Of refeeds and diet breaks
Options
Replies
-
The typical bodybuilding style of getting rid of bloat after a high carb/sodium day is to flush with a lot of water, increase potassium via Lite Salt or potassium chloride for seasoning food, reduce sodium/carbs, and a lot of LISS.
Not that anyone needs to do that, but it's a thing. Bodybuilders and physique athletes, and by extension physique chasers, have a horrible binge/purge cycle, speaking from experience.
Worst case scenario is that it may take up to 2 weeks for your scale weight to return to baseline, if that's your current metric of measurement. Every 1 day of eating blown way out of proportion (full on binge) = ~1 week to return to baseline, so for 2 days of complete overfeeding, it could potentially take 2 weeks.
The optimal and ideal realistic approach would be to just consider Easter as a refeed, go back to your normal routine and just allow yourself to be as consistent as possible from here on out. Daily weigh-ins take a mental toll, and menstruation plays a part in that.
ugh. I'm guessing its going to take that two weeks. I was down another pound from yesterday this morning, but still above last week's weigh in. I did blow it both Saturday and Sunday, so there's the 2 weeks lol
I would consider Easter just a refeed weekend except that I'm trying to figure out where my maintenance level is. I raised my calorie limit to the 1800 on the 19th, and saw about 1.5 lb drop on the 22nd, which was Thursday. But I also had tightened up my recording, so I know part of that loss was water. I waited another week, hoping to see if I was still tracking at ~1 lb/wk loss rate, but then TOM came along that weekend, so I showed a much larger drop on the 29th than I expected - 4.8 lbs loss. I know this was due to TOM being on the waning side and most of that was water weight loss. So, I kept at the 1800 for another week, hoping to see if the 1 lb/wk trend continued or if I was above or below it - except I blew it on Easter weekend both days, and now I'm still trending 1 lb above last weeks weigh in and am still pushing water weigh off, so this week's weigh in is a bust.
I guess I'll keep at the 1800 calorie limit until next Thursday and see what I get then and compare it to last weeks weigh in as I'm not even bothering to record today's weight. Of course, if I just go another week beyond that, I'll have my 1 month trend line to compare to, but I was hoping to be finishing up diet break at maintenance and getting back into deficit by the 1st of May. I'm trying to see which of the calculated values for maintenance I'm closest to so when I do back into deficit, I can be at a number that is closer to the weight loss/week I want to see and yet still eat as much as I can.4 -
The thing with completely blown out weekend binges is that it's going to skew any tracked progress for trying to determine any maintenance in terms of scale weight.
Use whichever formula you're comfortable with to determine an estimated maintenance for sedentary, unless you're performing volitional intense physical activity multiple days a week, but be mindful of realism, meaning that even at my current body fat (~16-18%) and weightlifting 5-6 days per week, outside of training, I'm not much more active above sedentary (pure desk job 8-9 hours out of the day and overall lazy POS besides exercise/coaching), so my activity factor is roughly 1.3, if that.
The usual recommendation I would make is that after a strategic refeed (slight surplus), go right into your calculated maintenance calories (which would be slightly lower than the refeed period) and maintain that amount for 1-2 weeks or however long your desired diet break period is. So, in your case, since you technically went over by a good portion on Easter, any proposed maintenance calorie level below that is going to result in the same way, but water weight/bloating may play a role in complete accuracy unless the maintenance period is extended to make allowances for correction.
Maintenance weight is almost always going to be more than your deficit weight trend by virtue of eating more, and will probably bounce within a range of 3-5lbs in either direction within the maintenance period. After a few days to a week of using the calculated maintenance, you can adjust those calories up or down if your weight is swinging too hard after getting a rough average of weight.
Then after that maintenance period, you can choose your level of weight loss. On average ~0.5-1% of weight loss per week is fine for most people, though 1.5% isn't uncommon either if you're carrying more weight.6 -
Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.2 -
collectingblues wrote: »Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.
Hah, waist-to-height puts me somewhere between "Males at increased risk" and "Risk equivalent to BMI of 30"/"Very Overweight" if I use my waist, and well north of "Substantial risk increase"/"Morbidly Obese" using my belly. I'd have to get under 30 inches for healthy by that metric. Maybe I'll just get a DXA scan when my bonus comes through.
4 -
collectingblues wrote: »Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.
Hugs! I'm apple-shaped too, and my waist-to-hips ratio is .88 at the lower end of a healthy BMI. I'm just barely into a healthy body-fat range, so I suppose there's room for improvement, but with not much of a gap between the bottom of my ribs and my hip bones, I'm not sure how much difference the recomp I'm doing will make. I'm curious to see where I stand in a year.
@MegaMooseEsq I got a DXA scan a couple of months ago and got some good data for a baseline. I could never figure out where my "natural" waistline is and got numbers all over the place every time I measured.1 -
I have a very weird question about WHR: are we supposed to be measuring our waist at its narrowest point, no matter where that is, or at the purported natural waist, which I've heard described as where normal-rise trousers hit, and have also heard is 'usually' an inch above the bellybutton. I'm also an apple, and short-torsoed on top of that, so am apparently shaped bizarrely because my waist's narrowest point is just under my ribcage and a few inches above my bellybutton. I'm not going to have a good WHR under any conditions, and I don't specifically know my measurement an inch above bellybutton but AT bellybutton I'm currently 35 inches, which is notably the same as my bust. At my height that would make a waist-to-height of .55 and a waist-to-hip of .92!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Waist at narrowest point (just below ribs), meanwhile, is 31.
Maybe because of my short torso my organs are all squished together ...
Edited because I had a maths brain fart.1 -
I measure at the so-called natural waist -- the crease when you bend over. If I did an inch above bellybutton, I'm practically at the top of my hips. My rib cage is long/I'm short torsoed, so there's not a lot of space between the bottom of my ribs and the top of my hips.3
-
collectingblues wrote: »Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.
Hugs! I'm apple-shaped too, and my waist-to-hips ratio is .88 at the lower end of a healthy BMI. I'm just barely into a healthy body-fat range, so I suppose there's room for improvement, but with not much of a gap between the bottom of my ribs and my hip bones, I'm not sure how much difference the recomp I'm doing will make. I'm curious to see where I stand in a year.
How one of the providers described it to me was basically "your organs have to go somewhere!"
4 -
I wish I could get a DXA scan. I’m clueless as to what my body fat actually is.
My BMI is just within normal around 24.8. My waist-hip ratio is .69 and My waist height ratio .426. (So for a 50+ year old those ratios are darn good). I’m a pear or almost hourglass. Big thunderous thighs but 27 inch waist.
Strength training for 6 months (I can hardly call it lifting ‘heavy’ tho it is heavy for me). But 3 if those months I was still at a considerable deficit and losing quite a bit of weight.
Now that I’m more or less at maintenance I’m so confused. Not happy with how I look, but I’m almost in XS tops with huge hips that look even bigger next to my nice waist. Honestly I think my body just looks weird and I can’t find pants that flatter me.
Lol, I guess I can’t cater to vanity.3 -
collectingblues wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.
Hugs! I'm apple-shaped too, and my waist-to-hips ratio is .88 at the lower end of a healthy BMI. I'm just barely into a healthy body-fat range, so I suppose there's room for improvement, but with not much of a gap between the bottom of my ribs and my hip bones, I'm not sure how much difference the recomp I'm doing will make. I'm curious to see where I stand in a year.
How one of the providers described it to me was basically "your organs have to go somewhere!"
1 -
collectingblues wrote: »Waist-height ratio is definitely a better metric for me than waist-hip -- I'm a classic apple, but even at my current "this is not my normal" state, it still puts me at the "bodybuilder" level (at least according to the chart on Wikipedia). My pre-things-went-bad state had me at the "female swimmer" level, which makes sense, considering my workout levels.
But my waist-hip ratio is appalling... largely because I am such a classic apple, with tiny hips.
Hugs! I'm apple-shaped too, and my waist-to-hips ratio is .88 at the lower end of a healthy BMI. I'm just barely into a healthy body-fat range, so I suppose there's room for improvement, but with not much of a gap between the bottom of my ribs and my hip bones, I'm not sure how much difference the recomp I'm doing will make. I'm curious to see where I stand in a year.
@MegaMooseEsq I got a DXA scan a couple of months ago and got some good data for a baseline. I could never figure out where my "natural" waistline is and got numbers all over the place every time I measured.
I love playing with numbers so I think that the DXA scan will be fun. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point getting it until I'm closer to goal weight, though. Clearly I'm overfat right now. I'm closest to the-body-type-that-cannot-be-named-without-being-wooed (starts with an "h") and had a discrete natural waist even when I weighed over 200 pounds, which I think throws off the waist related ratios. Maybe I'll use a waist/belly average!3 -
Don't want to talk about WHR.
Not yet at least. 5 -
This is what I go by for (how to determine my) waist measurement:
http://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-weight/healthy-weight-and-waist
Due to loose skin belly button may not always be the best point of reference!1 -
Aha, thanks @PAV8888, so it's immediately above the pelvis then ... 33 inches for me, exactly splitting the difference between my narrowest point and the bellybutton line. Which makes sense since I'm shaped like an Erlenmeyer flask (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlenmeyer_flask), straight up and down under my bust until the end of my rib cage, then perfectly conical Like @Leeg5656, for mental health I think I'll focus on the fact that I've recently dipped into normal BMI, then take another look at the two WHR ratios when I hit goal weight. 4
-
The thing with completely blown out weekend binges is that it's going to skew any tracked progress for trying to determine any maintenance in terms of scale weight.
Use whichever formula you're comfortable with to determine an estimated maintenance for sedentary, unless you're performing volitional intense physical activity multiple days a week, but be mindful of realism, meaning that even at my current body fat (~16-18%) and weightlifting 5-6 days per week, outside of training, I'm not much more active above sedentary (pure desk job 8-9 hours out of the day and overall lazy POS besides exercise/coaching), so my activity factor is roughly 1.3, if that.
The usual recommendation I would make is that after a strategic refeed (slight surplus), go right into your calculated maintenance calories (which would be slightly lower than the refeed period) and maintain that amount for 1-2 weeks or however long your desired diet break period is. So, in your case, since you technically went over by a good portion on Easter, any proposed maintenance calorie level below that is going to result in the same way, but water weight/bloating may play a role in complete accuracy unless the maintenance period is extended to make allowances for correction.
Maintenance weight is almost always going to be more than your deficit weight trend by virtue of eating more, and will probably bounce within a range of 3-5lbs in either direction within the maintenance period. After a few days to a week of using the calculated maintenance, you can adjust those calories up or down if your weight is swinging too hard after getting a rough average of weight.
Then after that maintenance period, you can choose your level of weight loss. On average ~0.5-1% of weight loss per week is fine for most people, though 1.5% isn't uncommon either if you're carrying more weight.
I think I'm going to do that. I am very sedentary with my job and I don't work out regularly, though my activity will be increasing with spring, what with my plans for gardening, mowing grass, and building my 50 ft long, 5 ft high block retaining wall...... Based on that, Calculator.net gives me 2323 as maintenance, MyFitnessPal gives me 2420.
I'm a little confused on the Lyle McDonald' rule of thumb. Using the Lyle McDonald's rule of thumb formula, at my current weight of 266 lbs, I get these RMR & Maintenance values:
%BF............RMR..........Maintenance (based on 1.3 multiplier)
50% (7.0)......1862............2420
45% (7.5)......1995 ..........2593
40% (8.0)......2128...........2766
I'm confused by this, though. I would have thought that the maintenance range would have been higher for the higher %BF at the same weight!
I'm going to run with the 45% number and raise to 2500 for the next 2 weeks. That might be a slight surplus, or it might be a slight deficit, but I think it should be in the right area.
If its still a slight deficit, would I still get the benefits of the diet break? Especially as it should be close enough that the loss rate will definitely be masked by water weight?
I still have 100 lbs to lose minimum, so I want to get back to at least a 2/wk loss, but I'll drop back to 2000 calories for a week, and then go to the full 1,000 calories off after that, and adjust as necessary.
thank you for your patience with me!
1 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »
I'm a little confused on the Lyle McDonald' rule of thumb. Using the Lyle McDonald's rule of thumb formula, at my current weight of 266 lbs, I get these RMR & Maintenance values:
%BF............RMR..........Maintenance (based on 1.3 multiplier)
50% (7.0)......1862............2420
45% (7.5)......1995 ..........2593
40% (8.0)......2128...........2766
I'm confused by this, though. I would have thought that the maintenance range would have been higher for the higher %BF at the same weight!
If you have 50% fat of 266 lbs - you have 50% not fat - the more metabolically active stuff, which includes water management.
If you have 40% fat - you have 60% more calorie burn non-fat mass.
So less BF% - higher base burn.
Now - when it comes to workouts and moving the mass around, doesn't matter nearly as much.
If you have less muscle moving it - just means it's more intense for it - so higher carb burning as energy source.
If more muscle moving it - shared load between it so higher fat burn as energy source.3 -
Thank you!
I think I was getting it mixed up with the "more you weigh, the more calories you have to burn" thing
1 -
I have such a short waist. Well, I have a short everything. I'm only 5'1". My ratio used to be better when I was heavier, because my hips have majorly fallen off, but my waist has always been small. I always was an hourlgass/pear, now I'm more an inverted triangle with boobs. I have a 26 inch waist and 34.5 inch hips. I have to enter 35 into the calculators, though. So my ratio is .742
-
This isn't as complicated as Mcdonald makes it sound. Humans are engineered to store calories for lean times, it is an evolutionary survival mechanism. Remember, we have been evolving this survival mechanism over 2 million years as hominids. Just because we are in modern times, doesn't mean we can ignore those 2 million years of evolution into how our bodies handle calorie deficits.
Dieters talk about 'starvation mode' at the extreme, because they recognize when their metabolism shuts down after dieting too fast or too long, and you stop losing and just can't lose any more. But Any time--- any time, that you burn more calories than you take in, your metabolism will slow to compensate. As your metabolism slows to handle the fact you are taking in fewer calories than you burn, you have to manage your body into maintaining its highest metabolism rate. You do that either by continually upping your exercise, or you can take diet breaks and refeeds to reset it. Yes, we're stuck with that evolutionary survival mechanism. But the good news is, it can be tricked into not triggering.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I have such a short waist. Well, I have a short everything. I'm only 5'1". My ratio used to be better when I was heavier, because my hips have majorly fallen off, but my waist has always been small. I always was an hourlgass/pear, now I'm more an inverted triangle with boobs. I have a 26 inch waist and 34.5 inch hips. I have to enter 35 into the calculators, though. So my ratio is .74
That's interesting!
Because I was so obese, I have a horrible muffin top at my waist. I've been tracking my measurement at my belly button and my measurement at this muffin top, which I call "high waist" which is around 4 to 5 inches above the belly button line.
If I go by the belly button line, my ratio is 8.4; if I go by the high waist line, my ratio is .93, which apparently means I'm either low/moderate risk or high risk depending on which one is considered my actual waist. I want to wear my britches at the high waist mark, but unfortunately, almost all the pants I come across these days are either midrise or lowrise, so they naturally fall to the belly button mark.
I have wide shoulders and my shoulders and bust circumference are within 2-3" of my hips. I guess that makes me something of a bloated hourglass?3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions