Saint_Jo
08-25-2004, 07:40 AM
I think im gonna start to have problems with my diet pretty soon.
Im trying to get down to 125lbs, maybe more once i get there, and in order to do that i need to be eating around 1400 cals a day (I worked out my BMR with the benedict formula and it was 1464). I've read in loads of places that you shouldn't go below your BMR so this is where i think im goin to have trouble. How can i continue to lose weight without going below my bmr?
Im a 20yr old female whose 5'5" and weigh 128lbs. I drink tons of water, eat healthily and do some form of exercise everyday. For instance, i go to the gym twice a week, do weights and other conditioning exercises about 6 times a week and dance around the house on weekdays (Im stuck in the house during the day) to try and increase my metabolism that extra bit.
I have recently started zigzaging my calories too.
Am i doing enough exercise?
Am i going to have problem shifting these last few pounds?
Anyone got any advice on how to improve on what im doing?
Thanks :wave:
Im trying to get down to 125lbs, maybe more once i get there, and in order to do that i need to be eating around 1400 cals a day (I worked out my BMR with the benedict formula and it was 1464). I've read in loads of places that you shouldn't go below your BMR so this is where i think im goin to have trouble. How can i continue to lose weight without going below my bmr?
Im a 20yr old female whose 5'5" and weigh 128lbs. I drink tons of water, eat healthily and do some form of exercise everyday. For instance, i go to the gym twice a week, do weights and other conditioning exercises about 6 times a week and dance around the house on weekdays (Im stuck in the house during the day) to try and increase my metabolism that extra bit.
I have recently started zigzaging my calories too.
Am i doing enough exercise?
Am i going to have problem shifting these last few pounds?
Anyone got any advice on how to improve on what im doing?
Thanks :wave:
Sponsor
Gopherhead
08-25-2004, 11:21 AM
Im trying to get down to 125lbs, maybe more once i get there, and in order to do that i need to be eating around 1400 cals a day (I worked out my BMR with the benedict formula and it was 1464). I've read in loads of places that you shouldn't go below your BMR so this is where i think im goin to have trouble. How can i continue to lose weight without going below my bmr?
Hi there, Jo. First things first, congrats on getting so close to your goal! Well done.
Secondly, those last few pounds are the toughest to lose, so don't feel like you're alone in this.
As for losing those last 3 lbs, I think eating 1400 calories is far too few; that BMR number is, IMHO, the absolute rock bottom you should never go below, if you want to keep your metabolism from slowing down. The formulas for figuring out BMR include activity factors that take into account your lifestyle and the exercise you do on a daily basis. Even if you sat behind a computer all day and did little organized exercise you'd be burning quite a few more calories than 1464. Stop thinking in terms of BMR and think in terms of total daily energy expenditure (TDEE).
Cutting calories to lose more and more fat is viscious circle; you cut them, you lose, you slow your metabolism and end up having to cut them further to lose more... and it begins again. This is how you end up yo-yo dieting and wrecking your metabolism for good.
The best way to lean out and to keep your metabolism going strong is to eat as much as possible while still creating a small deficit and increasing activity. You eat small, frequent meals that are well balanced and provide enough calories to sustain your body - at least 5 meals a day. This helps raise metabolism instead of slowing it. You increase cardiovascular activity as this also increases metabolism. Caloric deficit caused by exercise does not lower metabolism, unlike that created by eating less food.
As you get leaner and leaner it becomes more of a struggle to lose fat because you're battling your hormones and your body's natural defence system. As you lose fat a hormone called Leptin, which is controled by your fat cells, falls, signalling hunger. As you get leaner a hormone called Ghrelin rises in your stomach, also signalling hunger to your brain. Losing 17% of your body weight signals an increase of almost 25% more ghrelin. It's a tough battle to win. Zigzagging calories can help; but the key as you get leaner and leaner is to keep the deficit smaller and to use your higher days at levels at or above your maintenance calories.
If you try a google search for Leptin and for an author by the name of Lyle McDonald you'll get a lot of good advice on this subject. Tom Venuto, a personal trainer, also has good input on using the zigzag method of tricking your body into shedding fat.
Cheers,
Nat
Hi there, Jo. First things first, congrats on getting so close to your goal! Well done.
Secondly, those last few pounds are the toughest to lose, so don't feel like you're alone in this.
As for losing those last 3 lbs, I think eating 1400 calories is far too few; that BMR number is, IMHO, the absolute rock bottom you should never go below, if you want to keep your metabolism from slowing down. The formulas for figuring out BMR include activity factors that take into account your lifestyle and the exercise you do on a daily basis. Even if you sat behind a computer all day and did little organized exercise you'd be burning quite a few more calories than 1464. Stop thinking in terms of BMR and think in terms of total daily energy expenditure (TDEE).
Cutting calories to lose more and more fat is viscious circle; you cut them, you lose, you slow your metabolism and end up having to cut them further to lose more... and it begins again. This is how you end up yo-yo dieting and wrecking your metabolism for good.
The best way to lean out and to keep your metabolism going strong is to eat as much as possible while still creating a small deficit and increasing activity. You eat small, frequent meals that are well balanced and provide enough calories to sustain your body - at least 5 meals a day. This helps raise metabolism instead of slowing it. You increase cardiovascular activity as this also increases metabolism. Caloric deficit caused by exercise does not lower metabolism, unlike that created by eating less food.
As you get leaner and leaner it becomes more of a struggle to lose fat because you're battling your hormones and your body's natural defence system. As you lose fat a hormone called Leptin, which is controled by your fat cells, falls, signalling hunger. As you get leaner a hormone called Ghrelin rises in your stomach, also signalling hunger to your brain. Losing 17% of your body weight signals an increase of almost 25% more ghrelin. It's a tough battle to win. Zigzagging calories can help; but the key as you get leaner and leaner is to keep the deficit smaller and to use your higher days at levels at or above your maintenance calories.
If you try a google search for Leptin and for an author by the name of Lyle McDonald you'll get a lot of good advice on this subject. Tom Venuto, a personal trainer, also has good input on using the zigzag method of tricking your body into shedding fat.
Cheers,
Nat
Phaint
08-25-2004, 12:38 PM
I've been lost 30 pounds in the last 2 months and I've done it different. My BMR is 1600 and I eat about 1000 Calories a day. From what I've read the BMR is the amount of calories you will burn in a day if you would just chill watching tv all day doing nothing. Therefore if I only consume 1000, those 600 extra will have to be taken from my fat stores.
So far that has been working very well for me in terms of weight loss.
So far that has been working very well for me in terms of weight loss.
Gopherhead
08-25-2004, 01:08 PM
From what I've read the BMR is the amount of calories you will burn in a day if you would just chill watching tv all day doing nothing. Therefore if I only consume 1000, those 600 extra will have to be taken from my fat stores.
Exactly. So do you lay around all day in bed?
If you're really only eating 1000 calories with a BRM of 1600 expect that your "600 extra calories" are not coming from stored fat, but rather lean tissue - it's far easier for your body to do this than burn fat. It also makes sense; lean tissue is metabolically active and requires a higher metabolism (i.e. more calories to maintain it) than fat does. Your body will hold onto fat because that is what fat is, stored energy, and it will burn tissue that requires more of the energy it isn't getting.
You might try a little more reading on BMR and what it really is. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has oodles of information on metabolism. Two months may not have been so long that you've damaged your system irreperably, especially if you're young and you've never done this before.
Nat
Exactly. So do you lay around all day in bed?
If you're really only eating 1000 calories with a BRM of 1600 expect that your "600 extra calories" are not coming from stored fat, but rather lean tissue - it's far easier for your body to do this than burn fat. It also makes sense; lean tissue is metabolically active and requires a higher metabolism (i.e. more calories to maintain it) than fat does. Your body will hold onto fat because that is what fat is, stored energy, and it will burn tissue that requires more of the energy it isn't getting.
You might try a little more reading on BMR and what it really is. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has oodles of information on metabolism. Two months may not have been so long that you've damaged your system irreperably, especially if you're young and you've never done this before.
Nat
attheendofmyrope
08-25-2004, 01:26 PM
I have seen a lot of misconceptions about the BMR on weight loss sites. The BMR is JUST the amount of calories it takes to keep your body going IF YOU LIE IN BED ALL DAY. What you need to figure is your ACTIVE metabolic rate. Mine, for example is 2,700 (I'm 5' 6" and 28 years old) and I exercise 5-6 days a week. I subtract 500 calories from that number and add 500 calories in exercise so I can eat 2,200 calories and still lose weight (as long as I'm exercising). On days, I dont exercise, or only exercise lightly, I eat 1700 calories a day. I am losing exactly two pounds a week using this plan and it's real easy to do.
Saint_Jo
08-25-2004, 01:55 PM
My actice metabolic rate is about 1900 cals a day (how annoying is it that when you lose weight this drops? :p )
I got this by working out my BMR and then using the fomula for light activity (exercise 2-3 times a week) I do more than this but i wanted to make sure i wasn over estermating my calories.
Im hoping i've gained muscle since i've been lifting some weights as well as cardio. My muscles feel a lot firmer and i feel stronger too so hopefully this as helped my metabolism increase a little bit.
What does everyone think? :)
I guess i need a lot of reasurence, hence all the questions, because i don't know anyone else whose been on a diet so i cant really talk to anyone else bout whats going on.
I got this by working out my BMR and then using the fomula for light activity (exercise 2-3 times a week) I do more than this but i wanted to make sure i wasn over estermating my calories.
Im hoping i've gained muscle since i've been lifting some weights as well as cardio. My muscles feel a lot firmer and i feel stronger too so hopefully this as helped my metabolism increase a little bit.
What does everyone think? :)
I guess i need a lot of reasurence, hence all the questions, because i don't know anyone else whose been on a diet so i cant really talk to anyone else bout whats going on.
zip2play
08-26-2004, 09:13 AM
Personally I do not think that there is anything sacrosanct about the BMR, it's just another number. Certainly a person with ZERO percent bodyfat would have to scarf on his own body mass if he tried it (a no-no) but that is not the state of the average dieter trying to shed pounds of fat.
Dieting is eating below that being burned by the body (we'll assume no muscular or skeletal growth because most adults run pretty much "steady state.") If a fat person is underactive, the only way he CAN lose appreciable weight is to go below the BMR. The fat will burn enough to contribute to the body's heat load, the largest component of energy use, and he can escape using valuable protein as fuel.
If the same very very lean person (0% fat) was extremely active and ate well above his BMR but below his total energy needs, he too would burn up his own muscle mass as well.
Ignoring one's own body fat in the energy equation is addressing only half the question.
All that said, I DO believe that NOBODY should go too far below his maintenance level of calories because the body will fight with the "starvation response" and lower the BMR and increase muscular efficiency to thwart our best efforts at weight loss. And NOBODY should ever do 900 calories unless his life is at stake and he's under close medical supervision.
Whatever gives you a pound a week is certainly safe and if that total is below the BMR, so be it!
Dieting is eating below that being burned by the body (we'll assume no muscular or skeletal growth because most adults run pretty much "steady state.") If a fat person is underactive, the only way he CAN lose appreciable weight is to go below the BMR. The fat will burn enough to contribute to the body's heat load, the largest component of energy use, and he can escape using valuable protein as fuel.
If the same very very lean person (0% fat) was extremely active and ate well above his BMR but below his total energy needs, he too would burn up his own muscle mass as well.
Ignoring one's own body fat in the energy equation is addressing only half the question.
All that said, I DO believe that NOBODY should go too far below his maintenance level of calories because the body will fight with the "starvation response" and lower the BMR and increase muscular efficiency to thwart our best efforts at weight loss. And NOBODY should ever do 900 calories unless his life is at stake and he's under close medical supervision.
Whatever gives you a pound a week is certainly safe and if that total is below the BMR, so be it!
Gopherhead
08-26-2004, 09:56 AM
If the same very very lean person (0% fat) was extremely active and ate well above his BMR but below his total energy needs, he too would burn up his own muscle mass as well. This 'very lean' person would be dead. The body is comprised of both storage fat and essential fat - essential being ESSENTIAL for life. For women the average amount of essential fat is 12% of bodyweight and for men it is 3%. Once you get below this you begin to become quite ill. At ZERO you'd be quite dead.
Dieting is eating below that being burned by the body (we'll assume no muscular or skeletal growth because most adults run pretty much "steady state.") If a fat person is underactive, the only way he CAN lose appreciable weight is to go below the BMR. What is being burned by the body is not just basal metabolism - this is the problem with that statement. As well, a fat person, by his / her very nature, has a higher BMR than a lean person - strap two 50 lb bags of dog chow to your back and walk around with it for 15 miinutes and then tell me it didn't take energy to lug that around.
If you have spent your life damaging your metabolism by eating below your BMR then yes, for you that's going to be the only way you can lose weight and keep it off. It doesn't have to be that way. The idea that eating X amount less calories equals Y amount of weight loss does not translate to eating 2 times X amount less equalling 2 times Y amount of fat loss. There comes a point when you're eating too little to burn fat and run a healthy body - this cut off is different for everyone, but it's going to be the same number as your BMR.
Nat
Dieting is eating below that being burned by the body (we'll assume no muscular or skeletal growth because most adults run pretty much "steady state.") If a fat person is underactive, the only way he CAN lose appreciable weight is to go below the BMR. What is being burned by the body is not just basal metabolism - this is the problem with that statement. As well, a fat person, by his / her very nature, has a higher BMR than a lean person - strap two 50 lb bags of dog chow to your back and walk around with it for 15 miinutes and then tell me it didn't take energy to lug that around.
If you have spent your life damaging your metabolism by eating below your BMR then yes, for you that's going to be the only way you can lose weight and keep it off. It doesn't have to be that way. The idea that eating X amount less calories equals Y amount of weight loss does not translate to eating 2 times X amount less equalling 2 times Y amount of fat loss. There comes a point when you're eating too little to burn fat and run a healthy body - this cut off is different for everyone, but it's going to be the same number as your BMR.
Nat
Saint_Jo
08-26-2004, 07:39 PM
Nat, I was just wondering what your weight loss plan is. You know, what sort of exercise you do and how often and what types of food you eat.
If you dont mind me asking, what did you weigh when you changed your lifestyle and what do you weigh now?
Also, what motivated you to change?
I dont know why im asking. Im just curious you guess. Also its nice when you hear success stories :) It helps to motivate people further :)
:wave:
If you dont mind me asking, what did you weigh when you changed your lifestyle and what do you weigh now?
Also, what motivated you to change?
I dont know why im asking. Im just curious you guess. Also its nice when you hear success stories :) It helps to motivate people further :)
:wave:
Gopherhead
08-26-2004, 09:17 PM
Nat, I was just wondering what your weight loss plan is. You know, what sort of exercise you do and how often and what types of food you eat. It also helps to know if the person giving you advice can walk the walk, too ay ? ;)
I started out at 53% BF, 253 lbs - 5'6". I used a little plan called Protein Power (Drs Eades) to lose the first 60 lbs - that took about 9 months. 3 months into this I started using the exercise plan from another little plan called Body For Life (Bill Phillips). I kept doing the BFL workouts for about 2 years. I changed my nutrition around a little, always staying clear of refined carbs and 'frankenfoods'. Along the way I've used a number of different plans (BodyRx by Dr. Connelly, Body Opus by Dan Duchaine and later refined by Lyle McDonald) and have been rewarded with results from all.
I've discovered that it's not only true that not every plan works for everyone it's also true that different plans work for the same person differently at various stages in their lives. Your body is one of the most adaptable machines made - changing things up keeps it guessing and slows how fast it adapts.
Now I follow what I consider the best advice on getting lean I've found to date ("to date" 'cause who knows what's coming next week!) - Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle by Tom Venuto. It's a manifesto on getting lean and staying lean. I do cardio for my bodytype and I lift to maintain lean mass, not build it - Tom outlines different plans for different people. I do cardio 5x a week; 45 mins running at 5:30 am and I lift 3x a week, two upper body and one lower, medium to heavy weights, moderate reps.
I've lost over 90 lbs and put on 13 lbs of lean mass, BF% is sitting around 25% right now. The greates thing for me was discovering the weight lifting. I can wear sizes now that I used to have to be 20 lbs lighter to get into.
What motivated me? Having my picture taken one weekend up at a friends cottage. I flew into a panic at the thought. The following Friday I picked up my mother's old dogeared copy of Protein Power and never looked back. I still keep a pair of old size 24 pants in the back of my closet and I pull them out every once in a while - I pull one pantleg up and wear it like a skirt. I highly recommend keeping at least one piece of 'fat clothing' - nothing like that feeling of accomplishment. I also highly recommend Tom's book - he's all over the net if you google him.
Cheers,
Nat
I started out at 53% BF, 253 lbs - 5'6". I used a little plan called Protein Power (Drs Eades) to lose the first 60 lbs - that took about 9 months. 3 months into this I started using the exercise plan from another little plan called Body For Life (Bill Phillips). I kept doing the BFL workouts for about 2 years. I changed my nutrition around a little, always staying clear of refined carbs and 'frankenfoods'. Along the way I've used a number of different plans (BodyRx by Dr. Connelly, Body Opus by Dan Duchaine and later refined by Lyle McDonald) and have been rewarded with results from all.
I've discovered that it's not only true that not every plan works for everyone it's also true that different plans work for the same person differently at various stages in their lives. Your body is one of the most adaptable machines made - changing things up keeps it guessing and slows how fast it adapts.
Now I follow what I consider the best advice on getting lean I've found to date ("to date" 'cause who knows what's coming next week!) - Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle by Tom Venuto. It's a manifesto on getting lean and staying lean. I do cardio for my bodytype and I lift to maintain lean mass, not build it - Tom outlines different plans for different people. I do cardio 5x a week; 45 mins running at 5:30 am and I lift 3x a week, two upper body and one lower, medium to heavy weights, moderate reps.
I've lost over 90 lbs and put on 13 lbs of lean mass, BF% is sitting around 25% right now. The greates thing for me was discovering the weight lifting. I can wear sizes now that I used to have to be 20 lbs lighter to get into.
What motivated me? Having my picture taken one weekend up at a friends cottage. I flew into a panic at the thought. The following Friday I picked up my mother's old dogeared copy of Protein Power and never looked back. I still keep a pair of old size 24 pants in the back of my closet and I pull them out every once in a while - I pull one pantleg up and wear it like a skirt. I highly recommend keeping at least one piece of 'fat clothing' - nothing like that feeling of accomplishment. I also highly recommend Tom's book - he's all over the net if you google him.
Cheers,
Nat
zip2play
08-31-2004, 11:45 AM
Nat,
Obviously, when I said that my sample lean person was "Zero percent bodyfat", it was exaggerated for illustrative purposes only to make a point. No such human has ever existed on the planet.
Were I to examine your posts under a microscope, like you did mine, I might quibble that a person's BMR is NOT measured by having him drag 100 pounds of dog chow around- that's called EXCERCISE- but rather in a state more closely akin to SLEEP when 2 bags of dog chow lying beside him wouldn't matter one whit. Of course a fat person excercising at the same intensity burns more calories but that has NOTHING to do with BMR. (Perhaps pumping blood at higher pressure through a larger body and losing body heat through a larger skin surface is a consideration...but that has nothing to do with dragging sacks.)
And to be equally painfully, pedantically PRECISE, eating lots of x's and y's wouldn't effect weight either because these letters are completely without nourishnent, if you catch my drift.;):D
My point remains that to say that a person cannot lose weight safely by eating below his BMR flies in the face of biological and physical science...MANY people have very successfully lost weight this way!
Congratulations on your HUGE weight loss, and continued good luck onto 15-20% bodyfat:D.
Obviously, when I said that my sample lean person was "Zero percent bodyfat", it was exaggerated for illustrative purposes only to make a point. No such human has ever existed on the planet.
Were I to examine your posts under a microscope, like you did mine, I might quibble that a person's BMR is NOT measured by having him drag 100 pounds of dog chow around- that's called EXCERCISE- but rather in a state more closely akin to SLEEP when 2 bags of dog chow lying beside him wouldn't matter one whit. Of course a fat person excercising at the same intensity burns more calories but that has NOTHING to do with BMR. (Perhaps pumping blood at higher pressure through a larger body and losing body heat through a larger skin surface is a consideration...but that has nothing to do with dragging sacks.)
And to be equally painfully, pedantically PRECISE, eating lots of x's and y's wouldn't effect weight either because these letters are completely without nourishnent, if you catch my drift.;):D
My point remains that to say that a person cannot lose weight safely by eating below his BMR flies in the face of biological and physical science...MANY people have very successfully lost weight this way!
Congratulations on your HUGE weight loss, and continued good luck onto 15-20% bodyfat:D.
Gopherhead
08-31-2004, 12:13 PM
I might quibble that a person's BMR is NOT measured by having him drag 100 pounds of dog chow around- that's called EXCERCISE- but rather in a state more closely akin to SLEEP when 2 bags of dog chow lying beside him wouldn't matter one whit. Zip, you obviously have read and understand the factors involved in weight reduction. However, in this point you seem to be missing something, at least to me. BMR is what your body burns when it is at rest, or as you state "aSLEEP". Walking around - even if it is from your bedridden state to the fridge - is not included in this. This falls under your lifestyle and it counts as energy burned during the day. The average overly fat person has a naturally higher TDEE simply because they are fatter than someone w/ a similar lean mass who is at a healthy weight with a similar lifestyle. And yes, just having more mass by virtue of being fat will increase your BMR; carrying around the extra fat increases muscle mass, which in turn requires more energy.
My point remains that to say that a person cannot lose weight safely by eating below his BMR flies in the face of biological and physical science...MANY people have very successfully lost weight this way! Yes, they have. And forgive me for being PRECISE; statistics indicate that the majority of them also gain back the weight they lost plus more, due primarily to their lowered metabolism.
Perhaps our disagreement stems from our differing goals. I'm not interested in just losing weight/fat, I'm interested in sustainable, permanent fat loss.
Congratulations on your HUGE weight loss, and continued good luck Thank you.
N
My point remains that to say that a person cannot lose weight safely by eating below his BMR flies in the face of biological and physical science...MANY people have very successfully lost weight this way! Yes, they have. And forgive me for being PRECISE; statistics indicate that the majority of them also gain back the weight they lost plus more, due primarily to their lowered metabolism.
Perhaps our disagreement stems from our differing goals. I'm not interested in just losing weight/fat, I'm interested in sustainable, permanent fat loss.
Congratulations on your HUGE weight loss, and continued good luck Thank you.
N
Lisa0825
08-31-2004, 04:23 PM
thanks for the great info! I saw Tom Venuto's info elsewhere, and was thinking about ordering it. Great testemonial!
Gopherhead
08-31-2004, 05:04 PM
thanks for the great info! I saw Tom Venuto's info elsewhere, and was thinking about ordering it. He gets nothing but rave reviews from me, Lisa. There's nothing really 'new and exciting' in his book, what he does it take all the really good and helpful information that's floating out there and present it logically and methodically. He gears it toward your body type and your ultimate goal, and he provides you with a list of what to do if something isn't working. Following his advice I've managed to lose 9 lbs and this was after being diagnosed (and still untreated)with hypothyroidism; absolutely unbelievable.
Nat
Nat
Soldier's Wife
09-01-2004, 02:42 AM
BMR is the amount of calories one needs in order to maintain ones weight, correct? So in order to lose weight one must go below their BMR. Right?
Gopherhead
09-01-2004, 08:30 AM
BMR is the amount of calories one needs in order to maintain ones weight, correct? No, Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) is the number of calories one needs to meet in order to maintain one's weight. BMR makes up approximately 70% of this.
Nat
Nat