Tdee no weight loss
Options
doolalytap
Posts: 18 Member
i know this isn't a full on science but I lost 1lb last week with tdee method this week, this week increased a little, I've counted. Should I be tweaking numbers or waiting it out at this current amount?
0
Replies
-
Wait it out. Weight loss isn't linear. I'd give it a good 4-6 weeks, then reassess.0
-
I would give it another week and then go back to the drawing boards.0
-
Thank you guys.0
-
Weight loss isn't linear. Give it another few weeks before you reevaluate.0
-
Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.0 -
Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?0 -
Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?
Oooh, I just found this!! PMS pizza = justified!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/44/5/614.full.pdf?origin=publication_detail
(have only skimmed the abstract, and haven't yet looked for anything that supports or counters it)
Helps if you include the link, eh?0 -
I just run with the club and work out with a pt and cycle so at least 5 hours a week. I've checked on a few calculators and I'm within my quota easily. Thanks for answers.0
-
Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?
Changes in muscle mass. Changes in fat around organs. Changes in temperature of the environment. Amount of oxygen in the air. Injury. There are plenty of things that can effect BMR, but most are not of enough significance to worry about.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?
Changes in muscle mass. Changes in fat around organs. Changes in temperature of the environment. Amount of oxygen in the air. Injury. There are plenty of things that can effect BMR, but most are not of enough significance to worry about.
A woman's muscle mass and the amount of fat around organs, etc, do not change based on her monthly cycle though. Water retention and hormones do.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?
Changes in muscle mass. Changes in fat around organs. Changes in temperature of the environment. Amount of oxygen in the air. Injury. There are plenty of things that can effect BMR, but most are not of enough significance to worry about.
A woman's muscle mass and the amount of fat around organs, etc, do not change based on her monthly cycle though. Water retention and hormones do.
Actually, they probably do, but the changes are so insignificant that no one would notice.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Since as a woman, your BMR literally changes through the month, you can't do anything less than 4 weeks to decide if working or not.
And TDEE method with exercise included means you are really keeping as active as you accounted for in the rough 5 level TDEE table.
Our BMR changes? Not just our water weight
How so?
Oooh, I just found this!! PMS pizza = justified!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/44/5/614.full.pdf?origin=publication_detail
(have only skimmed the abstract, and haven't yet looked for anything that supports or counters it)
Helps if you include the link, eh?
Exactly - and when you read over intro's to a lot of other weight loss studies, you'll find reference to acknowledging that fact and accounting for it in the numbers, either by having a multiple of 4 weeks in the total time or similar.
Once you know that tidbit, it's interesting to see how many times it's mentioned in the study setup.
And some of it is related to water weight, but water weight maintained in cells actually requires more energy to manage it - so increased BMR.
Unlike some retained water is just flat out more water, and not much increase to metabolism related to it.0 -
In that study n=10 ..it's hardly robust...but it was interesting that 8, all of different ages and compositions had a marginal increase...hmm0
-
-
In that study n=10 ..it's hardly robust...but it was interesting that 8, all of different ages and compositions had a marginal increase...hmm
Yeah, none of the studies I found seem to have large sample sizes. Plus I'm betting that is taken into account on calculations of women's BMR anyway. I feel a couple of little N=1 experiments coming on though:
1) be angelic about sticking to my cals for four weeks (ha! sure), see if there is any difference in rate of loss;
2) increase cals on PMS week, see what happens (funnily, I was thinking of doing this exact thing anyway, but assumed I'd just have a smaller loss that week).
Interestingly, I did lose more than anticipated following my most recent PMS week. I wiped out most of my deficit with pizza (and deep fried camembert, and corn nuggets), based purely on math my predicted loss should have been around 200g. Lost 700g. Not a catch up whoosh cos I'd lost 500g the previous two weeks as well. But yes, I realise it could have been any number of things, just musing
. 0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »In that study n=10 ..it's hardly robust...but it was interesting that 8, all of different ages and compositions had a marginal increase...hmm
Yeah, none of the studies I found seem to have large sample sizes. Plus I'm betting that is taken into account on calculations of women's BMR anyway. I feel a couple of little N=1 experiments coming on though:
1) be angelic about sticking to my cals for four weeks (ha! sure), see if there is any difference in rate of loss;
2) increase cals on PMS week, see what happens (funnily, I was thinking of doing this exact thing anyway, but assumed I'd just have a smaller loss that week).
Interestingly, I did lose more than anticipated following my most recent PMS week. I wiped out most of my deficit with pizza (and deep fried camembert, and corn nuggets), based purely on math my predicted loss should have been around 200g. Lost 700g. Not a catch up whoosh cos I'd lost 500g the previous two weeks as well. But yes, I realise it could have been any number of things, just musing.
How would you measure it though? Direct weight loss wouldn't help due to water masking
I have months of fluctuation data in trendweight.com ...when losing I would generally go static for a week or two then drop
But more importantly
Mmmm Camembert *drools*0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »In that study n=10 ..it's hardly robust...but it was interesting that 8, all of different ages and compositions had a marginal increase...hmm
Yeah, none of the studies I found seem to have large sample sizes. Plus I'm betting that is taken into account on calculations of women's BMR anyway. I feel a couple of little N=1 experiments coming on though:
1) be angelic about sticking to my cals for four weeks (ha! sure), see if there is any difference in rate of loss;
2) increase cals on PMS week, see what happens (funnily, I was thinking of doing this exact thing anyway, but assumed I'd just have a smaller loss that week).
Interestingly, I did lose more than anticipated following my most recent PMS week. I wiped out most of my deficit with pizza (and deep fried camembert, and corn nuggets), based purely on math my predicted loss should have been around 200g. Lost 700g. Not a catch up whoosh cos I'd lost 500g the previous two weeks as well. But yes, I realise it could have been any number of things, just musing.
How would you measure it though? Direct weight loss wouldn't help due to water masking
I have months of fluctuation data in trendweight.com ...when losing I would generally go static for a week or two then drop
But more importantly
Mmmm Camembert *drools*
Yeah, therein lies the problem!! That pesky 'weight loss isn't linear' thing![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
.
I really wish I'd tracked my daily weight now, 'twould be interesting to see!0 -
I felt way less bloated and slimmer today so I got weighed and lost a pound! Not linear0
-
That sounds like natural fluctuation. Goal weight is a range not a set number.doolalytap wrote: »i know this isn't a full on science but I lost 1lb last week with tdee method this week, this week increased a little, I've counted. Should I be tweaking numbers or waiting it out at this current amount?
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »In that study n=10 ..it's hardly robust...but it was interesting that 8, all of different ages and compositions had a marginal increase...hmm
Yeah, none of the studies I found seem to have large sample sizes. Plus I'm betting that is taken into account on calculations of women's BMR anyway. I feel a couple of little N=1 experiments coming on though:
1) be angelic about sticking to my cals for four weeks (ha! sure), see if there is any difference in rate of loss;
2) increase cals on PMS week, see what happens (funnily, I was thinking of doing this exact thing anyway, but assumed I'd just have a smaller loss that week).
Interestingly, I did lose more than anticipated following my most recent PMS week. I wiped out most of my deficit with pizza (and deep fried camembert, and corn nuggets), based purely on math my predicted loss should have been around 200g. Lost 700g. Not a catch up whoosh cos I'd lost 500g the previous two weeks as well. But yes, I realise it could have been any number of things, just musing.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n12/full/0803699a.html
Read the RMR section:A number of studies have indicated that daily energy expenditure (EE) changes with phases of the menstrual cycle. Premenstrual increases in sleeping metabolic rate (SMR),79, 80 basal metabolic rate (BMR)81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 24-h EE79, 87, 88 have been reported. However, the increments in EE in the luteal phase vary from one study to another. The mean difference in SMR between the follicular and luteal phase has been reported to be 6.1–7.7%,54, 80 while mean increases in 24-h EE of 2.5–11.5% have been shown.54, 88 The luteal increase in 24-h EE corresponds to an increase of 89–279 kcal.
Nevertheless, EE tends to vary substantially and mean interindividual variation (CV) in BMR has been estimated to 8–11.8%.89, 90 More interestingly, the daily intraindividual variation is wide ranging (1.7–10.4%, mean: 4.6%).89, 910
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions