Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

New study suggests exercise may play more important role in weight loss

1235»

Replies

  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Ah ok, my bad. I mistakenly thought that 70% are overweight not because of inaccurate tdee equations, but because they eat too much (and underestimate intake) and exercise too little (and overestimate tdee). I stand corrected.

    He wasn't saying that people gained weight due to inaccurate TDEE (or anything about how people gain weight). At least, that wasn't my interpretation. He was showing how TDEE estimates from the calculators may be misused, even in scientific studies--here to indicate underreporting by various groups of people. That in some of these cases the groups are those for whom the typical estimated TDEEs from the calculators have been shown to be less accurate on average makes this especially problematic (although assuming that estimated TDEE=real TDEE would be a problem in any case).

    Yeah, I was being sarcastic in that last post. We were going round in circles. I think the issue was how we define underreporting. He keeps relating it to the formula and in my view, the formula has nothing to do with it. My definition of underreporting is when someone says/thinks/reports that they're eating X calories but in fact are eating more. Like an obese person saying they aren't losing on 1000 calories, which as we know, ends up being an error in measurements and mis-remembering what one ate.

    Reporting here is actually writing down I ate x, y and z on a form as part of the study protocol. Under-reporting part is directly from the calculation of what was reported versus what the TDEE equation says they regularly eat.

    It isn't about your definition, it is about the actual research protocol.

    People may over-eating/"under-reporting" (as you define it) and still accurately reporting it into the study exactly but since the study is using a bias equation it will come out as "under reported" (actual reporting protocol).

    People that are under weight or at weight (and according to you aren't "under reporting" since the are eating at maintenance and not obese) are as likely to under report diary entries or exercise events because these self-assessment protocols are faulty.
  • Traveler120Traveler120 Posts: 712Member Member Posts: 712Member Member
    Oh I didn't realize that underreporting only occurs in a research study. Is it not possible to underreport intake on my mfp diary or other food log or to my friend? And when I'm filling in what I ate, do I need to know what my bmr or tdee is? No. It's simply understating what I ate. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more complicated than that. I'm not sure there's anything meaningful we're debating at this point other than restating what we already said.
    edited May 2016
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Ah ok, my bad. I mistakenly thought that 70% are overweight not because of inaccurate tdee equations, but because they eat too much (and underestimate intake) and exercise too little (and overestimate tdee). I stand corrected.

    He wasn't saying that people gained weight due to inaccurate TDEE (or anything about how people gain weight). At least, that wasn't my interpretation. He was showing how TDEE estimates from the calculators may be misused, even in scientific studies--here to indicate underreporting by various groups of people. That in some of these cases the groups are those for whom the typical estimated TDEEs from the calculators have been shown to be less accurate on average makes this especially problematic (although assuming that estimated TDEE=real TDEE would be a problem in any case).

    Yeah, I was being sarcastic in that last post. We were going round in circles. I think the issue was how we define underreporting.

    I don't think that's the issue under discussion, is it? I thought the issue was the fact that BMR/TDEE calculated from the formulas was used to identify/define underreporting in certain studies. Those populations likely do underreport (as you would define it and me too -- report less than they eat), because MOST do, but the fact that they report eating less than their calculated TDEE doesn't prove that, and is arguably particularly poor evidence of it if the calculation/formula is more than usually inaccurate without [edit: within, I mean] their population group.
    edited May 2016
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,386Member Member Posts: 9,386Member Member
    Oh I didn't realize that underreporting only occurs in a research study. Is it not possible to underreport intake on my mfp diary or other food log or to my friend? And when I'm filling in what I ate, do I need to know what my bmr or tdee is? No. It's simply understating what I ate. That's all I'm saying.

    I see what's going on. EvgeniZyntx is talking about a research study, and you're talking about your opinion of what certain words mean. You should join the conversation everyone else is having. :smile:
  • pfreemepfreeme Posts: 42Member Member Posts: 42Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    Best Ive seen.
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Posts: 1,297Member Member Posts: 1,297Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The differences in TDEE calculators is going to be type of calculator (basically the main ones are Katch-McArdle, which uses BF%, Mifflin-St Jeor (what MFP uses for BMR and seemingly the most common), and Harris-Benedict).

    For BMR, they give me (at goal of 120, assuming BF% of 22%, which makes sense with my most recent DEXA):

    M-SJ=1155
    H-B=1257
    K-M=1289

    I think BF% is the most accurate, so assuming I felt good about that measurement's accuracy, and did not have other numbers, I'd start with that.

    Then the other variable is the activity factor. One way I've seen it is 1.2 for truly sedentary, 1.375 for lightly active, 1.5 or 1.55 for moderate, 1.725 for active, and 1.9 for extremely active.

    Gives a wide range (more at higher levels of activity) and much room for error, for sure, which is why using your own numbers makes sense.

    My own results (based on current weight of 125, not goal) is consistent with what the calculations would suggest for me. In that that doesn't mean much, as the range is so wide, I will say that what worked for me when I started seems to work now, in terms of estimating TDEE. I find the same calculators and estimates still seem to work (although the numbers are of course different).

    It seems that most calculators on internet use that classification, but I would suggest to take a look at this document:
    http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5686e.pdf
    (see pages 37/38)

    Okay, I have. Significantly higher. I wonder if that's because the numbers I quoted are more US-focused. The FAO report mentioned, for sedentary, someone living in a city with a sedentary job or a woman in African with a home-based business -- both likely to be more active than someone in the US who genuinely can drive everywhere in addition to having a sedentary job and may have lots of conveniences at home. I did find that even when I started and thought I was sedentary that my numbers were more like lightly active, which I attributed to living in a quite walkable big city and rarely driving. I'd think that's more like many Europeans (but who knows, I'm American so could be working on stereotypes).

    I certainly would agree that the multiplier used and figuring out what it should be is a huge subjective factor. Lots of people think they are sedentary but aren't, and others probably think they are more active and aren't.

    Thoughts?

    Well, the FAO document is about proper nutrition, while those calculators that use the 1.2-1.9 range are probably "weight loss oriented" if I may say so.
    To come back to the point where the tangent started, in my opinion it doesn't make sense to state that someone hasn't experienced metabolic adaptation because their TDEE is "spot on" with some calculators.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The differences in TDEE calculators is going to be type of calculator (basically the main ones are Katch-McArdle, which uses BF%, Mifflin-St Jeor (what MFP uses for BMR and seemingly the most common), and Harris-Benedict).

    For BMR, they give me (at goal of 120, assuming BF% of 22%, which makes sense with my most recent DEXA):

    M-SJ=1155
    H-B=1257
    K-M=1289

    I think BF% is the most accurate, so assuming I felt good about that measurement's accuracy, and did not have other numbers, I'd start with that.

    Then the other variable is the activity factor. One way I've seen it is 1.2 for truly sedentary, 1.375 for lightly active, 1.5 or 1.55 for moderate, 1.725 for active, and 1.9 for extremely active.

    Gives a wide range (more at higher levels of activity) and much room for error, for sure, which is why using your own numbers makes sense.

    My own results (based on current weight of 125, not goal) is consistent with what the calculations would suggest for me. In that that doesn't mean much, as the range is so wide, I will say that what worked for me when I started seems to work now, in terms of estimating TDEE. I find the same calculators and estimates still seem to work (although the numbers are of course different).

    It seems that most calculators on internet use that classification, but I would suggest to take a look at this document:
    http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5686e.pdf
    (see pages 37/38)

    Okay, I have. Significantly higher. I wonder if that's because the numbers I quoted are more US-focused. The FAO report mentioned, for sedentary, someone living in a city with a sedentary job or a woman in African with a home-based business -- both likely to be more active than someone in the US who genuinely can drive everywhere in addition to having a sedentary job and may have lots of conveniences at home. I did find that even when I started and thought I was sedentary that my numbers were more like lightly active, which I attributed to living in a quite walkable big city and rarely driving. I'd think that's more like many Europeans (but who knows, I'm American so could be working on stereotypes).

    I certainly would agree that the multiplier used and figuring out what it should be is a huge subjective factor. Lots of people think they are sedentary but aren't, and others probably think they are more active and aren't.

    Thoughts?

    Well, the FAO document is about proper nutrition, while those calculators that use the 1.2-1.9 range are probably "weight loss oriented" if I may say so.
    To come back to the point where the tangent started, in my opinion it doesn't make sense to state that someone hasn't experienced metabolic adaptation because their TDEE is "spot on" with some calculators.

    I doubt that's the difference.

    With the calculators, if someone figured their TDEE using a particular method from the calculators and it worked and seemed to be roughly accurate and then used the same methodology after losing weight, I think that's decent evidence that there was not any significant metabolic adaptation.

    Sure, who knows, but that gets to the point of what difference does it make anyway. My TDEE is normal for the amount of exercise I do (within a broad range of normal). Why should it matter to me if in some alternative universe where I never got fat it might be higher? The people who argue this matters posit that you are at some artificially low and unsustainable TDEE level after losing weight, and that's certainly not true -- and being within the normal range of the calculators is evidence that it is not.
  • AdmireDeVollAdmireDeVoll Posts: 46Member Member Posts: 46Member Member
    All I know is that dieting alone has never worked for me, it has to be a combination of cardio, strength training, and restricting calories while maintaining macros. I started looking at temptations like "thats going to be a whole extra 30 mins on the treadmill, and I don't have time for that." Plus i go on my lunch break so it really helps with appetite control, and when I get back and eat ny metabolism is fired up and I don't feel like a bottomless pit. I don't know why somebody wouldn't want to include exercise, I go from losing 1 pound a week to 3. Point I'm trying to make is that if it does nothing but change my mind frame about food that's enough reason to do it.
  • VividVeganVividVegan Posts: 200Member Member Posts: 200Member Member
    Exercise is the reason I'm no longer anorexic. Exercise is a very important activity and beneficial for long-term fitness and results. I used to be very overweight and lost over 60 pounds by CICO alone with little to no exercise. In return I became anorexic, my energy was destroyed along with my appetite. After a year of being active again though (lifting weights, running, etc) my daily calorie allowance is larger, a lot of those skinny-fat spots are now solid/muscle, and my TDEE has increased. Calorie counting and losing weight without exercise = big mistake.
Sign In or Register to comment.