Wanting to ensure I'm not making a mistake

AVanBens
AVanBens Posts: 17 Member
edited December 19 in Getting Started
Second post here. First one encouraged me to get a food scale, which I have -- and which is definitely helpful. So my next question: I think that, after about five weeks being pretty d*mn aggressive about trying to lose 2 pounds a week, I might be at a point where I need to up my calories. I want to make sure I'm not being dumb about it. For starters, know that I eat healthy on the whole and do not deprive. The 200-calorie portion of cheesecake I had last night was amazing. So was the homemade tempeh and shrimp jambalaya (25g of protein in 300 calories!). I don't eat meat, fast food or added salt. I'm a little carb heavy still but working to add more protein to balance that out.

Anyway, I at first started at 1150 calories, which was intentionally low. I rarely ate that little, but I did net that or less for about four weeks. My intent was to shock the system because I'd already done multiple 1400-calorie stints and seen no change period. Last week I began following the MFP recommendations, which upped it to 1200, but I'm guessing I need to change the setting from 2 pounds a week as a goal to 1.

My stats: I'm 5'5" and 40 years old. I'm down to 165 (from 178), mostly losing 1-2 pounds per week. (The first week was a very big drop. I'm sure TOM and water weight played a role.) My goal is 135, which is my 35-year-old pre-pregnancy weight.

Here are some stats from my weekly digest, in case it helps:

11,811 weekly calorie goal; 10,889 calories logged. 3,411 calories burned.

Exercise minutes logged: 370. I burned an average of 338 calories during each exercise session.

So, per several online calculators, I think my basal metabolic rate is likely around 1,450. Shouldn't I not be below that net? Or is it that I should not be below that gross? (My daily average gross last week was about 1,550, so a bit past BMR.) I get confused with the "you shouldn't go below 1200 calories" input because I'm not sure if that's referring to gross or net. If it's gross, I've been above that at least slightly every week. If it's net, well, geez ... I've been quite low some weeks. Like, as low as 915. (I won't do that again, rest assured.)

So much of what I read says that cutting calories is more effective than working out when it comes to losing weight, but if I just cut calories, I 1) starve, and 2) come nowhere near recommended numbers on nutrients. But it's still hard for me to wrap my brain around eating more to lose weight. Should I change my MFP goal to 1 pound per week?

Replies

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    edited January 2019
    BMR - the amount of calories your body would need to sustain itself in a coma. It does not account for any movement/exercise. Do not eat below BMR.

    TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure)- your BMR plus your movement/exercise. You take your deficit from this number.

    And yes, you have 30 pounds to lose, switch to 1 lb per week. When you get under 20 lbs to lose, switch to 0.5.

    I'm 5'9, almost 44 years old, and can lose a half a pound a week on 2000 calories per day. I 100% think you can lose while eating more calories, assuming you are using that food scale to insure the calories are what you think they are.
  • AVanBens
    AVanBens Posts: 17 Member
    edited January 2019
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    I'm 5'9, almost 44 years old, and can lose a half a pound a week on 2000 calories per day.

    Holy *kitten*, do you know how huge an amount that seems to me right now?! My CHEAT DAY hit 1,800 calories -- and I did an hour on the elliptical that day, so I actually ended up close to my net goal. I don't think I'd lose any weight at 2,000 calories, but I suppose that's where finding out my precise numbers would be helpful. I just suspect my BMR is maybe lower than others. I've ruled out just about every potential medical possibility: thyroid numbers are fine, Cushing's test was negative, I've switched several medications to test whether the drugs were making me resistant to weight loss. I know pregnancy messes with you, but I'm five years postpartum now. I have to think my hormones are back to normal by now. Anyway, I did clock in at 2 pounds lost this week, so I'll up my intake and see if I'm still losing next week. Thanks for the input. I appreciate it.
  • AVanBens
    AVanBens Posts: 17 Member
    I hear you, and I get why you'd question my estimations. I don't take offense. There's no way for you to know that, if anything, I err on under-estimating my output rather than over. I mean, I'm logging 300-370 minutes a week in exercise. When I work out, I lop off five or so minutes for fear I'll log too many calories burned. (Last night's 50-minute elliptical was logged as 40, for example.) I might have been underestimating on food a bit during my previous weight loss attempts because I was measuring by cups rather than scale, but let's say I was going over my 1400-calorie goal by 15%. That's 1610. That should still be a deficit. My doc tested me for the conditions mentioned because she's seen my journals and knows my tendencies and can't explain why nothing had budged.

    That said, things did budge over the past several weeks, so I'll quit focusing on when things weren't moving and focus instead on what I need to do to keep them moving in a healthy way. And, no, I'm not obese. ;) I've even got ab lines now! I'm just not where I think I'm supposed to be, based on the many adult years I'd lived pre-pregnancy.
    JBanx256 wrote: »
    y479ezrqliin.jpg

    This isn't meant to be critical, but food for thought - in this study, NO abnormally slow (15% + below predictions) were observed. Meaning, the likelihood of having a BMR that is significantly lower than it "should" be is pretty low, especially since you said you've ruled out medical possibilities. Granted, this study was among obese patients & I don't think you're obese, but I think the same principles would apply, or at least be worthy of consideration.

    Also, I'm 5'5" and 36 years old. I currently eat a minimum of 1800 cal/day.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    JBanx256 wrote: »
    y479ezrqliin.jpg

    This isn't meant to be critical, but food for thought - in this study, NO abnormally slow (15% + below predictions) were observed. Meaning, the likelihood of having a BMR that is significantly lower than it "should" be is pretty low, especially since you said you've ruled out medical possibilities. Granted, this study was among obese patients & I don't think you're obese, but I think the same principles would apply, or at least be worthy of consideration.

    Also, I'm 5'5" and 36 years old. I currently eat a minimum of 1800 cal/day.

    This is outstanding!

    I monitor the performance of a number of pharmaceutical products and have access to a metabolics lab and observe this is our patient population. There is an approximate +/- 5% range within metabolic rate calculation (BMR/REE), but no abnormally high or low rates. Also know that the degree of error on the instrumentation is greater than 5%, meaning this variance is statistically insignificant. Note that this is even among the population with diagnosed hormonal disorders e.g. hypothyroid.

    Bottom line, trust the process. Your weight is an output of your behavior, but it doesn't show up immediately and can often be hidden under water weight fluctuations. Think in terms of months & years over days and weeks.

    There's a natural fear that one has to "starve themselves" to get results, but doing this works against you in the long term. Don't sacrifice long term goals for short term results.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories