Optimal deficit when increasing exercise

Bella_Figura
Bella_Figura Posts: 4,351 Member
edited August 26 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi folks, I'm seeking your insights.

I've lost 40lbs since March by following a sensible balanced diet and doing modest exercise and making an effort to increase my NEAT. My 159 days of data on input and weight show that my TDEE is currently at about 160% of BMR (a slight drop from the 167% of the first 15 weeks of weight loss).

The modest exercise has been dog walking at a slow-moderate pace of about 3-3.2miles an hour, for between 90 and 120 minutes a day.

However, at the end of June I added in cycling - not much, about 25kms a week at a moderate pace. Oddly, instead of increasing my TDEE, within a fortnight my TDEE had dropped to 160%, where it's stayed ever since.

A fortnight ago, I bought a turbo trainer and I've now kicked the cycling up a notch. I'm now riding more like 100kms a week, and putting in considerably more effort than I do when I'm cycling on the road. E.g. tomorrow I have a virtual group ride of 60 minutes, when we'll cover about 35kms. I'm still doing the 90-120 mins a day of dog walking.

My question is...am I being foolish in maintaining a deficit (vs my TDEE) of around 580-600 calories a day, when I'm now doing greater amounts of exercise? I haven't noticed any hunger or drop-off in energy and I feel fine, but strength, health and fitness are more important to me than pure weight loss, so I don't want to disadvantage myself for getting fitter by running too severe a deficit just so I can keep on losing 1-1.5 lbs a week.

The extra cycling hasn't increased my TDEE - weight loss has remained constant at around 1.5lbs/week since I started. I weigh and log all my food, so I'm 100% sure I'm not guilty of calorie-creep. I still have 50lbs to go to get to goal.

I'd welcome your thoughts.

Replies

  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,491 Spam Moderator
    It sounds like you might have let the weight loss skew your vision of TDEE. If your weight was going down, but your TDEE remained essentially stable, you have to remember that you were moving less weight. Thus your TDEE as compared to your weight is higher. By comparing to BMR, you won't see much change until more weight loss or enough training to increase your cardio capabilities is involved. And adding the cycling might certainly do that.

    Beyond that, the answer can be tricky. Without giving specifics about your current weight, it's hard to gauge if the continued more rapid weight loss will improve your performance metrics, or possibly slow them. The closer you get to your desired weight, the more chances that deficit will impact your performance.

    Even a 500-600 calorie deficit will lessen your energy stores to some extent, but if you aren't exercising to that level of duration or intensity, you might not notice it. But in your case, it sounds like you are pushing harder now with the trainer, so you might notice an immediate improvement in pace if you cut your deficit out and eat closer to maintenance.

    BUT, it's easier to move a lighter person, even on a bike. So you can essentially still improve your power to weight ratio while slowly dropping weight. It's all up to you and long term goals really.


    The last time period where I was still doing quite a bit of cardio and such just eating at maintenance for a week resulted in several personal best times at varied distances on our elliptical and on the bike. But long term the best thing to do for me personally was keep dropping some pounds.
  • Bella_Figura
    Bella_Figura Posts: 4,351 Member
    Thanks Robert.

    Re the weight specifics, I started at 96kg and I'm now 77.8kg. I'm only 1.55m tall, so I'm aiming for a goal weight of 55kg. I'm in no rush, but I started on 17th March so my weight loss to date equates to 1.8lbs/week (faster in the first 11 weeks, slower in the second 11).

    My watt/kg ratio is currently 1.5 on the turbo...so pretty poor, which is why I want to improve!

  • Bella_Figura
    Bella_Figura Posts: 4,351 Member
    Im not sure how to calculate TDEE properly, but this is how I do it...

    1) I weigh every day
    2) I input my calorie intake every day
    3) I log my BMR (Miffin St Jour) every day
    4) I then add a percentage to my BMR to equate to an approximate TDEE (currently BRM + 60%)
    5) I then calculate my theoretical deficit by subtracting my calorie input from this theoretical TDEE
    6) On a rolling daily basis I then compare my actual weight loss (in cumulative calories, on the basis of 1lb = 3500 calories) against the cumulative deficit I derive from subtracting my cumulative calorie input from my cumulative theoretical TDEE.
    7) If the actual weight loss in calories matches the theoretical weight loss from TDEE-input, I assume my TDEE % is accurate. If the actual weight loss is lower, I assume I'm burning less calores and I tweak my TDEE % downwards until my theoretical weight loss figure matches my actual weight loss figure (in calories).

    Does that make sense?

    qxn21k43kgro.png

  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,491 Spam Moderator
    Your TDEE charts look fine.

    In your case with fitness and strength possibly being a priority over just weight loss, you might actually benefit some slowing your rate of loss. But that all depends on your cardio base, strength, etc. If your cardio base is still weak for cycling it can limit your power. If it's your legs, then retaining leg strength should be the priority while you build cardio base.

    But find what works best for you. In my case a diet break and reduction or elimination of a deficit helped. You might be in the same boat, or still gaining strength more.

    As for the TDEE as a percentage, also keep in mind that those numbers might be impacted by any new exercise you add, due to accuracy of the exercise energy expenditure. If you over or under estimate any variables, it's just like doing the same with food, and it can alter your numbers some.


    But in any case, all the numbers in the world don't set your priorities. Move towards your goal the way that keeps it interesting and sustainable, as that will increase your chances of getting there. It sounds like you are making good progress and expanding your exercise options, so personally I'd say you are doing it right.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 38,214 Community Helper
    I think Robert's advice was perfect, can't be improved upon.

    This is just a tiny additional speculative comment. You say:
    A fortnight ago, I bought a turbo trainer and I've now kicked the cycling up a notch. I'm now riding more like 100kms a week, and putting in considerably more effort than I do when I'm cycling on the road.

    That's a substantial exercise increase (4x the distance, and higher intensity besides), and a fortnight isn't a very long time. You may still be in a realm of a little extra water weight from the exercise increase, which could distort your numbers temporarily. It's hard to say how long. (I've had a period of up to a month where my weight trending app thought I was maintaining or even gaining slowly, because of an exercise increase, while calorie level and experience suggested I'd be losing very slowly; in about 5-6 weeks, the scale finally supported my belief, not the previous trend line.)

    Fitness-wise, it's not clear from your post what your intensity mix is, but just in case: All high intensity all the time is usually not the best route to improved fitness, and high intensity causes more fatigue (can subtly reduce daily life calorie expenditure) and increased recovery needs, perhaps disproportionate to either the magnitude of intensity increase or the net fitness benefit. If you have fitness goals, consider following a training program by someone qualified, if you aren't. Free programs exist, but I'm not the one to suggest a good one for cycling: Not my modality.

    Best wishes!
  • Bella_Figura
    Bella_Figura Posts: 4,351 Member
    Good points @AnnPT77. I've only had the turbo for 11 days and I've cycled 160kms in those 11 days with only one rest day on day 8. So water retention from the additional exercise could be skewing my trend in Happy Scale a little.

    Re the intensity, I'm trying to do a mixture of high intensity and lower intensity. Most of my turbo rides are in HR zone 3 with only the odd spike into zone 4. I'm starting a 6 week training programme today which will give me targeted goals to aim for.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 38,214 Community Helper
    Bella_Figura wrote: »
    Good points @AnnPT77. I've only had the turbo for 11 days and I've cycled 160kms in those 11 days with only one rest day on day 8. So water retention from the additional exercise could be skewing my trend in Happy Scale a little.

    Re the intensity, I'm trying to do a mixture of high intensity and lower intensity. Most of my turbo rides are in HR zone 3 with only the odd spike into zone 4. I'm starting a 6 week training programme today which will give me targeted goals to aim for.

    That sounds perfect: Wishing you great progress with the new program!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'm going for water weight for the harder workouts masking fat weight lost on the scale.

    More blood volume to feed more muscle being used in a much more intense workout than walking, needing that oxygen.
    More blood volume for sweating.
    More water attached with more glycogen stored in muscles.
    More water to aid recovery.

    All those will top out quick enough.
    But I would mark in your notes so you know it perhaps shouldn't count in the math.

    But for sure you don't want to get to the point where body feels threatened and lowers NEAT to compensate, because deficit was inadvertently increased.
    The spontaneous stuff likely wouldn't even be noticed when it goes missing.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,491 Spam Moderator
    Good catch @AnnPT77

    With biking and the large muscles involved, that could certainly skew weight some for a period of time. And with time, potential for muscle growth as well.

    It's all a slippery slope and then you reach the point when trying on pants you worry more about them getting over your quads and not so much about your waist.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories