Hanger...are they getting my BMR right?
Options
carofdiego
Posts: 8 Member
Several websites and apps are estimating I consume between 1200-1400 calories per day to lose 1 lb per week, and on the higher end of that range if I'm exercising. But whenever I try to stick to this range (and yes, I'm eating pretty healthy), I feel waaaaaayyy too hungry. Like HANGRY. I feel the hunger all day and can't fall asleep on this empty stomach without melatonin. The last two days I've lost a pound per day, but that could just be a coincidence or water weight. I'm going to stick it out a few more days but if it continues I'll just do the logical thing and increase my calories a little.
I'm just curious as to whether anyone else experiences this too? Do I just have a really fast metabolism? Bonus points if you're a health professional and have any insight to share.
Here's some background if it helps:
I'm 5'3 and 127 lbs. Live a sedentary lifestyle at work but consider myself pretty active outside of work. Normally I exercise ~4-5 days per week at the gym (weights, HIIT) and also do parkour on other days. Over the last few months I had been eating out more and became a little less active, which may explain the few pounds I've gained.
I'm just curious as to whether anyone else experiences this too? Do I just have a really fast metabolism? Bonus points if you're a health professional and have any insight to share.
Here's some background if it helps:
I'm 5'3 and 127 lbs. Live a sedentary lifestyle at work but consider myself pretty active outside of work. Normally I exercise ~4-5 days per week at the gym (weights, HIIT) and also do parkour on other days. Over the last few months I had been eating out more and became a little less active, which may explain the few pounds I've gained.
4
Replies
-
You already are at a healthy weight and don't need to lose anything for health reasons. If you are not happy with your body I'd suggest doing a recomp where you eat at maintenance while doing a progressive lifting program. If you really must lose weight for vanity reasons then you should not be losing more than 1/2 pound a week. So eat that extra 250 calories a day and at least half, if not more of those exercise calories and you won't be hungry all the time and will be more likely to have success.18
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »You already are at a healthy weight and don't need to lose anything for health reasons. If you are not happy with your body I'd suggest doing a recomp where you eat at maintenance while doing a progressive lifting program. If you really must lose weight for vanity reasons then you should not be losing more than 1/2 pound a week. So eat that extra 250 calories a day and at least half, if not more of those exercise calories and you won't be hungry all the time and will be more likely to have success.
Yeah, it's more of a recomp since I can feel I've lost muscle. My body fat had increased which is why I was wanting to lose a few pounds but the main goal is to bring down my body fat percentage a bit and get back my muscle. But calculating BFP is a whole other ordeal that requires its own post-I've gotten ranges from 22%-30% using different methods
Either way, I like your suggestion of eating those extra 250 calories
4 -
are you eating back exercise calories? MFP calorie recs don't include purposeful exercise5
-
carofdiego wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »You already are at a healthy weight and don't need to lose anything for health reasons. If you are not happy with your body I'd suggest doing a recomp where you eat at maintenance while doing a progressive lifting program. If you really must lose weight for vanity reasons then you should not be losing more than 1/2 pound a week. So eat that extra 250 calories a day and at least half, if not more of those exercise calories and you won't be hungry all the time and will be more likely to have success.
Yeah, it's more of a recomp since I can feel I've lost muscle. My body fat had increased which is why I was wanting to lose a few pounds but the main goal is to bring down my body fat percentage a bit and get back my muscle. But calculating BFP is a whole other ordeal that requires its own post-I've gotten ranges from 22%-30% using different methods
Either way, I like your suggestion of eating those extra 250 calories
If you are doing recomp you should be consuming maintenance calories. You are very active so you should be consuming more than 1200-1400 calories (probably closer to 1700 cal if you are as active as you describe). The hangry is because you are not consuming enough to fuel your activity.
7 -
deannalfisher wrote: »are you eating back exercise calories? MFP calorie recs don't include purposeful exercise
Yes. When I exercise, my calorie allowance goes up. Still hungry. I would like a recomp but would still like to go down in weight as well (I used to weigh 120-123). But then again, I'll probably just play it by ear (or eye haha) and see if I really want to go down in pounds as my body comp changes to more muscular again.0 -
Your 1lb a day plus hanger argues you're applying much more than a -250 which should be relatively unnoticeable to you both on the scale (without at long of observation using a trending weight application) and in your daily life.
Don't let very good be the enemy of more than good enough. People who are able to do parcour are not exactly in the "I'm in crappy physical condition" category.
Risk generating a hormonal rebound from pushing down on weight loss when you just want to defluff and get stronger? Hmmm....
Also: are you accounting for exercise? MFP sedentary includes maybe an hour total in your day of not sitting or lying down.
It generally maxes out at about 3500 steps, I.e. about 35 minutes of self care and walking level activity. Most people who have an outside job or kids etc are actually closer to lightly active, though computer attached people such as myself can successfully undershoot even 3500 steps a day as I have reason to know!
This activity should be fully eaten back as expended as (unlike with tdee calculators) your initial goal includes your selected deficit and does not include any activity beyond your selection.
Also... you should be looking at zero to -250 as opposed to -500 or higher, I would think, as your deficit
And.. best of luck on muscle mass and adipose tissue measurements short of CT scans or disection... both of which come with their own sets of problems!
5 -
Also recomp is often eating at (or very close) to maintenance and is a long process2
-
carofdiego wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »are you eating back exercise calories? MFP calorie recs don't include purposeful exercise
Yes. When I exercise, my calorie allowance goes up. Still hungry. I would like a recomp but would still like to go down in weight as well (I used to weigh 120-123). But then again, I'll probably just play it by ear (or eye haha) and see if I really want to go down in pounds as my body comp changes to more muscular again.
At your current weight this would be vanity pounds and chances are you wouldn't notice much in terms of appearance. If you truly want to recomp it won't matter what the scale says since you can be 127 and muscular or 127 and skinny fat. No one asks what you weigh.4 -
carofdiego wrote: »At your current weight this would be vanity pounds and chances are you wouldn't notice much in terms of appearance. If you truly want to recomp it won't matter what the scale says since you can be 127 and muscular or 127 and skinny fat. No one asks what you weigh.
I know, this is purely a 'me' thing. People don't notice, people don't care. I still take what the scale says with a grain of salt. The scale just gives me some idea since I find BFP harder to measure numerically. Sure, it's partially vanity. I just want to get back to athletic again. I don't care that people don't notice; I notice and I like looking, feeling, and being athletic.0 -
As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
Saying all that, you should definitely be creating just a small deficit including exercise calories (say 0 - 300) each day depending on how hungry you are and your workouts. I would recommend keeping records (via spreadsheet) to get a good handle on your maintenance calories. And being as accurate and consistent as possible with tracking calories and exercise. Very slow loss is the way to go at this point!
Good luck!2 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
Saying all that, you should definitely be creating just a small deficit including exercise calories (say 0 - 300) each day depending on how hungry you are and your workouts. I would recommend keeping records (via spreadsheet) to get a good handle on your maintenance calories. And being as accurate and consistent as possible with tracking calories and exercise. Very slow loss is the way to go at this point!
Good luck!
I agree! I am also 5’3’’ and at 127 have a lot of extra fat around my mid section! With a small bone structure, there is a HUGE difference between 120 and 127! I was down to 120 before the holidays, but I am back to 126 (down from 146 January of 2019). I hate when people try to say I don’t need to lose weight at 127!
2 -
It's also possible to be atypical in statistical terms, i.e. to be someone for whom calorie "calculators" are inaccurate (either high or low). It's not at all common though - rather, quite rare.
More common: Underestimating daily life activity level, tracking calorie intake inaccurately, not eating back exercise (to one's detriment), overexercising in pursuit of weight loss (exercise mode can matter, too), unrealistically fast weight loss rate goal.
For hanger, common causes include undernutrition (often, but not always, lowball protein or fats), or eating non-satiating foods (often, but not always, calorie dense, low-volume and possibly highly-processed foods as the core/majority of one's intake). How's your eating, in terms of nutrition?
Secondary triggers for hanger: Stress in other aspects of life, inadequate sleep.
Just some things to consider. Hope you find a solution!
2 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
Saying all that, you should definitely be creating just a small deficit including exercise calories (say 0 - 300) each day depending on how hungry you are and your workouts. I would recommend keeping records (via spreadsheet) to get a good handle on your maintenance calories. And being as accurate and consistent as possible with tracking calories and exercise. Very slow loss is the way to go at this point!
Good luck!
I agree! I am also 5’3’’ and at 127 have a lot of extra fat around my mid section! With a small bone structure, there is a HUGE difference between 120 and 127! I was down to 120 before the holidays, but I am back to 126 (down from 146 January of 2019). I hate when people try to say I don’t need to lose weight at 127!
@bold_rabbit @brittlb07 YES. I HAVE A SMALL BONE STRUCTURE TOO. And my goal maintenance weight is also in the 120-125 range which is where I'm usually at. Like you said, a few pounds are not a noticeable difference for others but it is for us short women. I've just noticed I don't see my muscle as much and I feel softer. More importantly, it's much harder for me to do a pull up and I worked REALLY hard to finally get one last year!
Anyway, this is all to say you both get me Now, back to eating more.. 0 -
carofdiego wrote: »bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
Saying all that, you should definitely be creating just a small deficit including exercise calories (say 0 - 300) each day depending on how hungry you are and your workouts. I would recommend keeping records (via spreadsheet) to get a good handle on your maintenance calories. And being as accurate and consistent as possible with tracking calories and exercise. Very slow loss is the way to go at this point!
Good luck!
I agree! I am also 5’3’’ and at 127 have a lot of extra fat around my mid section! With a small bone structure, there is a HUGE difference between 120 and 127! I was down to 120 before the holidays, but I am back to 126 (down from 146 January of 2019). I hate when people try to say I don’t need to lose weight at 127!
@bold_rabbit @brittlb07 YES. I HAVE A SMALL BONE STRUCTURE TOO. And my goal maintenance weight is also in the 120-125 range which is where I'm usually at. Like you said, a few pounds are not a noticeable difference for others but it is for us short women. I've just noticed I don't see my muscle as much and I feel softer. More importantly, it's much harder for me to do a pull up and I worked REALLY hard to finally get one last year!
Anyway, this is all to say you both get me Now, back to eating more..
5'3" ain't short ...... says someone who would dearly love to have hit that magical 5' height!4 -
@carofdiego @brittlb07
I'm likely significantly older than both of you. When I was young, doctors used insurance tables much more than BMI. They always told me that I should weigh under 115 pounds. I thought they were nuts.
In college, I had ended up weighing something under 118 lbs (my dressed weight on the scale at student health) and everyone was concerned about my health, including medical professionals. I clearly looked too thin. Sidenote: I was one of the rare people who lose weight freshman year because I didn't like the cafeteria food.
Around 2000, I accidentally undershot when losing and dropped to 118 lbs. Again people were concerned.
I've learned that 120 lbs is definitely a hard bottom for me. Besides, that's a size 4 (in today's sizing) for me and it's a lot more effort to buy clothes under size 4 (2s just aren't carried everywhere), so I have no desire to go lower than that.
Feel free to add me as a friend. I eat pescatarian and log every day except vacations. I switched to maintenance calories on MFP and just try to get a small deficit every day while losing these last pounds.3 -
Your 1lb a day plus hanger argues you're applying much more than a -250 which should be relatively unnoticeable to you both on the scale (without at long of observation using a trending weight application) and in your daily life.
Don't let very good be the enemy of more than good enough. People who are able to do parcour are not exactly in the "I'm in crappy physical condition" category.
Risk generating a hormonal rebound from pushing down on weight loss when you just want to defluff and get stronger? Hmmm....
Also: are you accounting for exercise? MFP sedentary includes maybe an hour total in your day of not sitting or lying down.
It generally maxes out at about 3500 steps, I.e. about 35 minutes of self care and walking level activity. Most people who have an outside job or kids etc are actually closer to lightly active, though computer attached people such as myself can successfully undershoot even 3500 steps a day as I have reason to know!
This activity should be fully eaten back as expended as (unlike with tdee calculators) your initial goal includes your selected deficit and does not include any activity beyond your selection.
Also... you should be looking at zero to -250 as opposed to -500 or higher, I would think, as your deficit
And.. best of luck on muscle mass and adipose tissue measurements short of CT scans or disection... both of which come with their own sets of problems!
This is helpful! If sedentary is max 3500, then I am just above it if I don't include exercise. It's a good reminder to start walking more again.
I checked the scale again this morning and lost another pound, so I am definitely undershooting my calories. I ate more for dinner last night and had a total of about 1760 calories for the day. That was enough to be able to sleep at night. So I'm guessing 1800 calories daily might be better for me, and more if I'm exercising. I really hate counting calories and don't plan to do this for very long, but I am curious to see what my own BMR/TDEE is and how much it varies from computer estimates.3 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
The phase "vanity weight" isn't a negative one, it's just means a loss within the healthy range (I always say a friend of mine lost vanity weight using 5:2, because I think it's often relevant to the conversion that she was never overweight).
I'm 5'3 also, ranging between 125 and 130, would prefer to be about 120 (although mainly would prefer to be leaner, whatever my weight, so I'm focusing on the gym this year -- a couple years ago I had a trainer my height who was around 135 and yet looked thinner than me because she was leaner, and looked amazing). In any case, with respect to the 120 goal, I'd certainly say my goal is to lose vanity weight (and yes it's perfectly reasonable to want to be around 120 at 5'3).3 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
The phase "vanity weight" isn't a negative one, it's just means a loss within the healthy range (I always say a friend of mine lost vanity weight using 5:2, because I think it's often relevant to the conversion that she was never overweight).
I'm 5'3 also, ranging between 125 and 130, would prefer to be about 120 (although mainly would prefer to be leaner, whatever my weight, so I'm focusing on the gym this year -- a couple years ago I had a trainer my height who was around 135 and yet looked thinner than me because she was leaner, and looked amazing). In any case, with respect to the 120 goal, I'd certainly say my goal is to lose vanity weight (and yes it's perfectly reasonable to want to be around 120 at 5'3).
It's hard for me to understand that the term "vanity weight" isn't meant to have a negative connotation.
Webster's definition for vanity:
1: inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : CONCEIT
2: something that is vain, empty, or valueless
I'd never heard the term before this website and just assumed, based on the accepted definition of "vanity" AND the way it is used here, that "vanity weight" is not a positive or even neutral term. I appreciate your view. I will have to re-evaluate.1 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
The phase "vanity weight" isn't a negative one, it's just means a loss within the healthy range (I always say a friend of mine lost vanity weight using 5:2, because I think it's often relevant to the conversion that she was never overweight).
I'm 5'3 also, ranging between 125 and 130, would prefer to be about 120 (although mainly would prefer to be leaner, whatever my weight, so I'm focusing on the gym this year -- a couple years ago I had a trainer my height who was around 135 and yet looked thinner than me because she was leaner, and looked amazing). In any case, with respect to the 120 goal, I'd certainly say my goal is to lose vanity weight (and yes it's perfectly reasonable to want to be around 120 at 5'3).
It's hard for me to understand that the term "vanity weight" isn't meant to have a negative connotation.
Webster's definition for vanity:
1: inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : CONCEIT
2: something that is vain, empty, or valueless
I'd never heard the term before this website and just assumed, based on the accepted definition of "vanity" AND the way it is used here, that "vanity weight" is not a positive or even neutral term. I appreciate your view. I will have to re-evaluate.
There was no negative connotation to this term. It basically means a number (weight) that means nothing to general health/fitness and well being. Its more that you personally have met a number on a method of measurement.
3 -
bold_rabbit wrote: »bold_rabbit wrote: »As someone who is also 5'3" and about 124.5 lbs --
While 127 lbs is a perfectly healthy weight so is 120 lbs at our height. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be aiming for 120 -123 lbs. Personally my goal for maintenance is in the 120 - 125 range (still deciding). Also, there is likely a size difference from 127 to 120, so I'm not sure that would qualify as "vanity." ( I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say that, since I think we are all trying to get to a weight we are happy with that is in a healthy range.)
The phase "vanity weight" isn't a negative one, it's just means a loss within the healthy range (I always say a friend of mine lost vanity weight using 5:2, because I think it's often relevant to the conversion that she was never overweight).
I'm 5'3 also, ranging between 125 and 130, would prefer to be about 120 (although mainly would prefer to be leaner, whatever my weight, so I'm focusing on the gym this year -- a couple years ago I had a trainer my height who was around 135 and yet looked thinner than me because she was leaner, and looked amazing). In any case, with respect to the 120 goal, I'd certainly say my goal is to lose vanity weight (and yes it's perfectly reasonable to want to be around 120 at 5'3).
It's hard for me to understand that the term "vanity weight" isn't meant to have a negative connotation.
Webster's definition for vanity:
1: inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : CONCEIT
2: something that is vain, empty, or valueless
I'd never heard the term before this website and just assumed, based on the accepted definition of "vanity" AND the way it is used here, that "vanity weight" is not a positive or even neutral term. I appreciate your view. I will have to re-evaluate.
Maybe think of it as a colloquial phrase, rather than a literal use of the two words "vanity weight".
It's just small amounts of weight gained/lost that's not really about any probable impact on health, but rather on personal aesthetic preferences alone.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions