Weight and Resistance Training - Changing calroies due to more weight training?




CandyKisses0204
07-17-2008, 02:48 PM
So i posted this over in the calorie counters forum. but someone suggested i ask the ladies over here which i thought was a great idea.

I started my journey in march. So far i have lost 30lbs which i am very happy about. Since i started calorie counting i have been at 1600cals a day and have had great success with it. When i first started i was working out a lot with weights. Then my workouts slowed down a little. The past 3 weeks i have kicked up the exercise quite a bit. Not outrageous or anything more than a lot of people. I went from workin gout maybe 3days a week. day1-yoga for 60min day2&3-15min warm up 45 min weights

Now i am working out 5-6 days a week. Most days consist of 40-60min cardio and 30-45min weights. This does vary a little, but its pretty accurate. I have lost only 1/2lb in the past almost month. I know plateaus happen and im not freaking out about it. I was just wondering if you all think i should stay at 1600. Try going lower or adding a little bit? Oh yea i am 20, 5'5 and 214lbs if that helps any. Thanks!


Depalma
07-17-2008, 03:12 PM
Have you taken any circumference measurements? Have you been tracking bodyfat% in anyway? How have your clothes been fitting?

There are many ways of tracking body composition changes other than the scale. In fact the scale, while the easiest and most widely available, is probably the worst in tracking bodyfat composition as the scale treats water, fat, and muscle equally.

It's impossible to say what you should do with your calories because going strictly by scale weight we have no idea if you have plateaud, are retaining water, or have actually managed to build muscle at the same time as losing fat. The advice most definitely would be different if we knew you lost 1.5 lbs of fat and gained a 1b of muscle than if we knew you lost .25lbs of fat and lost .25lbs of muscle. In the first case, you would be doing great. In the second case, you would not be doing very well and would need to change something. According to the scale, however, both cases would be treated the same.

If you are not tracking in other ways than the scale, you really should start now. If you have been tracking other ways, give us that valuable info and we'll see if we can help you workshop your plan.

CandyKisses0204
07-17-2008, 03:24 PM
I wont be able to check my emasurements for another week or so. I have to do it at a specific gym location. I can never do it right. Clothes havent been getting any loser lately and i dont know of anywhere i can get my bodyfat measured. The ladies at the gym dont do it. Every once in a while they have someone come in but the last time i missed it.


cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 03:35 PM
If you haven't already, I would try interval and/or circuit training. Overhaul your cardio routine.

This is just my personal opinion and I probably shouldn't say this, but I would also drop my caloric intake for a week just to see what happens. But I wouldn't go lower than 1200-1300. At the very least, I would change up how I'm taking in 1600 calories. Do you know your fat/carb/protein ratios?

Depalma
07-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Well, at you height/weight/age, 1600 calories is already about 200 calories below your BMR and less than 8 calories per lb of bodyweight, so I would be very hesitant to lower calories any further.

Your activity level is great, so I would have to say that if the scale has suddenly stopped moving and your clothes are about the same, it is probably water retention/bloat. Or it could be some hormonal stuff going on. Perhaps one of the ladies would have some insight on that.

The only thing I would change at this point, would be to maybe up the intensity a bit. If the cardio is low-intensity steady state, move to moderate intensity steady state. If it's already moderate, then move to aerobic intervals. If it's already aerobic intervals, move to HIIT.

On the resistance days, try to reducing rest times between sets and/or lower the reps but up the weight but keep the total number of weight lifted either the same or higher.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 03:47 PM
Trust me on this, unless she has actually had her BMR checked (and not estimated), there's no guarantee that she's burning 1800. Those figures are rough estimates on what should happen. They are not very accurate. I personally do BMR screens as a part of my career and it's extremely rare that a female is burning 1800 at her basal rate.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 03:57 PM
Maybe you are privy to some information other than what is in this post. But you are recommending that she drop to as low as 5.6 calories per lb of bodyweight. I'm not willing to do that from an internet post. Before I suggest to anyone, especially someone who I know from one internet post, to drop calories that low, I would have them see a physician. Hey, I'm just responsible that way.

However, if you are a medical professional and are more familiar with her case, then you can make those assessments.

Also, she is still a good deal from goal, so when she plateaus again at 5.6 calories per lb of BW, what are you going to do next?

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Maybe you are privy to some information other than what is in this post. But you are recommending that she drop to as low as 5.6 calories per lb of bodyweight. I'm not willing to do that from an internet post. Before I suggest to anyone, especially someone who I know from one internet post, to drop calories that low, I would have them see a physician. Hey, I'm just responsible that way.

However, if you are a medical professional and are more familiar with her case, then you can make those assessments.

But I'm not giving her medical advice. I gave her personal advice on what I would do to get to the root of why she isn't losing weight right now. I suggested that she temporarily decrease her calories (to a level that is still acceptable for a female) to see what would happen.

And again, those formulas and calculators tend to overestimate the calories needed for an overweight or obese person just as they underestimate the caloric needs of an athlete. It's the same deal as those BMI and height/weight charts. They can be good for references but they don't take into account the entire picture.

PhotoChick
07-17-2008, 04:04 PM
A couple of thoughts.

When you are lifting weights, your muscles retain water and fluid as part of the "healing" process. It's entirely possible that you are losing body fat but it's not registering on the scale because your muscles are holding on to a lot of water.

Also I've become a big fan of HIIT cardio ... I alternate weight lifting days (3x per week) with HIIT cardio days (2 or 3 a week) and it helped kick me out of a stall.

Finally, I think your calories might be ok, but I'm wondering what your macro percentages are. In other words, how much of that is carbs, how much protein, and how much fat? If you're doing a lot more intense weight lifting, I'd think about trying to fit in more protein.

That's off the top of my head w/out knowing more.

.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:11 PM
Yes, BMR chart can overestimate. I agree. But I don't agree that dropping someone to 5.6 calories per lb of bodyweight is reasonable for any gender. And who mentioned BMI, those charts are useless as they make fat and muscle equals.

Oh, and again, when she plateaus again, what are you going to do, drop her further? You conveniently sidestepped this question.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:16 PM
Yes, BMR chart can overestimate. I agree. But I don't agree that dropping someone to 5.6 calories per lb of bodyweight is reasonable for any gender. And who mentioned BMI, those charts are useless as they make fat and muscle equals.


Exactly, lol. The BMR charts actually do the same thing. We agree that muscle is more metabolically active than fat. A 5'6" female weighing 215 with say, 25% body fat would be estimated as having the same BMR as a 5'6" female weighing 215 with 35% body fat.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:24 PM
Please stop side stepping the original question. What do you do when she plateaus again at 5.6 calories per lb of body weight?

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:25 PM
Remember, we are talking about an active person in the real world, not someone in a hospital controlled setting doing a medically supervised VLCD with lesser activity.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:30 PM
Please stop side stepping the original question. What do you do when she plateaus again at 5.6 calories per lb of body weight?


I never saw that as the original question...??? Surely you see that I never suggested a long term decrease in calories to 1200-1300. I suggested 1 week just to get a feel on what's happening. I also suggested that she tweak her exercise routine AND possibly reevaluate how she's taking in 1600 calories. Eating the same number of calories pretty much the same way and doing the same amount and type of exercise is bound to cause a plateau. Her body is used to this routine.

Now, please stop side stepping my original advice on a 1 week calorie decrease to see if she could bust her plateau. You responded with BMR and my response was hold on there, she may not be using 1800 as her resting/basal rate to begin with.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:30 PM
Exactly, lol. The BMR charts actually do the same thing. We agree that muscle is more metabolically active than fat. A 5'6" female weighing 215 with say, 25% body fat would be estimated as having the same BMR as a 5'6" female weighing 215 with 35% body fat.


Right, which is why we go to testing! We don't just assume they are off and drastically cut calories. We get the facts! It's not just cut and then cut some more on the next plateau. When do you stop cutting?

The charts are rough rules of thumb, but when something doesn't jive with the rules of thumb, you either try other things or get checked by a qualified medical professional. Since you say you do this for a living, I would think, that advising to have tests done would be the first thing you do rather than slash calories to extremely low levels.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:31 PM
Remember, we are talking about an active person in the real world, not someone in a hospital controlled setting doing a medically supervised VLCD with lesser activity.

The advice of eating a 1200 calorie diet is given often. It's suggested to never go below that level. You don't need to be hospitalized to eat 1200. especially for 1 week.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:33 PM
I never saw that as the original question...??? Surely you see that I never suggested a long term decrease in calories to 1200-1300. I suggested 1 week just to get a feel on what's happening. I also suggested that she tweak her exercise routine AND possibly reevaluate how she's taking in 1600 calories. Eating the same number of calories pretty much the same way and doing the same amount and type of exercise is bound to cause a plateau. Her body is used to this routine.

Now, please stop side stepping my original advice on a 1 week calorie decrease to see if she could bust her plateau. You responded with BMR and my response was hold on there, she may not be using 1800 as her resting/basal rate to begin with.


It would be safer and more healthy to try other avenues first. Cutting calories would be a last resort at these levels. A diet break for a week of maintenance would make more since.

And if she was using 1800 as her BMR and was eating below that, then someone like you must have been advising her in the first place.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:34 PM
Right, which is why we go to testing! We don't just assume they are off and drastically cut calories. We get the facts! It's not just cut and then cut some more on the next plateau. When do you stop cutting?

The charts are rough rules of thumb, but when something doesn't jive with the rules of thumb, you either try other things or get checked by a qualified medical professional. Since you say you do this for a living, I would think, that advising to have tests done would be the first thing you do rather than slash calories to extremely low levels.

And that's exactly what I was attempting to give her. Something else to try short term. Busting a plateau sometimes take one or two steps before you start losing again. It's never long term.

Depalma
07-17-2008, 04:34 PM
The advice of eating a 1200 calorie diet is given often. It's suggested to never go below that level. You don't need to be hospitalized to eat 1200. especially for 1 week.

And all people are the same size and have the same BMR's. 1200 for one person is world's apart from someone else.

I took your original claim or taking BMR tests as being a medical professional, but now I see you are probably slapping a bodygem on people at Planet Fitness.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:37 PM
It would be safer and more healthy to try other avenues first. Cutting calories would be a last resort at these levels. A diet break for a week of maintenance would make more since.

And if she was using 1800 as her BMR and was eating below that, then someone like you must have been advising her in the first place.

No, I wouldn't have advised her of that. I would have tested her BMR and adjusted her starting point accordingly. Usually, it's -300 calories a day for dieting purposes (never below 1200) and -200 to 300 calories a day via exercise. When she stopped losing, I would have advised her to shake things up with her exercise routine and quitely possibly, her calories in the short term. But in any event, you win. :)

OP, please consider what I posted to you earlier.

cmichele1974
07-17-2008, 04:42 PM
And all people are the same size and have the same BMR's. 1200 for one person is world's apart from someone else.

I took your original claim or taking BMR tests as being a medical professional, but now I see you are probably slapping a bodygem on people at Planet Fitness.

Think what you must about me but you are incorrect. A person with more muscle mass will burn more calories during exercise and at REST. Surely you know that's the case.

You keep raising the bar and pushing back the goal post. You were incorrect in your first post to me. You just agreed on the first page that BMRs are inaccurate. How are they inaccurate if they don't take into account fat-free mass?

Depalma
07-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Think what you must about me but you are incorrect. A person with more muscle mass will burn more calories during exercise and at REST. Surely you know that's the case.

You keep raising the bar and pushing back the goal post. You were incorrect in your first post to me. You just agreed on the first page that BMRs are inaccurate. How are they inaccurate if they don't take into account fat-free mass?


UMMM the first sentence was sarcasm. When I stated that all people are the same size and have the same BMR, I thought you would have realized that I was being sarcastic since I'm sure everyone understands that there are actually various sized people in the world. I guess I have to insert a damn smilie after every remark.

BMR estimations, like all estimations, cannot take into account all factors which means they are ballpark figures. ****, that is what the word ESTIMATE means. I thought that was obvious, but since you somehow believed that I thought all people in the world are the exact same size, I guess I cannot take obvious for granted.

Anyway, what physiological adaptation do you think is going to allow her to drop calories for one week to break a plateau and then raise calories and continue to lose again. I could see the opposite being true, where she takes a diet break, and then drops calories back down to where she is now and resumes losing. That could be explained by her Leptin levels returning to normal during the break. They will, of course, drop gradually again until she plateaus again a bit further down the road. That is why dropping calories this low basically is like playing your last trump card early in the game. It's like bringing in your closer in the 5th inning. There's a lot of game left here. Keep your options open.

Also, once you start dropping your calories below your BMR (and until that is tested and we know what that is, I'll take a chart estimate over your guess), you are starting to deal with muscle-wasting territory. I go by the assumption that she is trying to lose fat, not scale wieght. ****, losing scale weight is easy. Losing fat, now that is a bit harder.

Fluffybutt
07-18-2008, 04:13 PM
Ok ladies, i think that it has gotten a little hot in here. Let's just drop this and move on. I was the one to tell Candy to come here and thought she would get some good advice not arguing. Lets just drop this thread and move on. There is no point to go on unless Candy either increases or decreases her calories and lets us no. And for my personal experience, my weight stalls when I get below 1500 calories, and I INCREASE my calories, so my body doesnt think it is starving.

lifechange
07-18-2008, 04:47 PM
Everyone is different and there is no one size fits all for BMR. My mother has a very high BMR, she is short has virtually no muscle and is very inactive can eat two sandwiches at lunch, two hamburgers at dinner, fudgicles, ice cream you name it and her weight gain is minimal. My BMR is low and any time I have tried to lose weight at the calories recommended via the calculators- it doesn't work. I never cheat or underestimate when I am on a diet. I have to lower my calories vs the recommended anytime I have been on a diet and this has been verified by medical professionals as well as by diet counsellors. Weightloss isn't a pure science it is an art and a little bit different for everyone so lets be open to ideas.

lynnm39
07-24-2008, 10:07 AM
I'd drop your calories a bit and see what happens. Who the heck has time to go do "testing" and such because weight loss has stopped for a month??? That's a bit extreme. I'd try dropping the calories (still to a safe level) and see what happens. Also, you might want to try zig-zagging calories (i.e., still keeping the same total number of calories per week, but varying the daily intake).

Good luck!

cmichele1974
07-24-2008, 12:09 PM
I'd drop your calories a bit and see what happens. Who the heck has time to go do "testing" and such because weight loss has stopped for a month??? That's a bit extreme. I'd try dropping the calories (still to a safe level) and see what happens. Also, you might want to try zig-zagging calories (i.e., still keeping the same total number of calories per week, but varying the daily intake).

Good luck!

I wonder whatever happened to the original poster?

Though I do that kind of testing as a part of my job, I didn't advocate it in this situation, either. I also voted that she drop her calories for a little while and see if she can start losing again.

Honestly, there are usually 2 kinds of people showing up for this test. The first type are people who truly do workout, eat right, and can't seem to lose weight over a very long period of time, much like lifechange who posted above your post. It's usually over the course of years. They most likely have hypothyroidism or metabolic syndrome, too. They are shocked that BMR calculators (and their personal trainers) told them to eat 1800 calories when they are only burning 1300 calories. Do you see why that's misleading, lol? It's those very people who get the 1200 calorie diets.

The second kind is 'I eat like a horse and watch tv all day' kind but they will tell you that they are more like the first type who can't seem to lose no matter what. In the end, their metabolism is usually like 120% of what's predicted, lol. But their carbohydrate as fuel percentages are off the chart (indicating that they are eating WAY too many carbs, especially simple carbs) and that just shouldn't happen at rest. That's also why I asked the original poster if she knew her carb/protein/fat ratio.

BlueToBlue
07-24-2008, 12:49 PM
CandyKisses, the fact that strikes me the most about your original post is that you seem to have added quite a bit of cardio to your exercise routine. It sounds like you went from doing no cardio at all, to doing 40-60 min of cardio per day for 5-6 days a week. This is in addition to also increasing your weight lifting.

When I stepped up the cardio in my exercise routine (I went from doing 30 min per day for four days a week to 60 min per day for four days per week) I had to add calories to my diet. Not a lot, I ended up adding only about 100 calories per day, but it got me off the month-long plateau I had been on. Do you feel like you are getting enough food? Are you hungry during the day? In my case, I was hungry almost all the time until I increased my calories--another clue that I wasn't eating enough.

You were losing before at 1600 calories and the only thing you changed is to add a lot of exercise, which burns more calories, not fewer. I'm not a doctor or a nutritionist, so my opinion is strictly amateur here, but it doesn't seem logical to me that you would need to reduce your calories further (or exercise more, for that matter). If you were losing before at this calorie level and you are burning more calories through exercise, you still ought to be losing. It could be that your body is still adjusting to the change in your exercise routine and you just need to wait it out a bit longer. Or it could be that you aren't eating enough to support your level of exercise and you need to eat a little more.

CandyKisses0204
07-28-2008, 07:07 PM
Thanks everyone for all the advice. Sorry i went on a surprise vacation so i havent been here to post. I think i may try upping to 1700, because like bluetoblue said, and she is correct. I was steadily losing at 1600 a day and then i added quite a bit more exercise then stopped losing. I suppose it doesnt made sense to drop and create an even bigger defecit. Also if i dont have to go lower yet i dont want to. I may try calorie cycleing and see how that works for me. If at 1700 i still dont move then i suppose i will have to drop and see. Im kleeping mt fingers crossed that it doesnt take me a month to figure this out

CandyKisses0204
07-28-2008, 07:10 PM
cmichelle- i have been tested for hypothyroidism and gotten different reactions from different doctors. One said i was fine and the other said i needed to be put on medication. Unfortunaly i dont have insurance anymore so that isnt really an option. The week 1700 cals. If that doesnt work then i guess im working my way down to 1500-1400 (hopefully not lower)

zinkemomx2
07-28-2008, 08:52 PM
cmichelle- i have been tested for hypothyroidism and gotten different reactions from different doctors. One said i was fine and the other said i needed to be put on medication. Unfortunaly i dont have insurance anymore so that isnt really an option.

I'm hypo without insurance. It isn't the meds that kill me financially as those are only $4/month at walmart. The testing every 3-6 months at $190 for the lab work are what kill me.

Apple Cheeks
07-28-2008, 09:47 PM
When I first started off losing weight, I was dropping a fairly consistant 2 lbs per week. That slowed to maybe .5 - 1 lb per week, and sometimes I wasn't losing anything at all.

Like you, I had upped my cardio. I stuck with this for many weeks, happy that I was losing weight but a little frustrated it wasn't coming off as steadily as before.

So, I started tracking my calories more carefully, trying to stay between 1200-1600 per day. Saturdays are my "treat day" when I allow myself to go as high as 3000-4000 calories.

My calorie counts each day are usually pretty different. On Sunday & Monday , I stay down around 1200 calories to make up for Saturday. The rest of the week I bounce around from about 1300 up to 1600.

So I am zig-zagging even though it's not something I planned. And since I started doing that, I have again started losing 2lbs a week consistently.

This is what has worked for me and is just my 2 cents.

CandyKisses0204
07-30-2008, 06:21 PM
Thanks for your input applecheeks. I think i might try that. I find some days i am not very hungry and its a struggle to get in 1600 cals. And other days i feel i could easily eat 2000 without blinking an eye. I gained 5lbs last week on vacation, so maybe that shook things up a bit. Im a little down about it but im just gunn kick things up. I figure i should be getting around 11,000cals a week. *crossing my fingers* I hope this works i want to lose it so badly. Even if it is just small i want this stupid scale to go down!