depending on how much you work out.
If you stick with the MFP method then you should be eating back exercise cals, if you go with the TDEE method, then you shouldn't.0 -
Need a lot more information in order to comment.
Numbers, for one thing.
Height, weight, age, BF % (not BMI, which is pretty useless),
Height 177.3cm
Weight 86kg (had weighed myself this morning at 85.5 which was a loss but ate breakfast, had water etc)
BF% 21.8%0 -
If what you're currently doing works for you and you are happy with your regime then why change it?
No i know, but then it just got me thinking about all the things that I hadn't "worried" about when i decided to lose weight, Fat%, my BMI or my "ideal weight" should be much lower.0 -
Need a lot more information in order to comment.
Numbers, for one thing.
Height, weight, age, BF % (not BMI, which is pretty useless),
I thought the BMI was useless too, we just talked about it and she said it is a relevant scale. But i was airing on the side of it being a scale / index to tell older people that they are a degree of being over weight but she said it isn't, it should be taken into consideration...0 -
If your comfortable with your intake I wouldn't stress it. 1960 seems very reasonable. I know MFP dropped my calories to 1420 and my energy started lagging. Checked my BMR said 1570 range. So I adjusted my settings to 30 minutes 5 days a week of exercise to up my intake back to 1620.
Of course I am female 5'7" with PCOS ( too much male hormones).0 -
No i know, but then it just got me thinking about all the things that I hadn't "worried" about when i decided to lose weight, Fat%, my BMI or my "ideal weight" should be much lower.
My advice when setting an "ideal weight" is to figure out at what body fat percentage you'd like to end up. (Check out Google images for examples of what people generally look like at different percentages.) Then, if you know your lean body mass, you can work backwards to your ideal weight.
For example, I want to get to 10% BF. My current LBM is 158. Therefore, at 176 lbs, I would be at 10% BF, so that's my current target weight. That's the best way to set yourself a target. As you begin approaching that, you can adjust as necessary depending on how you're feeling.0 -
0
-
It depends a lot on your numbers IMO. Her formula would put me at a deficit of approx 1300 cals a day based on my TDEE (as I run/ work out for a total of around 8-9hrs a week) which would mean the weight would fall off but I'd also be starving and losing more muscle mass than is preferable. My current deficit is around 700 a day on average which works for me. Personally I'd use it as interesting data and something to may be go back to when/ if your weight loss stalls but if what you're doing is working and is sustainable for you then personally I wouldn't change it.0
-
Looking at the numbers, I agree that it seems like the difference is just that MFP and whoever you spoke use different approaches--the actual numbers aren't all that different.
And I also agree that there is no reason to change what you are doing unless you started dragging I'm your workouts. The counselor is just being a little more conservative, that's all.
Your fat-free mass is not super high for your height, but it is above average. That is why for you, BMI is not that helpful for determining a goal weight. As the other poster stated, it is better to set a goal BF% and calculate the "goal weight" from your FFM.0 -
It depends a lot on your numbers IMO. Her formula would put me at a deficit of approx 1300 cals a day based on my TDEE (as I run/ work out for a total of around 8-9hrs a week) which would mean the weight would fall off but I'd also be starving and losing more muscle mass than is preferable. My current deficit is around 700 a day on average which works for me. Personally I'd use it as interesting data and something to may be go back to when/ if your weight loss stalls but if what you're doing is working and is sustainable for you then personally I wouldn't change it.
Yeah I am inclined to agree. I don't see it as a set back just had stopped me in my tracks. I've adjusted the height and my target weight slightly. I weigh myself every 2 weeks and i am happy with the results of using this and combining with exercise for the past 44 days0 -
.
Your fat-free mass is not super high for your height, but it is above average. That is why for you, BMI is not that helpful for determining a goal weight. As the other poster stated, it is better to set a goal BF% and calculate the "goal weight" from your FFM.
Yeah my target weight is is in and around 79kgs. She did say my BF% was on the high side, maybe something to look at was my intake of fatty foods.0 -
Thanks for all the comments guys, appreciate it!0
-
Above is weigh in for February and today's body comp analysis
Ok so, just a follow on so i said i would post it here for my own log.
Body Composition analysis test done this morning. Happy with progress, to be fair i had let myself slide so i am back on track in relation to my original analysis test. Surprised that there is a drop off in muscle % but I'm toning up which is my main goal.
One of the main pointers she gave me was about nutrition in and around exercise. The 2 hour window after the gym or training it's important to refuel which i normally wouldn't do religiously/at all. So gonna grab some 500ml avonmore protein milks or bananas for straight after training
Over all happy with my progress anyway, feel lighter, quicker, toned, the target is still to get under the 13 stone mark.0 -
lowerhogan wrote: »Above is weigh in for February and today's body comp analysis
Ok so, just a follow on so i said i would post it here for my own log.
Body Composition analysis test done this morning. Happy with progress, to be fair i had let myself slide so i am back on track in relation to my original analysis test. Surprised that there is a drop off in muscle % but I'm toning up which is my main goal.
you should be extremely careful in judging the accuracy of things like BF in a scale analysis. But you can judge progress over time (eg months). Unless I am misunderstanding the technology and this is actually a body pod / dexa scan and not a step on / hold something scale
One of the main pointers she gave me was about nutrition in and around exercise. The 2 hour window after the gym or training it's important to refuel which i normally wouldn't do religiously/at all. So gonna grab some 500ml avonmore protein milks or bananas for straight after training
I cannot even begin to imagine how long ago that particular bro-science myth was debunked .. timing of protein consumption makes absolutely no difference. Just ensure you are consuming your protein mainmums across the day/week
Over all happy with my progress anyway, feel lighter, quicker, toned, the target is still to get under the 13 stone mark.
glad you're happy and making progress - but take this information with a pinch of salt
0 -
@rabbitjb is correct here. This device, the Tanita body composition scale, is a very advanced and expensive version of the bioimpedance measurements available in consumer scales. It is designed for doctor's office settings, so it will be more accurate and precise than the one you can get from Target, but this technology is still limited. The DEXA scan or hydrostatic methods are the most accurate, but they're expensive to perform and can't be done frequently, so this type of scale is a decent compromise.
As for the calorie number they gave you from the analysis, it looks like they're approaching the calculation from a different perspective. MFP uses the NEAT method, and calculates your target calories by subtracting a set deficit (~500 cal/lb/day) from that based on your goal weight loss/wk. The recommendation they gave you was based on BMR + 30%.
The good thing is you know the estimate of your BMR the scale gave you. You can plug your stats (including your new height) into a TDEE calculator that will also give you a BMR number that you can compare. You can set your calorie target anywhere between your BMR and TDEE for a deficit that works for you.
As for BMI, that number was originally created to normalize and index statistical data for population studies in the 1800s. In the early 1900s, life insurance companies latched on to this statistic for actuarial analysis of obesity and it's effect on early mortality. The definitions for overweight and obese thresholds came out of this analysis. BMI does make a useful indicator that is quick and easy to check for a large part of the population, but it is not a diagnostic tool. Unfortunately, as health insurance and medical costs have risen, certain employers and insurance companies are misusing this data.
Hope this helps you and you have a lot of success hitting your targets.
0 -
Thanks for your feedback guys. I use this as a good indicator for certain things and to just take stock of where i am at that point. Overall im happy with my goals and such, i didnt really pay too much attention to the body fat % etc as my aim isn't to 'grow muscle' or 'get lean' ...im mostly just trying to lose the bit of weight and be healthier. The choices i am making now are assisting that big time. So the real key i took from it was the drop in body weight from February and i can see the body changes myself so happy with progress0
-
Update today
That is the last 3 composition results side by side.
0 -
@Gustaaf85 Thanks, yeah i think i will be paying more attention to it. ALthough i have toned up and have gone down clothes sizes , its alarming that my body fat % is on the increase. And i exercise every week too
0 -
@Gustaaf85 It does, i've been hung up on it all day. Especially with the visceral fat, which is alarming. I will try take a more rounded look at it as opposed to zoning in on something that could be a spike for another reason0
-
MFP is so wrong with their numbers, it say's i need to eat 1700 a day to lose weight, while my BMR calculated by professionals in athlete centre is 1785, so MFP basicly tells me to screw with my organs and make myself unhealthy
I say that analyzer is better to go with than MFP
Not saying the analyzer might be 100% right (no machine can do that) but definatly better than MFP (imho)
there is no issue with eating below BMR .. it causes no damage .. BMR is just an estimated number
That said work with whatever estimates you wish but always judge over time by what happens with your actual body in terms of weight / body composition
Unless you are having a Dexa Scan I would ignore any absolute numbers from 'profiles' though there is far too much margin for error .. (sorry, can't see your images due to work filter)0 -
lowerhogan wrote: »@Gustaaf85 It does, i've been hung up on it all day. Especially with the visceral fat, which is alarming. I will try take a more rounded look at it as opposed to zoning in on something that could be a spike for another reason
Well visceral fat is the fat on the inside
I have seen people with sixpack, but higher visceral fat than me
@rabbitjb euhm... Eating below your BMR for a long time can cause serious harm to your organs, if you don't beleive me, ask a doctor!
Your BMR is just the amount you would be burning if you were in a coma and not moving all day.0 -
@stevencloser
Yeah so basicly the least amount of fuel you need, or in other words, the least amount of fuel to keep your body functioning
No, an arbitrary subset of your total actual fuel need, which does not include NEAT and exercise burns.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Your BMR is just the amount you would be burning if you were in a coma and not moving all day.
I don't know where this "coma" nonsense comes from, it's hyperbole. Step 1 of a BMR measurement protocol is not "put the patient into a medically induced coma" :-Conditions to be met while measuring BMR
The concept of basal metabolism arose from the need to
standardise measurements so that accurate comparisons
could be made between individuals. This is achieved by
measuring a minimum rate of heat production free of the
effects of any consumption of food and ‘extreme’ physical
environments.
All BMR measurements must therefore meet the
following conditions:
1. The subject should be completely rested, both before
and during the measurements. They should be lying
down and fully awake.
2. The subjects should be fasted for at least 10 –12 hours
before the measurements are taken.
3. The environment in which the measurements are taken
should be thermo-neutral (22–268C) so that there is no
thermoregulatory effect on heat production.
4. The subject should be free from emotional stress and
familiar with the apparatus used.
Basal metabolic rate studies in humans: measurement
and development of new equations by CJK Henry
Public Health Nutrition: 8(7A), 1133–1152 DOI: 10.1079/PHN20058010 -
"In a coma" is a faster explanation than "well rested, fasted for at least half a day and not moving while lying down for an extended period of time".0
-
lowerhogan wrote: »@Gustaaf85 It does, i've been hung up on it all day. Especially with the visceral fat, which is alarming. I will try take a more rounded look at it as opposed to zoning in on something that could be a spike for another reason
Well visceral fat is the fat on the inside
I have seen people with sixpack, but higher visceral fat than me
@rabbitjb euhm... Eating below your BMR for a long time can cause serious harm to your organs, if you don't beleive me, ask a doctor!
if a very long time means you have lost all non-essential fat then possibly .. that I shall concede
but we aren't there are we
none of us are I'll warrant
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Your BMR is just the amount you would be burning if you were in a coma and not moving all day.
I don't know where this "coma" nonsense comes from, it's hyperbole. Step 1 of a BMR measurement protocol is not "put the patient into a medically induced coma" :-Conditions to be met while measuring BMR
The concept of basal metabolism arose from the need to
standardise measurements so that accurate comparisons
could be made between individuals. This is achieved by
measuring a minimum rate of heat production free of the
effects of any consumption of food and ‘extreme’ physical
environments.
All BMR measurements must therefore meet the
following conditions:
1. The subject should be completely rested, both before
and during the measurements. They should be lying
down and fully awake.
2. The subjects should be fasted for at least 10 –12 hours
before the measurements are taken.
3. The environment in which the measurements are taken
should be thermo-neutral (22–268C) so that there is no
thermoregulatory effect on heat production.
4. The subject should be free from emotional stress and
familiar with the apparatus used.
Basal metabolic rate studies in humans: measurement
and development of new equations by CJK Henry
Public Health Nutrition: 8(7A), 1133–1152 DOI: 10.1079/PHN2005801
interesting nitpicky there yarwell... doesn't change the discussion point though does it? Or do you think it matters if you eat below your BMR if you can get a full nutritional balance at the lower than BMR rate
and anyway few of us have an accurate medical measured BMR, we're generally going by the estimation0 -
She's nuts! Even MFP is usually high. In your case 1600 probably about right!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions