why does my daily energy expenditure seem so big?
Options
Replies
-
From the rate of weight loss it should be clear that your actual TDEE is in fact higher. The calculations you have shown are not very applicable as well. The science of weight loss is not as simplified as perhaps you have thought. SO many factors come into play. Metabolism, genetics, activity, body composition, and diet (macronutrient, micronutrient, probiotics, and fibre allotages, as well as nutrient timing)- just to name a few.
The truth is that in the end, calories in vs. calories out will determine whether or not you lose weight, gain weight, or reach equilibrium, but no one equation suits every single person, it's definitly case by case. I have found trial and error to be the best way to figure out what's best for the individual. There are MANY different ways to effectively lose weight, but different results will be achieved through these different ways, as well as potential side effects. Some people simply want to be smaller, some people want to be leaner, some people want to be stronger, some people want larger muscles, some people want to be optimally healthy, etc. etc. etc. and all can be achieved through a different technique. \
Many people on this thread are warning you to eat more. If not for any other reason I would recommend you eat more because you risk the potential of damaging your metabolism by eating so few calories. Please research "metabolic damage" and "reverse dieting".0 -
The first stage of weight loss is reduction of hepatic (liver) glycogen stores. Water and glycogen are stored together in a 4:1 ratio, so not all of the pounds you have lost can be valued at 3500 kilocalories. Once you have depleted your liver glycogen stores, the 3500 kcal per pound number will be more accurate, but never completely accurate. The best way to determine your basal metabolism is to use an on-line calculator or have it measured in a sports lab. I did this early on, and the two values were very close. Then you can factor in your daily activity, either by using a generic activity level, or with the help of a heart rate monitor (I have the Microsoft Band for example.)0
-
His metabolism being higher than he thinks isn't the issue. The issue is he is barely eating.
He doesn't need to do any reverse dieting. That's not necessary.
Yes the science of weight loss is simple. Some people just feel the need to over complicate it.
I respecfully disagree. The type of results is highly dependent on many factors, so I wouldn't call it simple. It's not over complication, it's appropriate.
Were he to understand that his TDEE is higher he would be eating more. So that would solve the issue of barely eating.0 -
If you are going to talk to me in such a rude tone, please try not to put assumptions you know to be unshared into your statements as if they were common ground - a very cheap arguing technique. And if you want to engage with me at all (nobody's making you), please actually read what I wrote. I said I didn't care about aesthetics, not that I did. So what "clearly" follows from your false premise doesn't matter.I love it when the OP comes in and asks questions then argues all the answers.
Simply put OP, you are eating very little, for no good reason. You are losing to fast because of it. 2.2 lbs per week goal with little to lose isn't smart. You say you care about asthertics, clearly you don't because what you are doing is causing you muscle loss and that is contradictory to your goal.
Read the links people provided, stop arguing and smarten up.
0 -
Thanks for this. Have you got a link to such an online calculator? And how long does it normally take to deplete the liver glycogen stores? My rate of weight loss has been constant for 3 weeks.The first stage of weight loss is reduction of hepatic (liver) glycogen stores. Water and glycogen are stored together in a 4:1 ratio, so not all of the pounds you have lost can be valued at 3500 kilocalories. Once you have depleted your liver glycogen stores, the 3500 kcal per pound number will be more accurate, but never completely accurate. The best way to determine your basal metabolism is to use an on-line calculator or have it measured in a sports lab. I did this early on, and the two values were very close. Then you can factor in your daily activity, either by using a generic activity level, or with the help of a heart rate monitor (I have the Microsoft Band for example.)
0 -
MrM27, I think I like your approach. Can I just ask whether you agree with those who have said that the reason I am losing 4.7 lb per week rather than the 2.2 lb that would be indicated by simple application of the 3500 figure is muscle loss and to some extent also fluid loss. Please assume I am tracking calories consumed and weight sufficiently precisely.
We will agree to disagree. CICO is the key. Metabolic disorders can be addressed medically. Over thinking hormones is something people do when they don't want to admit their tracking sucks. But enough what that, I'm not going to continue a pointless debate.morgymorgluvsu wrote: »His metabolism being higher than he thinks isn't the issue. The issue is he is barely eating.
He doesn't need to do any reverse dieting. That's not necessary.
Yes the science of weight loss is simple. Some people just feel the need to over complicate it.
I respecfully disagree. The type of results is highly dependent on many factors, so I wouldn't call it simple. It's not over complication, it's appropriate.
Were he to understand that his TDEE is higher he would be eating more. So that would solve the issue of barely eating.0 -
You need to be eating more than 872 calories. They do not recommend to go lower than 1200 Net calories. You need to eat more calories. Thats why you are losing weight so fast. You need to figure out your TDEE and you should only subtract 10-20% of that for HEALTHY weight loss.0
-
MrM27, I think I like your approach. Can I just ask whether you agree with those who have said that the reason I am losing 4.7 lb per week rather than the 2.2 lb that would be indicated by simple application of the 3500 figure is muscle loss and to some extent also fluid loss. Please assume I am tracking calories consumed and weight sufficiently precisely.[/quote]
We will agree to disagree. CICO is the key. Metabolic disorders can be addressed medically. Over thinking hormones is something people do when they don't want to admit their tracking sucks. But enough what that, I'm not going to continue a pointless debate.I respecfully disagree. The type of results is highly dependent on many factors, so I wouldn't call it simple. It's not over complication, it's appropriate.
Were he to understand that his TDEE is higher he would be eating more. So that would solve the issue of barely eating.
I agree CICO is the key, certainly. My point was that CICO is not as black and white as most people assume. Just taking my own experience as an example, for three months I was eating 1425 C and working out for 45 min daily and did not see a single pound lost, for three months. Then I began monitoring and adjusting the amount of carbohydrates, protein, and fats I was consuming and suddenly began losing 2 lbs a week, at exactly the same calorie input level (1425 C).
Obviously my calories out had somehow increased, and it was not due to added excersize, and likely not hormones, and a TDEE calculator would give me the same number as before. This is where I was going with it not being quite so simple than 1-2=-1, other factors come into play.0 -
872 calories a day and you're a man??? Let me just go bang my head against the wall.0
-
Why not just plug your numbers and activity level into MFP, set your goal, and eat that amount? Seems to work for every single person that does it. All the math is not needed. MFP does it for you. Only real trick: Log your food accurately as well as any exercise. That's all there is to it0
-
I'm a woman and I'm a similar height to you. I can lose rapidly on 2000 cals per day. My TDEE is about 3300 so doesn't surprise me what you've calculated. You need to sort out your disordered relationship with food and start upping your calories. And by upping I mean like triple what you're eating at the moment.0
-
And how long does it normally take to deplete the liver glycogen stores? My rate of weight loss has been constant for 3 weeks.
About 3-4 days of calorie deficit will usually deplete your glycogen stores or "water weight" or whatever you want to call it. If you've been losing at this rate for 3 weeks then you're losing muscle and fat. But such points are irrelevant. The biggest issue here is not figuring out your TDEE. Your biggest problem is you're only eating 890 calories per day. That is bl00dy ridiculous. Toddlers should eat more and they're like 2 feet tall.0 -
If something's going wrong, what symptoms should I be getting?
Why can't losing a bit of muscle while eating a low-calorie diet for a few weeks or months be sorted out by doing more exercise? Either after I've reached my target, or starting before?
Muscle is notoriously difficult to regain once you've lost it. Why wouldn't you just lose weight at a sustainable rate, while retaining your muscles and not have these problems? It's much easier and healthier and more enjoyable.
Symptoms you will get from long term starvation: hair loss, constipation, fatigue, headaches, irritability, very high cholesterol, low blood pressure, fainting, inability to concentrate, memory loss, flaky skin, poor circulation, cold extremities, hypothermia and -- if you keep it up for long enough -- organ failure and death.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions