down zero lbs zero inches!

herrspoons wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

wladysiak wrote: »

Active... I work as a medical assistant and work out 1 HR a day

Sorry, that's sedentary or at best light. One hour a day working out doesn't compensate for 23 hours sleeping, sitting behind a desk or light walking, and the rest of the time on the couch at home.

I work out on average 30 minutes a day, I'm a student, my activity level is moderate on calculators (this is what matches up with my self-calculated TDEE based on logging weight and food intake over time). So it's more than just the exercise, if being a medical assistant means being on her feet all day and lifting things then she could be classified as active. Her intake goal is still too low and she is still not logging properly, so likely eating more than she realizes. Doesn't mean that her TDEE isn't around 2200 just because she only exercises 1hr a day.

No, sorry. That's not how it works. Activity levels are merely multipliers of BMR, which are based on additional effort. The vast majority of people who work behind a desk are sedentary. Those on their feet all day are moderate. A fireman or a builder may be active.

Most people will overestimate their activity level which, frankly is why TDEE sucks as a method of calculating calorie allowance, and why base levels (BMR * 1.2) with extra activity added in are far better for most people who work indoors.

In addition, these factors were worked out in 1919 as an adjunct to the now defunct Harris Benedict formula when people were more active and their 'light' would be today's 'active'.

I work indoors. I did net method and it was horrible - I didn't have the right energy for workouts and I lost weight too quickly, and this is with using the lightly active setting while eating back 75-100% of my exercise calories. TDEE works much better for me, and from looking at my own logs I was able to calculate that my TDEE based on how much weight I have lost on average adds up to when I use generic calculators at moderate activity. I only walk around/stand for like.. 2 hours outside of my exercise routine, which again is ~30 minutes a day (~1 hour 4x a week + one 30 min cardio session). I have no idea what OP's activity levels are like outside of exercise, since I don't know what a medical assistant does. For all we know she stands and runs around all day, so maybe her TDEE does match up to an active multiplier. And if it doesn't then she simply needs to try a lower TDEE multiplier. She would need to test out the TDEE number along with proper logging to determine her proper rough approximation, and based on her log it can be easily established that logging is her biggest problem, not having inflated and uneaten exercise calories. Doesn't matter if she chooses net or TDEE method since she's not eating her exercise cals back either way, she simply needs to learn to log properly right now so she can then figure out if her calorie goals are actually appropriate to her needs.

Right. So equally you could have adjusted the net method so you took in more calories and lost weight less quickly?

All calorie estimate formulae are estimates based on modelling of data points, so there will be inherent variations at the individual level - if you assume calorie requirements for a given height, weight, etc are normally distributed, then the model gives an estimate of the mean for those variables. For example, the Mf-StJ equation may show a figure of 2,000 whereas the actual amount for an individual may be anything between, say, 1800 and 2200 or wider.

TDEE will work for some people, just as accepting that your net method base figure may have an error of 10% or more because of individual variation from the estimated mean does. Unfortunately, TDEE then compounds the error by introducing arbitrary multipliers - for example, 'light' can be defined as working out for 3 hours a week... but doing what? Strength training? Running? HIIT? Clearly different exercises at different intensities will not have the same calorie burn, yet TDEE lumps them all under one multiplier.

That's why it's an inferior method which succeeds more by luck than design - it takes what is already an estimate with a reasonable margin of error and then increases it by an arbitrary weighting rather than trying to minimise any further error by being specific about the duration, intensity and types of activity people do.

I did adjust it and still lost weight too quickly, and at that point I was finding the method to be inconvenient and annoying. So I switched to a method that I found easier and more convenient. I used to post in another fitness forum where pretty much everyone recommended doing TDEE over net calorie method. So clearly some methods work better for others, and TDEE is what I prefer. It's also the method I would recommend over net for individuals who are consistent with their exercise because it is much easier to notice trends with this approach than it is with net method (from my experience at least).

A lot of people on MFP use TDEE method, as do most people who lift weights in general. I guess we are all using the inferior method despite preferring this method and seeing better results with it.

TDEE is an estimate, yes. Everyone knows this. So is net method. Why would TDEE then be inferior to net? Net method also estimates exercise burns, whether you are using burns calculated from the machine, MFP, a HRM, or other means. Both methods require picking an initial activity level and eating the prescribed calories, then monitoring to see if those calories yield your desired weight loss. If logging accurately, then one can easily determine if the goal is within their ballpark. If they don't lose as expected then they adjust up or down. Net method is not exempt from requiring such adjustments, so it's moot to claim that it's a better method outside of personal preference.

arditarose wrote: »

Laurend224 wrote: »

cbeggs810 wrote: »

I see there are many different views on here as to what will make you lose weight. I have fought for almost 5 years trying to lose weight to no avail, I have tried every diet and trick out there. It is all what you can actually find works for you. Some people can do it with just calorie deficit, some people can not.

I am now averaging a weight loss of 1/2lb a day, I do not count my calories it is what I am putting in my body that has worked for me. I eliminated all wheat products, limiting my carb intake, eating HIGH Fat (good fats, butter, coconut oil, olive oil), Fresh or frozen not processed vegetables. NO PROCESSED FOODS. If it comes in a box don't touch it. I use Stevia instead of sugar. Homemade food from scratch ingredients. I do not have blood sugar spikes and crashes. I have not been hungry at all. I eat when my body tells me it is hungry and stop when I feel full.

I have sedentary desk job so I don't get the exercise you do on your job. This is what is finally working for me. And The home made version of bulletproof coffee has become my favorite.

Feel free to add me as a friend.

Oh here we go.

Of course. Not like we could make it to 4 pages without the suggestion to eliminate wheat products and processed foods.

what? where's the gluten avoidance? down with gluten!!

dixoncrew wrote: »

You are not eating enough. If I were as active as you I'd be eating 1800-2000 calories a day which would still put you at a deficit. 1300 calories isn't even enough for someone who doesn't even workout. You need to fuel your body properly. Check out the Eat, Train, Progress group, they have tons of great info.

How can you tell what the OP is actually eating with their in accurate and inconsistent logging?

dixoncrew wrote: »

You are not eating enough. If I were as active as you I'd be eating 1800-2000 calories a day which would still put you at a deficit. 1300 calories isn't even enough for someone who doesn't even workout. You need to fuel your body properly. Check out the Eat, Train, Progress group, they have tons of great info.

so she is not losing because she is eating TOO little…really???