GAINING with scrict diet and workouts!!

13»

Replies

  • Jeff92se
    Jeff92se Posts: 3,369 Member
    And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

    Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

    Absolutely false.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet


    Thats a really cool study. Thanks for providing that. I would like to note that the people in the study that didn't lose lbm all have very low caloric deficits (unlike this case). So using this study and applying to the facts of this thread, I forsee it very unlikely that the 2 lbs was muscle, especially considering she seems to have a high caloric deficit.

    I'm pretty sure he was posting that as a rebuttal to a specific statement. Not really in the context of the OP's 2lb gain.
  • BuddhaBelly79
    BuddhaBelly79 Posts: 59
    It was just a simple typo - she meant to say "strict"....
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    You have to get a fairly technical and expensive BF done to do a good KM calculation. I'm not willing to spend the $50 to do that all the time.

    Perhaps I'll get it done once at the end of my goals for giggles.

    So to give you some comparison. Most website have me projected at 18% body fat (at 200 lbs and 5'11"). I have had my body fat done with calipers (done myself and by a certified nutritionist) and it was 14%. The difference in BMR is 79 calories. In the end, there will always be slight variations and inaccuracies but what it does is provide a better foundation for a starting point. I still had to try a few months of upping and lowering my calories to optimize my phase of weight loss/ body re composition. I will say, it's a lot more accurate then MFP (like 400 calories better). MFP had me at 2400 calories with my exercise, KMA has me at 2800. I eat 2750 to do body recomposition.
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    You have to get a fairly technical and expensive BF done to do a good KM calculation. I'm not willing to spend the $50 to do that all the time.

    Perhaps I'll get it done once at the end of my goals for giggles.

    I recommend picking up some decent calipers along with a caliper BF% calculation sheet and doing this yourself. A "newbie" set can be found around the web for ~$5-10. I always run 3 sets and take the average. You are right - it is not a BodyPod or any other crazy contraption (that works), but it is "close enough" for the vast majority of people.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So to give you some comparison. Most website have me projected at 18% body fat (at 200 lbs and 5'11"). I have had my body fat done with calipers (done myself and by a certified nutritionist) and it was 14%. The difference in BMR is 79 calories. In the end, there will always be slight variations and inaccuracies but what it does is provide a better foundation for a starting point. I still had to try a few months of upping and lowering my calories to optimize my phase of weight loss/ body re composition. I will say, it's a lot more accurate then MFP (like 400 calories better). MFP had me at 2400 calories with my exercise, KMA has me at 2800. I eat 2750 to do body recomposition.

    Very interesting minimal difference (except for MFP estimate of BMR being so far off).

    Just goes to show, I guess you could use some of the body fat calculators and get a decent enough figure to enter into M-F calculation. Then take the result back here to manually change your goal.

    Shoot, the inaccuracies in the exercise calories, or even just the amount of calories really in the food, could be greater than that 79! And that's for a 4% difference in estimate.

    Shoot, I wish I'd started throwing in ranges to see how far off the values really changed.
  • carrie_eggo
    carrie_eggo Posts: 1,396 Member
    The problem here in my opinion is the MFP calculator, not the 2lbs per week loss. It is simply a bad tool. If you want real calculations, you should learn the Katch-McArdle method of calculating weight loss/gain needs and use that.

    I am 2 inches shorter than the OP, and according to Katch-McArdle I should be eating only 1078 calories a day for weight loss.

    I don't want you to fall through the cracks here......No. Katch-McArdle is a formula to determine your BMR. And only if you have a good understanding of your body fat %. You use your BMR to multiply by an activity factor to get your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). Then you can subtract 20% to create a deficit.

    Multiply BMR by Activity Factor:
    1.2 = Sedentary (Little or no exercise and desk job)
    1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light exercise or sports 1-3 days a week)
    1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week)
    1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week)
    1.9-2.0 = Extremely Active (Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job)

    If you still want to log and eat back your exercise calories use sedentary or lightly active. Hope this helps :)
  • osorio1
    osorio1 Posts: 63
    Hello.. Ok i have a question.. i am new to this MFP but i have been working out 7 days a week 1-2 hour a day and eating 1200 cals and i cant seem to lose weight??? I actually gained 2.6 lbs... What am i doing wrong?? Any advice would be good. Also what does the net calories mean??
  • TAC2413
    TAC2413 Posts: 27 Member
    Look into 'Starvation Mode.' It is when you aren't eating enough calories that your body literally hold on to whatever you eat. Eat more food.

    Exactly what I was going to suggest. Eat back your exercise calories... sounds counterproductive, but it does work.
  • olee67
    olee67 Posts: 208 Member
    I agree with a lot of this... You are starving your body.

    Imagine it like this: Your body is a kettle, your weight (fat) is water inside the kettle. Under the kettle is wood (food). You light the fire (metabolism) and the wood begins to burn. The fire will only burn if the wood is fresh enough to burn. The more wood you put on the fire, the faster and hotter it burns. If there isn't enough wood, the fire won't make the kettle hot enough to boil the water. If there's too much wood, the fire will snuff itself out. If the water doesn't boil, it won't evaporate. It's important to keep a hot, constant, and clean burning fire.

    If you are eating 1,200 calories a day and eliminating even just 300 caleroies via exercising then you are leaving your body 900 calories to function...
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Hello.. Ok i have a question.. i am new to this MFP but i have been working out 7 days a week 1-2 hour a day and eating 1200 cals and i cant seem to lose weight??? I actually gained 2.6 lbs... What am i doing wrong?? Any advice would be good. Also what does the net calories mean??

    Please at least read through the thread for all the great advice already given. It all applies to you.
    If you aren't willing to do some self-learning (which doesn't take much effort in this case), something else will trip you up very quickly.
    Like your diet and exercise actually! ;-)

    There is a wonderful Search button right at top too.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    Hello.. Ok i have a question.. i am new to this MFP but i have been working out 7 days a week 1-2 hour a day and eating 1200 cals and i cant seem to lose weight??? I actually gained 2.6 lbs... What am i doing wrong?? Any advice would be good. Also what does the net calories mean??
    think of it like a paycheck, your gross income (or calories you take in) is the amount of money you make before taxes (before exercise). Once taxes are removed you get net. So if you eat 1200 and burn 400 your net is 800. This means that your body isnt seeing the proper nutrition because its like you only ate 800 calories and your bodies requirements are 1200 for your organs to function properly
This discussion has been closed.

Categories