Why doesn't your body burn fat while your metabolism is suppressed?
msjeep
Posts: 29 Member
I understand that when you are cutting your calories below your maintenance that your metabolism will suppress down to your eating level. But why will it do that if you have 40% or more body fat? Initially when you start cutting you will burn body fat to lose weight but at least with me it just stops and plateaus.
I would have added this to my previous posts but I can not find it. I did make a copy of it which follows for history.
My journey started July 2010 when I hit a high of 380 lbs. That's when I started to get control of what I was eating. The basic theory at that time was to try to cut down on fat intake and reduce calories and get more active. By Oct 2012 I was down to 270 lbs 40% BF. I was also doing Primal Blueprint approach and lowering my carbs. Generally to around 100 grams. Six months earlier I had my gall bladder removed and then had a pulmonary embolism which slowed me down a bit. July 2013 after getting off of blood thinners I had DVT (blood clots) in both legs and a bad hip acting up. My weight was still in the 270's and not budging. I was eating approx. 1600 cal +/- all this time. June of 2014 I had a hip replacement and my weight had been increasing up to 290 lbs at this time. I hit 293 lbs in Nov 2014 when I started looking for answers. My main oversize is walking and using the weight machines. After a couple years of lifing(have to use the machines cause I have an abdominal hernia) I wasn't getting any stronger. So with no strength increase and gaining weight while keeping my calories around 1600 I figured my metabolism maybe messed up. That's when I found this group. I started to increase my calories in Dec 2014 from 1600 to about 2400 calories gradually. My weight has gone from 293lbs 42% to 317 lbs 46% BF today.
Here are my particulars:
Age: 59
Height: 5'-10"
male
............. Scooby............ MyFitness Calculator (similar to IIFYM)
BMR..... 2532 ...............2035 (using 46% BF)
TDEE.... 3481 ...............2798
My Fitbit daily burn has been avg between 3000-3400 cal. I generally workout 2-3X per week for an hour at the gyn on the machines. I enter the workout on Fitbit instead of relying on steps. I avg about 6000 steps per day walking.
Right now I feel like dropping my calories back down. My son who just became a physical trainer and pursuing a masters degree in exercise science says "they" recommend going down to 1500 cal. That worked for me for a couple of years but then I started to increase my weight at that level. It seems my BMR is operating at a much lower level still.
Any thoughts???
Mark
May 9, 2015 2:06PM edited May 9
Flag Quote ·
Replies
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
Do you weigh/measure your food? How often do you eat out? In addition to the strength 3x per week, would you consider adding a daily 10 minute walk 2x per day everyday with a goal of increasing that?
May 9, 2015 2:16PM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
I weigh and measure all of my food. It's a habit now for the past four years. I hardly ever to never eat out. Try to stay away from processed food if possible. With my hip replacement and the other hip showing signs that it maybe wearing out keeps me at about 6000 steps per day. Sometimes I will hit 10,000 steps when I walk my dog in nice weather or doing some walking challenges but it does wear on me. The increased weight is also causing problems in the ankles that I had not had at the lower weight. Mathematically I should have been losing around 2 lbs per week since summer of 2010 which means I should have lost 416 lbs by now. Right now my net is only 63 lbs. Metabolism must be using the new math
May 9, 2015 2:33PM
Flag Quote ·
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
That's why I mentioned breaking it up into 2 10 minute segments. I've seen my mom go slow but eventually get up to 6 miles at once. She started at just a few minutes, a few times a day. Do you have thyroid issues? How are you measuring body fat?
Also, try reading through this older thread. Some folks suggest trying to eat at TDEE -30% for short blocks of time (4-6 weeks) and then pushing back up to TDEE-20% for the same...alternating essentially.
I don't agree with the recommendation to go to 1500 calories personally. I've been a fitness instructor for 10 years and I've rarely seen that work for anyone. I'm 5'4", 143 lbs and I can lose on 1800-1900 a day, 1 lb a week with 5-6 hours a week of exercise. I am hungry on 1500 calories a day!!
May 9, 2015 5:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/831870/eating-30-below-tdee
May 9, 2015 5:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
So indeed, you have raised calories up to a level that would have been according to Fitbit about a 30% deficit.
Which for amount to lose is actually reasonable for now. You have more severe health issues that requires the weight to be gone, and your body is stressed out from that of course.
I'd suggest that weight gain is probably a combo of each increase in calories was a surplus in eating over your then existing suppressed TDEE. At least for some time each increase. The other is water weight I'm sure.
Now - you can only suppress TDEE so much, studies have shown upwards of 20%, sometimes 25% in extreme cases.
You eating about 50% deficit with health issues may have qualified as extreme.
So if Fitbit is correct (good job on manually logging what needs to be) on potential TDEE (not suppressed it would have no clue about), then 2400 could have become your new suppressed TDEE.
But you were eating 1600, lets say very accurate since weighing all food. You still should have lost almost 2 lbs weekly during that time.
So either Fitbit is very off on potential TDEE, or calories from exercise is badly inflated, so your TDEE really isn't that much. So the suppression brought it lower than 2400.
Still should have been a weight loss.
But now, you are getting to the point where constantly elevated cortisol can cause water retention, upwards of 20 lbs. And that could mask fat loss really going on.
But indeed, a suppressed body isn't going to make much in the way of improvements from exercise that require even more calories when already suppressing to conserve them.
I'd suggest your body is still massively stressed from big diet you had, carrying the extra weight, health issues, perhaps lack of sleep, life, ect.
You won't like the suggestion probably, but hear it out.
Eat 250 more daily for 2 weeks.
Even if your TDEE was suppressed to 2400 from let's assume accurate Fitbit giving potential burn figures, and that 250 was truly surplus for 2 whole weeks, body never speeding up - you should only gain 1 lb.
And doing the lifting - not even fat weight.
Reread that.
I'm hoping that the 250 extra is enough of a stress relief, your body will drop some water weight in traditional whoosh. I'm sure you've got some edema going on somewhere. A stiff drink of the hard stuff can help some. Not beer.
Try to make the workouts during that 2 weeks really good. Machines that work the major big muscles first, if limited by time, even if not actually. So biceps and triceps last. Quads, hammies, glutes, chest, back, shoulders all around, calves, then biceps & triceps.
You want rep range of 8-12 reps if not doing that, rests from 2-4 minutes, as heavy as you can go for 3 sets. Try not to do it circuit style with brief rests and light weight, you don't need the extra calorie burn to increase your eating level, it's high enough.
Don't use the TDEE tables with rough levels and you guessing which is right - use the device giving you infinite levels.
Now, more about Fitbit, they are using a BMR similar to Mifflin for all non-moving calorie burn. It does NOT scale well the more fat you have to carry, though it is much better than Harris. So that could be inflated there.
With that body fat % estimate you have (I'd average those results BTW), you could see what the Katch BMR formula says on Scooby's site for BMR reading (forget the TDEE, still use Fitbit). That's going to underestimate the more fat you have actually, opposite of Mifflin BMR formula. An average of the 2 would be better.
That base calorie burn is then used to determine calorie burn based on distance walked/ran, which of course is based on steps and your stride length stat.
So the start to accuracy would be - did you manually input a stride length?
Because I can almost guarantee the formula they use for height and gender won't be accurate for you right now.
I think you are getting inflated calorie burn there.
Once distance is down right, and that BMR figure has been tweaked on their site to a better figure (by changing height on Fitbit), I think you might see some difference for the potential TDEE they show.
And again, that's potential, because I'm sure you have suppressed yours to probably the biggest degree you can.
For your son, see if his classes are keeping up on newer research. Many don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
Sorry about the stream of consciousness above, burned 3000 on long bike ride, and pizza is ready, and starting to get hungry again. Even if not - my brain knows I better eat if I intend to run tomorrow.
May 9, 2015 11:24PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
Ahhhhhh, better now.
Mifflin BMR and likely close to Fitbit BMR being used - 2259
Katch BMR using 46% - 2047
Wow, I was wrong, usually a bigger difference than that. 212 not that much, especially if you split the difference and make it 106.
Now - is that BIA scale? Which may have the ability to be consistent, but is unlikely to have the ability to be accurate more than 5% at best, and closer to 10% usually. So it could be 41 - 51% likely. In which case 1892 Katch BMR, and 367 difference is more what I've seen, and would be a noticeable difference.
A bunch of other methods of getting BF% wight be useful if possible to get an average of all of them.
Anyway, using 46% at least, height on Fitbit could be changed to 51.8 inches, and that would cause it to use a BMR figure that is an average of your BMR/RMR calculated by BF%.
So indeed, less calorie burn.
Correct the stride length per the instructions in here, and it'll probably be less again. Keep eating 2400 just because, and get another week or two of average daily burns from Fitbit to see what the new average potential TDEE is.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there.
Your desire is to get body to speed up daily burn, back up to potential. Going slow enough to not gain any more weight, even water weight. Not good for ya right now, I know.
May 10, 2015 1:52AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Thanks for responding heybales. Don't have the time to fully digest your info right now but here is some info you asked about. BF was from hand held Omron. A bathroom Weight Watchers scale is generally lower by a few percent. I had entered my stride manually on Fitbit. I just redid it cause my stride is not what it use to be so I knocked an inch off. When I enter the weight lifting calories burned it is higher than the Fitbit says but not all that much higher. It's about 281 cal/hr 2-3 times per week from the "Weight lifting (free, nautilus or universal-type), light or moderate effort, light workout, general". My son needs to lose weight too and is training with a trainer for a Spartan Race. That sports trainer told him 1500-1900 cal at least for the short term. He's about 340 lbs but a lot more solid than me for sure. Just as I'm finishing he told me he is now following IIFYM and going with something around 2800 cal.
May 10, 2015 12:07PM edited May 10
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
"
heybales wrote: »
Ahhhhhh, better now.
Mifflin BMR and likely close to Fitbit BMR being used - 2259
Katch BMR using 46% - 2047
Wow, I was wrong, usually a bigger difference than that. 212 not that much, especially if you split the difference and make it 106.
Now - is that BIA scale? Which may have the ability to be consistent, but is unlikely to have the ability to be accurate more than 5% at best, and closer to 10% usually. So it could be 41 - 51% likely. In which case 1892 Katch BMR, and 367 difference is more what I've seen, and would be a noticeable difference.
A bunch of other methods of getting BF% wight be useful if possible to get an average of all of them.
Anyway, using 46% at least, height on Fitbit could be changed to 51.8 inches, and that would cause it to use a BMR figure that is an average of your BMR/RMR calculated by BF%.
So indeed, less calorie burn.
Correct the stride length per the instructions in here, and it'll probably be less again. Keep eating 2400 just because, and get another week or two of average daily burns from Fitbit to see what the new average potential TDEE is.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there.
Your desire is to get body to speed up daily burn, back up to potential. Going slow enough to not gain any more weight, even water weight. Not good for ya right now, I know.
heybales: After you recommend keep eating at 2400 you say
"Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there."
Are you saying take 25% off of 2400 giving me a calorie goal of 1800 ?
May 14, 2015 9:38AM
Flag Quote ·
*
MandaLeigh123 Posts: 337 Member
I think that is indeed what he means. That's how I read it.
May 14, 2015 1:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
leooftheyear Posts: 282 Member
i read it as take the 25% from the average fitbit burns.
May 14, 2015 2:24PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
Well, almost.
Eat at 2400 (possible suppressed TDEE) until you have some new adjusted stats from the Fitbit to work with for potential TDEE - so 2 weeks at least.
Then the new Fitbit potential TDEE, take off 20-25% for the suppression you have. That could end up right at 2400 again. Or not. I'm betting less. But not 1800 either.
Then eat whatever that is until weight is stabilized.
Then the 2 week 250 test.
May 15, 2015 4:46AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Got it. Thanks
May 15, 2015 8:14AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Here is a summary:
Started July 2010 at my heaviest at 380 lbs
Date ... Wt.lbs ... Cal burned ... Cal Eated
9/2012 ... 269 ... 3225 ... 1600
9/2013 ... 273 ... 2898 ... 1780
9/2014 ... 285 ... 3010 ... 1705
10/2014... 290 ... 2982 ... 1743
12/2014 ... 295 ... 3040 ... 1858 Started EM2WL
1/2015 ... 299 ... 3043 ... 2295
2/2015 ... 305.6 ... 3071 ... 2278
3/2015 ... 309 ... 3058 ... 2432
4/2015... 313.4 ... 3259 ... 2478
5/2015 ... 316.5 ... 3108 ... 2305 changed Fitbit height per Heybales
6/2015 ... 316 ... 2887 ... 2188
6/28/15... 318.2
Waiting to see where my weight is going by the end of the week. A little nervous cause I have seen daily spikes upto 320 lbs.
June 28, 2015 1:06PM
Flag Quote ·
*
Flag Quote ·
Reply
I would have added this to my previous posts but I can not find it. I did make a copy of it which follows for history.
My journey started July 2010 when I hit a high of 380 lbs. That's when I started to get control of what I was eating. The basic theory at that time was to try to cut down on fat intake and reduce calories and get more active. By Oct 2012 I was down to 270 lbs 40% BF. I was also doing Primal Blueprint approach and lowering my carbs. Generally to around 100 grams. Six months earlier I had my gall bladder removed and then had a pulmonary embolism which slowed me down a bit. July 2013 after getting off of blood thinners I had DVT (blood clots) in both legs and a bad hip acting up. My weight was still in the 270's and not budging. I was eating approx. 1600 cal +/- all this time. June of 2014 I had a hip replacement and my weight had been increasing up to 290 lbs at this time. I hit 293 lbs in Nov 2014 when I started looking for answers. My main oversize is walking and using the weight machines. After a couple years of lifing(have to use the machines cause I have an abdominal hernia) I wasn't getting any stronger. So with no strength increase and gaining weight while keeping my calories around 1600 I figured my metabolism maybe messed up. That's when I found this group. I started to increase my calories in Dec 2014 from 1600 to about 2400 calories gradually. My weight has gone from 293lbs 42% to 317 lbs 46% BF today.
Here are my particulars:
Age: 59
Height: 5'-10"
male
............. Scooby............ MyFitness Calculator (similar to IIFYM)
BMR..... 2532 ...............2035 (using 46% BF)
TDEE.... 3481 ...............2798
My Fitbit daily burn has been avg between 3000-3400 cal. I generally workout 2-3X per week for an hour at the gyn on the machines. I enter the workout on Fitbit instead of relying on steps. I avg about 6000 steps per day walking.
Right now I feel like dropping my calories back down. My son who just became a physical trainer and pursuing a masters degree in exercise science says "they" recommend going down to 1500 cal. That worked for me for a couple of years but then I started to increase my weight at that level. It seems my BMR is operating at a much lower level still.
Any thoughts???
Mark
May 9, 2015 2:06PM edited May 9
Flag Quote ·
Replies
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
Do you weigh/measure your food? How often do you eat out? In addition to the strength 3x per week, would you consider adding a daily 10 minute walk 2x per day everyday with a goal of increasing that?
May 9, 2015 2:16PM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
I weigh and measure all of my food. It's a habit now for the past four years. I hardly ever to never eat out. Try to stay away from processed food if possible. With my hip replacement and the other hip showing signs that it maybe wearing out keeps me at about 6000 steps per day. Sometimes I will hit 10,000 steps when I walk my dog in nice weather or doing some walking challenges but it does wear on me. The increased weight is also causing problems in the ankles that I had not had at the lower weight. Mathematically I should have been losing around 2 lbs per week since summer of 2010 which means I should have lost 416 lbs by now. Right now my net is only 63 lbs. Metabolism must be using the new math
May 9, 2015 2:33PM
Flag Quote ·
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
That's why I mentioned breaking it up into 2 10 minute segments. I've seen my mom go slow but eventually get up to 6 miles at once. She started at just a few minutes, a few times a day. Do you have thyroid issues? How are you measuring body fat?
Also, try reading through this older thread. Some folks suggest trying to eat at TDEE -30% for short blocks of time (4-6 weeks) and then pushing back up to TDEE-20% for the same...alternating essentially.
I don't agree with the recommendation to go to 1500 calories personally. I've been a fitness instructor for 10 years and I've rarely seen that work for anyone. I'm 5'4", 143 lbs and I can lose on 1800-1900 a day, 1 lb a week with 5-6 hours a week of exercise. I am hungry on 1500 calories a day!!
May 9, 2015 5:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
losingitseattle Posts: 55 Member
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/831870/eating-30-below-tdee
May 9, 2015 5:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
So indeed, you have raised calories up to a level that would have been according to Fitbit about a 30% deficit.
Which for amount to lose is actually reasonable for now. You have more severe health issues that requires the weight to be gone, and your body is stressed out from that of course.
I'd suggest that weight gain is probably a combo of each increase in calories was a surplus in eating over your then existing suppressed TDEE. At least for some time each increase. The other is water weight I'm sure.
Now - you can only suppress TDEE so much, studies have shown upwards of 20%, sometimes 25% in extreme cases.
You eating about 50% deficit with health issues may have qualified as extreme.
So if Fitbit is correct (good job on manually logging what needs to be) on potential TDEE (not suppressed it would have no clue about), then 2400 could have become your new suppressed TDEE.
But you were eating 1600, lets say very accurate since weighing all food. You still should have lost almost 2 lbs weekly during that time.
So either Fitbit is very off on potential TDEE, or calories from exercise is badly inflated, so your TDEE really isn't that much. So the suppression brought it lower than 2400.
Still should have been a weight loss.
But now, you are getting to the point where constantly elevated cortisol can cause water retention, upwards of 20 lbs. And that could mask fat loss really going on.
But indeed, a suppressed body isn't going to make much in the way of improvements from exercise that require even more calories when already suppressing to conserve them.
I'd suggest your body is still massively stressed from big diet you had, carrying the extra weight, health issues, perhaps lack of sleep, life, ect.
You won't like the suggestion probably, but hear it out.
Eat 250 more daily for 2 weeks.
Even if your TDEE was suppressed to 2400 from let's assume accurate Fitbit giving potential burn figures, and that 250 was truly surplus for 2 whole weeks, body never speeding up - you should only gain 1 lb.
And doing the lifting - not even fat weight.
Reread that.
I'm hoping that the 250 extra is enough of a stress relief, your body will drop some water weight in traditional whoosh. I'm sure you've got some edema going on somewhere. A stiff drink of the hard stuff can help some. Not beer.
Try to make the workouts during that 2 weeks really good. Machines that work the major big muscles first, if limited by time, even if not actually. So biceps and triceps last. Quads, hammies, glutes, chest, back, shoulders all around, calves, then biceps & triceps.
You want rep range of 8-12 reps if not doing that, rests from 2-4 minutes, as heavy as you can go for 3 sets. Try not to do it circuit style with brief rests and light weight, you don't need the extra calorie burn to increase your eating level, it's high enough.
Don't use the TDEE tables with rough levels and you guessing which is right - use the device giving you infinite levels.
Now, more about Fitbit, they are using a BMR similar to Mifflin for all non-moving calorie burn. It does NOT scale well the more fat you have to carry, though it is much better than Harris. So that could be inflated there.
With that body fat % estimate you have (I'd average those results BTW), you could see what the Katch BMR formula says on Scooby's site for BMR reading (forget the TDEE, still use Fitbit). That's going to underestimate the more fat you have actually, opposite of Mifflin BMR formula. An average of the 2 would be better.
That base calorie burn is then used to determine calorie burn based on distance walked/ran, which of course is based on steps and your stride length stat.
So the start to accuracy would be - did you manually input a stride length?
Because I can almost guarantee the formula they use for height and gender won't be accurate for you right now.
I think you are getting inflated calorie burn there.
Once distance is down right, and that BMR figure has been tweaked on their site to a better figure (by changing height on Fitbit), I think you might see some difference for the potential TDEE they show.
And again, that's potential, because I'm sure you have suppressed yours to probably the biggest degree you can.
For your son, see if his classes are keeping up on newer research. Many don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
Sorry about the stream of consciousness above, burned 3000 on long bike ride, and pizza is ready, and starting to get hungry again. Even if not - my brain knows I better eat if I intend to run tomorrow.
May 9, 2015 11:24PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
Ahhhhhh, better now.
Mifflin BMR and likely close to Fitbit BMR being used - 2259
Katch BMR using 46% - 2047
Wow, I was wrong, usually a bigger difference than that. 212 not that much, especially if you split the difference and make it 106.
Now - is that BIA scale? Which may have the ability to be consistent, but is unlikely to have the ability to be accurate more than 5% at best, and closer to 10% usually. So it could be 41 - 51% likely. In which case 1892 Katch BMR, and 367 difference is more what I've seen, and would be a noticeable difference.
A bunch of other methods of getting BF% wight be useful if possible to get an average of all of them.
Anyway, using 46% at least, height on Fitbit could be changed to 51.8 inches, and that would cause it to use a BMR figure that is an average of your BMR/RMR calculated by BF%.
So indeed, less calorie burn.
Correct the stride length per the instructions in here, and it'll probably be less again. Keep eating 2400 just because, and get another week or two of average daily burns from Fitbit to see what the new average potential TDEE is.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there.
Your desire is to get body to speed up daily burn, back up to potential. Going slow enough to not gain any more weight, even water weight. Not good for ya right now, I know.
May 10, 2015 1:52AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Thanks for responding heybales. Don't have the time to fully digest your info right now but here is some info you asked about. BF was from hand held Omron. A bathroom Weight Watchers scale is generally lower by a few percent. I had entered my stride manually on Fitbit. I just redid it cause my stride is not what it use to be so I knocked an inch off. When I enter the weight lifting calories burned it is higher than the Fitbit says but not all that much higher. It's about 281 cal/hr 2-3 times per week from the "Weight lifting (free, nautilus or universal-type), light or moderate effort, light workout, general". My son needs to lose weight too and is training with a trainer for a Spartan Race. That sports trainer told him 1500-1900 cal at least for the short term. He's about 340 lbs but a lot more solid than me for sure. Just as I'm finishing he told me he is now following IIFYM and going with something around 2800 cal.
May 10, 2015 12:07PM edited May 10
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
"
heybales wrote: »
Ahhhhhh, better now.
Mifflin BMR and likely close to Fitbit BMR being used - 2259
Katch BMR using 46% - 2047
Wow, I was wrong, usually a bigger difference than that. 212 not that much, especially if you split the difference and make it 106.
Now - is that BIA scale? Which may have the ability to be consistent, but is unlikely to have the ability to be accurate more than 5% at best, and closer to 10% usually. So it could be 41 - 51% likely. In which case 1892 Katch BMR, and 367 difference is more what I've seen, and would be a noticeable difference.
A bunch of other methods of getting BF% wight be useful if possible to get an average of all of them.
Anyway, using 46% at least, height on Fitbit could be changed to 51.8 inches, and that would cause it to use a BMR figure that is an average of your BMR/RMR calculated by BF%.
So indeed, less calorie burn.
Correct the stride length per the instructions in here, and it'll probably be less again. Keep eating 2400 just because, and get another week or two of average daily burns from Fitbit to see what the new average potential TDEE is.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there.
Your desire is to get body to speed up daily burn, back up to potential. Going slow enough to not gain any more weight, even water weight. Not good for ya right now, I know.
heybales: After you recommend keep eating at 2400 you say
"Then take off the 25% I'll bet you are suppressed by, and eat at that level for a bit, see if weight doesn't stabilize with no more gaining. Or losing.
Then do the 2 week 250 test from there."
Are you saying take 25% off of 2400 giving me a calorie goal of 1800 ?
May 14, 2015 9:38AM
Flag Quote ·
*
MandaLeigh123 Posts: 337 Member
I think that is indeed what he means. That's how I read it.
May 14, 2015 1:09PM
Flag Quote ·
*
leooftheyear Posts: 282 Member
i read it as take the 25% from the average fitbit burns.
May 14, 2015 2:24PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
Well, almost.
Eat at 2400 (possible suppressed TDEE) until you have some new adjusted stats from the Fitbit to work with for potential TDEE - so 2 weeks at least.
Then the new Fitbit potential TDEE, take off 20-25% for the suppression you have. That could end up right at 2400 again. Or not. I'm betting less. But not 1800 either.
Then eat whatever that is until weight is stabilized.
Then the 2 week 250 test.
May 15, 2015 4:46AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Got it. Thanks
May 15, 2015 8:14AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Here is a summary:
Started July 2010 at my heaviest at 380 lbs
Date ... Wt.lbs ... Cal burned ... Cal Eated
9/2012 ... 269 ... 3225 ... 1600
9/2013 ... 273 ... 2898 ... 1780
9/2014 ... 285 ... 3010 ... 1705
10/2014... 290 ... 2982 ... 1743
12/2014 ... 295 ... 3040 ... 1858 Started EM2WL
1/2015 ... 299 ... 3043 ... 2295
2/2015 ... 305.6 ... 3071 ... 2278
3/2015 ... 309 ... 3058 ... 2432
4/2015... 313.4 ... 3259 ... 2478
5/2015 ... 316.5 ... 3108 ... 2305 changed Fitbit height per Heybales
6/2015 ... 316 ... 2887 ... 2188
6/28/15... 318.2
Waiting to see where my weight is going by the end of the week. A little nervous cause I have seen daily spikes upto 320 lbs.
June 28, 2015 1:06PM
Flag Quote ·
*
Flag Quote ·
Reply
0
Replies
-
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
Those are monthly averages that I have listed.
June 28, 2015 5:33PM
Flag Quote ·
*
heybales Posts: 11,612 Member
So good job keeping that eating goal about 20% off the Fitbit TDEE.
I could see a rolling 2 week average of Fitbit stats to determine the next weeks TDEE, knock 20% off for suppressed TDEE.
But it does appear you can eat that high and not gaining fat weight, just water weight.
I am concerned though, because in your case the weight being carried is a stress, and potentially adding on more water weight won't help.
That's almost a 600 cal spread between suppressed and potential.
That would take about 3 weeks if you attempted to eat 200 extra daily for a week at a time.
Would you be able to add that many calories with what you are trying to eat, to your diet?
And would you be able to keep exercise as purely full-body resistance training so you burn little extra, so as not to increase TDEE even more?
I'm wondering since you are already in the what is hopefully the max suppressed state - if it might not be beneficial for the about 150 lbs to lose, to take 75 off in the suppressed state.
Yes, skipping the increase to potential TDEE and reset at this time, at this weight.
Dieters edema can be a vicious cycle, and really don't want to get caught in that loop, if you aren't already almost.
At that future time with only 75 lbs to lose, much less load on your system, and potential TDEE is lower.
And then at that time, spend some weeks working your way up to potential TDEE eating level, and do your reset at that point.
If you do resistance training the whole time losing 75 lbs, your ability to increase calories and the body using it for good, will be incredible. And as a male, your ability to increase metabolism is much better.
So suggesting, if it appears from your testing that you do appear to be suppressed by about 20% (would be better to know what closer %), then it might be useful for long term health of joints and future exercise to get a good part of the weight off first.
So taking 20% off suppressed TDEE figure, and eating that.
So for example, lets say your 2200 is suppressed TDEE.
That would make 1760 be eating goal, 20% deficit from 150 - 125 lbs left (if correct weight range).
And each 25 lbs lost, you lower the deficit by 5%.
15% deficit 125 - 100 lbs left.
10% deficit 100 - 75 lbs left.
Then you eat at suppressed TDEE for couple weeks. That 20% off what Fitbit reports your TDEE as.
Then start increasing on weekly bases the daily eating goal until you are eating at Fitbit TDEE. Should be less than 600 cal difference at that point, with 75lbs lost.
Then you reset for however long you think is needed. Again, men with our hormones adjust better usually, but a month might be useful still.
Then you take a normal reasonable deficit for the last 75 lbs left.
20% for 75 - 50 lbs left.
15% for 50 - 15 lbs left.
10% for 15 - goal weight.
During both periods of time, you take a diet break week and eat at suppressed TDEE during first range, potential TDEE from Fitbit during second range. About every 6- 8 weeks, if you can match it up with something that makes that enjoyable to not diet.
Or go with orginal plan, and increase about the 600 cal to potential TDEE right now, reset for however long, and then take reasonable deficit.
And reasonable for first 25 lbs would be 30% at this point.
But again keep dropping the % per 25 lb block until at 15% and ride that out.
Resistance training so needed either way. Machines likely at first. Confirm proper usage so good joint protection.
Good program to progressively overload.
June 29, 2015 1:59AM
Flag Quote ·
*
MandaLeigh123 Posts: 337 Member
heybales wrote: »
I'm wondering since you are already in the what is hopefully the max suppressed state - if it might not be beneficial for the about 150 lbs to lose, to take 75 off in the suppressed state.
Yes, skipping the increase to potential TDEE and reset at this time, at this weight.
I was thinking this might be a good idea as well. Certainly having a suppressed TDEE isn't ideal but since you have a way to go with your weight loss, it might be better for your body systems (joints, heart, respiratory system, etc) to shed some of the weight first and focus on precisely fixing the metabolism later?
You posted your initial question on May 9th, so that means you've been increasing calories for around 8 weeks. I wonder if it's been long enough that you can you use your suppressed TDEE and take a cut and begin to lose weight again.
I think it's amazing that you are determined to stick with it, even through these health struggles and diet uncertainty. A lot of people give up, but you are sticking with it and you'll be better for it in the end!
I understand about your struggles with lower body injuries. It makes it very difficult to get in more exercise without compromising yourself. I struggle with my knees/hips/si joints so I feel your pain (literally). There are actually a lot of exercises out there for us with lower body issues, where you don't have to move the bottom at all. I will share a couple, but if you want to look for your own. Try searching "workouts you can do in bed" or "workouts you can do while sitting". I would NOT replace your gym time with these, it's good to keep moving. But if you want to increase exercise, without increasing movement in lower body, you can try these. Once the weight comes off, all activities should hurt less, that's the hope anyway, right? As my muscles get stronger, my joints do ache less and I am able to do more. My pain will most likely never go away though, so just like you, we've got to learn to make it work.
For cardio, try "Upper Body Cardio Quickie". I haven't tried this in awhile, but even as of three months ago, this was pretty hard for me and I workout a lot. Your supposed to do each exercise three minutes, then switch. Instead, I would do each exercise one minute, and did it for three rounds!:
or something like this:
Seated resistance band exercises for strength. Resistance bands are an affordable way to add more strength. You can often find resistance bands/dumbbells at garage sales. That's how I have padded out some of my weight equipment at home.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/503698-resistant-band-exercises-for-sitting-down/
June 29, 2015 9:21AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
I'm on my way to a funeral right now so I just wanted to make this quick comment. I started increasing calories on Dec 6, not May 9 when I posed my question. So I have many more weeks at this increase. So eating at 1760 level makes a lot of sense to me.
June 29, 2015 9:38AM
Flag Quote ·
*
MandaLeigh123 Posts: 337 Member
I see that's great! When you have a chance, take a look at some of the workouts I posted if you are interested in increasing activity levels at all.
June 29, 2015 10:01AM
Flag Quote ·
*
msjeep Posts: 17 Member
I saw my surgeon regarding my hernia. He wants me to loose more fat first cause if he patches up the current opening the fat is just going to break thru somewhere else. Said to check back in 6 months. He did say I can do regular free weight exercises. I have started doing some light dead lifts, lunges and crunches. Going slow regardless of what he said just to make sure. Going to tackle my legs and back more aggressively now. The big muscle groups for sure.
June 29, 2015 5:36PM0 -
To the basic topic question - it does.
Unless actually starving - as in little to no food for days on end - the basic fuel sources don't change just because of undereating.
Low key stuff is fat burn mainly, almost 100% resting, up to aerobic right at the anaerobic threshold is almost 100% carb burning.
Between those 2 extremes the amount of calories burned goes up and the % supplied by fat and carbs shifts.
But you are burning less when suppressed obviously. So less fat burn during rest for that reason.
The problem comes in for people that have max suppressed and binge often.
So now their TDEE is lower, and it's easier to overeat when they have a binge.
That's doesn't speed their body up beyond digesting the food - the extra calories go on as fat after the carb stores are topped off. Which likely aren't much if this has been going on long, but they are still depleted.
So fast water weight gain which freaks them out, some real fat gain too, and probably stressed from it that the already elevated cortisol from undereating stress goes up even more and retains even more water.
Those are the stories of "I only eat 1200 and gain weight with all this exercise" - well, 1200 may be goal, but it ain't even average. And while a 3000 cal eating day may average out to 1457 daily in a week, it's the excess 1800 in one day that is increasing their weight, actually eating 1457 daily would be improvement.
As to why the body would slow down when it should have plenty to spare as fuel and shouldn't care - feedback loops with hormones. They body wants to keep what it's got. And while that can go both directions, in one direction it resets itself better because body naturally wants to have failsafe energy source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A
That video that I shared for details. But it should have a max suppressed effect, which you sure seemed to be at already by your numbers.
Only thing that could be fooling the numbers is the fact that upwards of 20 lbs retained water from cortisol, and around the belly region too.
So if you appeared to have say a 1 lb weekly loss by the numbers, but constantly gaining stress water - you could have 20 wks with no weight loss, while fat actually is being lost.
But measurements somewhere usually tell that tale, unless by sheer coincidence you are losing fat where you are gaining water and that doesn't show up either.
And some do - that's the whoosh effect with lost inches some will share.
So with some health issues causing stress, undereating by amount body may not like (that level also effected by it's health probably), other life stress - all adds up.
I think that's why some people have positive effects of changing their diet to some restrictive version - they were at max stress, possibly even food allergies that stress the body more when already under stress.
Change of diet removed a stress, dropped the level enough the body benefited.
Have you been tested for food sensitivities, or allergies. Doesn't have to be an awful response to still not be a good one.
I'm not normally one for restrictive diet, unless it can be maintained successfully, and isn't pushed as the be-all answer for everyone, when majority don't have food issues really, moderation would normally take care of any.
But, looking at diet, would you say you get enough vegetables and fruit in for plenty of vitamins and minerals? Whole grain bread if any is done for better nutrients?
Yogurt for some gut health?
That kind of thing.0 -
@heybales did you see the recent articles on the Biggest Loser contestants about their weight gain? Here is one. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-share&referer=http://m.facebook.com/.
Danny has a 800 cal suppression. I think I do too. I'll have to gather up my numbers since last time and post them soon. But I'm still around the same weight.0 -
I saw the Nightline segment Wed night on it.
I also had a whole response here that disappeared.
Just to say that in one study where they lab measured TDEE after just overweight folks were eating 800 cal, they lost about 500 cal beyond what was lost with muscle mass and LBM.
That group did no exercise.
But in 3 months of eating at that lab measured TDEE (though suppressed from potential), and increasing when needed, they brought it up to only 250 suppressed in that time.
Sadly with all the muscle lost, potential TDEE dropped a decent amount too.
That spells possible success for those folks in show - if they get help figuring out TDEE accurately. I'm sure if they keep undereating - it won't help.0
This discussion has been closed.