please remember that calories are fuel for your body, and not an enemy to be avoided at all costs. if you are eating less than what your body needs to carry out all of it's necessary tasks (digestion, brain function, heart beating, hair and nail growth, etc) - your BMR, basal metabolic rate - then your body will slow down your metabolism to make sure it functions on the fuel you are providing it... usually in the form of taking it from muscle, instead of fat. fat is inert, it just sits there. and muscle function causes calories to be burned (which is why muscles are good!) and the body does not want to waste it's precious fuel on the calories muscles burn by being there, so your fat will hang around and your muscle will go. resulting in weight loss, but not *fat* loss, which is the important thing, right?
the second paragraph is why i like that one. the Katch-McArdle Forumla listed there shows your BMR based on your lean body mass. meaning, based on the part of your body that isn't fat, since fat doesn't use fuel, it just sits there.
from what i understand, that is the number you really should not go below, if you do not exercise. and if you do exercise, you need to add a little more based on how much you exercise so you can fuel your body and your workout. see the chart at the bottom of the BMR page.
i know this will not apply to everyone, there are various medical conditions that can have an effect on this and people who have had WLS will not be able to do this, and "my doctor said...." situations. that's fine, keep doing what you're doing and ignore this... but the "eat less" mentality can be dangerous. your car won't function properly with an empty gas tank (though that would be nice), and neither will you!
Holy crap though that site said my body fat was 12% higher than the measurement I took this morning, I hope my method was more accurate
did you use the number for below your ribs and a little above your belly button where the natural crease is when you bend sideways or at your belly button?
that can make a pretty big difference.
Last edited by konfyoozed; 03-31-2012 at 06:36 PM.
OOooo that's true. Either way though, I think I'll use that as a range. I ran the formula with both body fat percentages, which puts me at a goal to eat between 1370 and 1590, which is about what I am doing now, so I think it's a pretty accurate calculation either way.
it just makes more sense now when you hear people complaining about brittle nails and limp hair after they've been dieting for a while, and then they are like "oh, well i'm 200 pounds and exercise for an hour six days a week and eat 1200 calories"... at that point your body just doesn't have the fuel to grow healthy hair and nails.
1) Your metabolism doesn't slow down very much due to decreased calories. Generally speaking 10-15% is the max.
2) Fat is alive and metabolically active. It isn't just sitting there. A lb of fat burns about 2 calories in 24 hours while a lb of muscle burns about six.
3) Your body does not let go of muscle as easily as you proclaim it to. Yes, if you're not using your muscles you'll lose them in a caloric deficit over time.
4) The more fat one has the greater deficit they can deal with. This is why the biggest loser contestants can do hours and hours of low intensity cardio dispite thier strict diet. NOTE: I am not reccomending people do hours of cardio I'm just pointing out that the "number one should not go below" is a highly variable number to the individual. This is contrary to what I read continually around here for example I regually read people telling a 300 lb person needs to ingest more calories than a 200 lb person. They're certainly using more but they can deal with a larger deficit because they have so much fat that can provide fuel.
so, would you or would you not recommend eating below BMR?
and would you, or would you not, recommend eating more to fuel exercise?
i understand the difference between losing weight, and losing fat. and i've been reading and researching because i want to lose fat without losing muscle. and the "eat less" option just doesn't seem like it's a healthy idea to me.
the fact that fat uses less calories to BE than muscle does means the body goes there first when you go below what your body needs to function for an extended period of time (i know occasional huge deficits won't cause that), or am i understanding that wrong?
i have been reading and math-ing and doing all of this because over the last 2 months i have been working out via cardio and weight training (burning 700 - 1000 calories via exercise per workout according to my HRM) and trying to maintain a diet of 1800 calories with weight going NOWHERE. i'm assuming i need to NET at least 1700, not the much less than that i was giving it, to lose. (note i am 28, 270lb at 5'9)
i want to learn, i want to understand, and i want to lose fat. and i don't think the mantra of "eat less" is the answer.
I lift pretty heavily three times a week and do medium to high intensity cardio on a 1200 calorie average daily intake. A lower calorie, low carb diet is what works for me. And my hair and skin are quite healthy. I used to try eating what the BMR charts recommended and my weight loss crept along at half a pound a week. Now I'm losing an average of two pounds a week. That's just my experience, of course, but I'm glad I gave lowering my calories and carbs a real shot. It feels pretty great to have finally found the right answer for me.
i started my effort to lose weight just over 1 year ago, simply using a caloric deficit (at 300lb i was eating 1400-1600 a day) and not working out very often. it worked great. 50 pounds in 5 months! then nothing for several months, i got discouraged, and over the course of 3 months gained more than half of it back.
How are you tracking your calories? (Eye balling? Measuring? Weighing?)
i track my calories using myfitnesspal, i use measuring spoons and cups and count all meat as two servings (my scale broke and i know i'm eating more than 1 serving)
How many calories are you eating daily?
the last week:
1680 - with no workout
1900 - higher than usual - i attended a cook out
1810 - with a workout totaling 760 calories burned
1900 - with a workout totalling 965
1700 - with no workout
1850 - with a workout totalling 1074
Are you taking pictures and measurements or are you relying on the scale only?
i take measurements, i have a few pairs of jeans i try on every couple weeks to see how close i am to fitting into them, and i take pictures at 10lb intervals. i lost pounds and inches in february, i lost a lot fewer inches, and no pounds in march. i also regularly take my blood pressure and check my resting heart rate (both of which are much improved a year later)
What kind of weight lifting are you doing? What kind of cardio are you doing?
weights: i do curls and bench press with weights, i do tricep pull down, leg press, seated row and leg extentions on a machine, and i also do squats, lunges, calf raises, etc with my own weight.
cardio: i either use the elliptical, treadmill (fast walk with an incline) or a spin bike.
Last edited by konfyoozed; 03-31-2012 at 08:18 PM.
Based on what you're saying what you're doing is working. Sounds like you're retaining water but other than that you lost inches in March.
I'd suggest you take pictures every couple weeks regardless of weight.
If you're in a hurry to lose fat and don't feel too deprived you could always drop your calories especially on non workout days.
One suggestion I would make is if you have the time to add in brisk walking every morning for 20-60 minutes depending on how much time you have. Walking is a great calorie burning exercise that is not taxing at all to your CNS.
JohnP,
Do you mean Mandy is cosuming more calories?
I am almost 60 years old, current weight is 158-160.
Consume max 1400 calories, exercise 5 days a week, 1 hour/ day.
20 min interval training,
20 min upper body/ lower body/ back and shoulders
And core
20 min yoga
For more than 1 year. To start with I lost 1 pound/ week.
For last 7 months lost just couple of pounds.
I am looking better, size is decreasing.
According to the sites suggested by Mandy my BMI is 27.3 and I should be consuming 1800 calories, which is not possible, because I eat lot of veges.
Some times I feel frustrated.
But, I know, this was my weight about 20 years ago. So, I covered 20 years
in 1 year. May be, I will cover another 10 years( i.e. My weight at 30 years of age) in another year. And, I do not want to lose fast and have haggered look.
It is ok with me, but Mandy is young, so she should lose fast and be happy.
I agree with everything John said. I think it's OK to eat below BMR if you have a lot of fat stores, because your body will simply use that fat for fuel, rather than extra calories from food. Many people go on 1,200 cal/day diets and do just fine, even though their BMR is higher than that.
F.
Last edited by freelancemomma; 04-01-2012 at 10:57 AM.
Metabolism...
