why does my daily energy expenditure seem so big?
Replies
-
* consider increasing calorie intake (but only slightly - I don't buy the apocalyptic stuff, sorry), especially given that I'll be doing more exercise
Facts are still facts whether you believe them or not.
You can't just exercise your muscle back on that easily. Have you seen Matthew McConaughey? He still doesn't have his muscle mass back from his weight loss and that's a man with all of the resources in the world.
0 -
At your height and your goal weight you would be considered underweight.a woman is supposed to eat no less than 1200 calories,a man needs more(due to having more muscle mass).If you dont eat enough you will start having side effects similar to anorexia.If you eat your calories and then burn off 1100 a day thats one thing but taking what you burn off of your calorie allowance and only eating what is left is another.
The more you exercise the more you need to eat and your body needs the fuel.especially if you are doing extreme exercises or burning a lot of calories. Most days I eat twice your calorie intake and Im still losing weight. Im a woman who is 5'6 1/2 and 185 lbs.
even if you were to weight train,with so little calories it would be almost impossible to gain muscle.you wouldnt get in enough protein. 2 protein shakes(with fruit and other things added) and you would be close to going over your current calories. You may not see or notice side effects right away but not eating enough can cause damage to your heart and other organs. for people that think this is bull do some research.0 -
WIth eighteen pounds to lose, a 2 pound per week goal (not to mention what you're currently at) is going to be too aggressive. You should be eating at about 10-15% from your TDEE, which would be 2800-2950 calories. Continuing at your rate, you could start experiencing some major problems from the massive deficit, weakening your muscles and missing various nutrients.0
-
I don't know why you say that. My target is 71kg (156.5 lb) and I'm 1.80m (5'11") tall. That gives a body mass index of 71/(1.80^2) = 21.9, which isn't underweight by any definition I'm aware of. It's close to bang in the middle of what's considered the optimal range, 18.5-25, which is exactly why I chose it. In fact it's 0.15 units above, which at my height works out as 1.07 lb. Please don't worry - I'm not aiming to be as thin as a rakeCharlieBeansmom wrote: »At your height and your goal weight you would be considered underweight
I think I've got the main point about muscle tissue nowCharlieBeansmom wrote: »If you eat your calories and then burn off 1100 a day thats one thing but taking what you burn off of your calorie allowance and only eating what is left is another.
You probably get more exercise than I do. I've now decided I'm going to start a proper exercise plan literally tomorrow! May I ask what your rate of weight loss is and whether it's more or less constant at a weekly level?CharlieBeansmom wrote: »The more you exercise the more you need to eat and your body needs the fuel.especially if you are doing extreme exercises or burning a lot of calories. Most days I eat twice your calorie intake and Im still losing weight. Im a woman who is 5'6 1/2 and 185 lbs.
Those aware of it could cite it and even research who paid for it. But I didn't come here to argue! I am going to start a proper exercise plan, will eat some more protein-rich food and am happy to let that put my calorie intake above what it's been. I can see the point about muscle tissue and exercise and also what you say about burning off calories and how that is beneficial for muscles. I'm just not planning to be a long-term slimmer...CharlieBeansmom wrote: »even if you were to weight train,with so little calories it would be almost impossible to gain muscle.you wouldnt get in enough protein. 2 protein shakes(with fruit and other things added) and you would be close to going over your current calories. You may not see or notice side effects right away but not eating enough can cause damage to your heart and other organs. for people that think this is bull do some research.
0 -
You've got my TDEE wrong. I think you're using the figure (3267) that would be correct if all of the weight I'm currently losing was fat. That's what I started this thread to ask for advice about, because my actual TDEE is probably only about 1950-2050. I'm 5'11" tall and male, but my frame is probably slightly smaller than the middle of medium and my lifestyle is pretty sedentary. Maybe it's a bit bigger, but there's just no way it's up by 3000.WIth eighteen pounds to lose, a 2 pound per week goal (not to mention what you're currently at) is going to be too aggressive. You should be eating at about 10-15% from your TDEE, which would be 2800-2950 calories. Continuing at your rate, you could start experiencing some major problems from the massive deficit, weakening your muscles and missing various nutrients.
0 -
All figures aside, that is substantial rapid weight loss. It cannot be accounted for by your probable TDEE and the amount of food you are eating (which is why you came and asked the question). Your TDEE as worked out by the amount of weight loss isn't probable based on your age, height. weight and activity level. Have you considered getting this checked out by your doctor, just incase there is an underlying medical issue?0
-
My husband is your height, build and weight. He's not really trying to lose weight (his body fat is 18%) but is tracking food for medical reasons. He has a sedentary job and does no specific exercise apart from the walking involved in his daily commute. He averages about 2000 calories per day and is still losing around 1lb/week. Which is about the most I would recommend for someone with not much to lose.
You need to eat more. Seriously.0 -
if your goal is to lose 2.2 p0unds a week and you are losing 4 pounds a week at 870 calories a day (which is an insanely low amount of calories to be eating) then you can eat 1600 a day and lose two pounds a week ….
a 49 year old man should not be eating 872 calories a day …
I am a 35 year old male and my maintenance calories are about 2500 to 2600 a day ….0 -
You've got my TDEE wrong. I think you're using the figure (3267) that would be correct if all of the weight I'm currently losing was fat. That's what I started this thread to ask for advice about, because my actual TDEE is probably only about 1950-2050. I'm 5'11" tall and male, but my frame is probably slightly smaller than the middle of medium and my lifestyle is pretty sedentary. Maybe it's a bit bigger, but there's just no way it's up by 3000.WIth eighteen pounds to lose, a 2 pound per week goal (not to mention what you're currently at) is going to be too aggressive. You should be eating at about 10-15% from your TDEE, which would be 2800-2950 calories. Continuing at your rate, you could start experiencing some major problems from the massive deficit, weakening your muscles and missing various nutrients.
Will you be able to sustain the weight loss once you've reached your goal weight?
You have a February deadline, what is the rush?
0 -
Check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiement (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment).0
-
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions