On a CKD and I have been sitting right around 1700 calories for 4 weeks and haven't noticed any change in fat composition. This BMR calculator: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ says that my resting rate is 1834. From the article below, it sounds like I may not be losing because I am eating below my basal rate. Do I have this right? I am not too far from my ideal look, I just have to get rid of my lower mid section. I was thinking I should lower my cals, but maybe the opposite is true.
The article says:
"If you are closer to your goal weight (within 15 pounds), you may want to cut this rate in half, so a 500 calorie deficit each day. The leaner you are, the greater risk of losing lean body mass. Also, remember, you have to eat at least your BMR (calories burned if you slept all day) or you risk losing lean body mass. So this sets a lower bound on calories as well."
Last edited by drivium; 09-13-2011 at 08:54 AM.
"Immoveable stone in your world of weak!" --Pantera
On a CKD and I have been sitting right around 1700 calories for 4 weeks and haven't noticed any change in fat composition. This BMR calculator: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ says that my resting rate is 1834. From the article below, it sounds like I may not be losing because I am eating below my basal rate. Do I have this right? I am not too far from my ideal look, I just have to get rid of my lower mid section. I was thinking I should lower my cals, but maybe the opposite is true.
The article says:
"If you are closer to your goal weight (within 15 pounds), you may want to cut this rate in half, so a 500 calorie deficit each day. The leaner you are, the greater risk of losing lean body mass. Also, remember, you have to eat at least your BMR (calories burned if you slept all day) or you risk losing lean body mass. So this sets a lower bound on calories as well."
1/ BMR = basal metabolic rate = calorie requirement if you were in a coma all day... if you're active, you need more calories than this for daily life... then you need to subtract calories from THAT total to reach a 'happy cutting figure'.
3/ 'eating a 500 cal deficit' each day is crap, too... Not only is it a big myth that you'll lose '1 pound' from a '3500 cal deficit a week' (there are a lot of things that will cause variable results... Interesting read: http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.co...tudy/exercise/ ), but it also needs to be considered in the context of the individual (someone who maintains on 1500 cals v's someone who maintains on 3500 cals will have markedly different responses to cutting 1300 cals in terms of metabolic / psychological / recovery impacts).
4/ the 'metabolic slow down' of low calorie intake is, on a whole, overstated. <-- and most of the time people are not losing weight because they eat more than they think they do, and they don't do as much activity as they say they are.
*perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim*
"The greatest rewards are always reserved for those who bring great value to themselves and the world around them as a result of whom and what they have become." - Jim Rohn
It's your call. DRIV.... E.
Reps for protein powder, puppies, or anyone who buys me a house.
1/ BMR = basal metabolic rate = calorie requirement if you were in a coma all day... if you're active, you need more calories than this for daily life... then you need to subtract calories from THAT total to reach a 'happy cutting figure'.
3/ 'eating a 500 cal deficit' each day is crap, too... Not only is it a big myth that you'll lose '1 pound' from a '3500 cal deficit a week' (there are a lot of things that will cause variable results... Interesting read: http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.co...tudy/exercise/ ), but it also needs to be considered in the context of the individual (someone who maintains on 1500 cals v's someone who maintains on 3500 cals will have markedly different responses to cutting 1300 cals in terms of metabolic / psychological / recovery impacts).
4/ the 'metabolic slow down' of low calorie intake is, on a whole, overstated. <-- and most of the time people are not losing weight because they eat more than they think they do, and they don't do as much activity as they say they are.
Wow tons of opinion rather then fact in your post right there.
@ OP I answered your question in the keto section brah.
Wow tons of opinion rather then fact in your post right there.
@ OP I answered your question in the keto section brah.
Care to explain 'why' you feel it is 'opinion' rather than fact?
*perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim*
"The greatest rewards are always reserved for those who bring great value to themselves and the world around them as a result of whom and what they have become." - Jim Rohn
It's your call. DRIV.... E.
Reps for protein powder, puppies, or anyone who buys me a house.
1/ BMR = basal metabolic rate = calorie requirement if you were in a coma all day... if you're active, you need more calories than this for daily life... then you need to subtract calories from THAT total to reach a 'happy cutting figure'.
3/ 'eating a 500 cal deficit' each day is crap, too... Not only is it a big myth that you'll lose '1 pound' from a '3500 cal deficit a week' (there are a lot of things that will cause variable results... Interesting read: http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.co...tudy/exercise/ ), but it also needs to be considered in the context of the individual (someone who maintains on 1500 cals v's someone who maintains on 3500 cals will have markedly different responses to cutting 1300 cals in terms of metabolic / psychological / recovery impacts).
4/ the 'metabolic slow down' of low calorie intake is, on a whole, overstated. <-- and most of the time people are not losing weight because they eat more than they think they do, and they don't do as much activity as they say they are.
cliffs on that paper you linked. i am not that great at understanding this kind of stuff yet. what i got is that if you are doing it correctly (losing mainly fat and not lbm) you are going to lose a lot slower since fat does not contain water as well as tissue? so if you are losing lbm you are losing water it would have held as well so your weight is going to go down way faster?
Wow tons of opinion rather then fact in your post right there.
@ OP I answered your question in the keto section brah.
You didn't answer his question in the keto section, his BMR was 1800 not his maintenance level. Cutting at 1300 calories at 5ft10 and ~170lbs is overkill.
I admire those who dare to question anyone if they feel their comments are justified. Nothing regarding nutrition is Gospel.
Generally it's stupid to question someone who knows what they're talking about, has had studies published on PubMed, is very well known in her field and has an extensive medical background.
Not trying to knock on anyone here. But I remember a pretty generalized statement my doctor told me once when I blew out my knee back in high school. Something I've never stopped thinking about after every mile I run or every time I break a personal record at the track. I'm not questioning her educational prowess in terms of nutrition, I'm just saying that no one really knows your body as well as you do.
Not trying to knock on anyone here. But I remember a pretty generalized statement my doctor told me once when I blew out my knee back in high school. Something I've never stopped thinking about after every mile I run or every time I break a personal record at the track. I'm not questioning her educational prowess in terms of nutrition, I'm just saying that no one really knows your body as well as you do.
Right, but the problem here is that she is right. BMR varies because of the muscle ; fat ration in humans. More muscle than fat, a higher BMR. The calculators are very generalized. Eating too little calories won't cause weight gain - which is something some tend to associate with the ill-famed "starvation mode", which is nothing but a bunch of bull****.
Your body (and I'm speaking in general, not just you) simply cannot break the laws of thermodynamics. If you eat less energy than your body requires, it will tap into a combination of stores for energy, with the exception of muscle unless you truly starve yourself for weeks and months.
If you take in more energy than you require, you will gain weight. It is as simple as that. But back to my earlier point.
A 6' 185 lb man who is active, has a muscular build and has 12% body fat will have a higher BMR, TEF, etc. than the same man who isn't very muscular and not active at all but has 12% body fat. Make sense now?
While I'm not Emma's brain, her comment on deficit amounts is more or less true. The OP may even be losing fat but water is masking his weight loss, in which case I'm going to refer him to this:
Right, but the problem here is that she is right. BMR varies because of the muscle ; fat ration in humans. More muscle than fat, a higher BMR. The calculators are very generalized. Eating too little calories won't cause weight gain - which is something some tend to associate with the ill-famed "starvation mode", which is nothing but a bunch of bull****.
Your body (and I'm speaking in general, not just you) simply cannot break the laws of thermodynamics. If you eat less energy than your body requires, it will tap into a combination of stores for energy, with the exception of muscle unless you truly starve yourself for weeks and months.
If you take in more energy than you require, you will gain weight. It is as simple as that. But back to my earlier point.
A 6' 185 lb man who is active, has a muscular build and has 12% body fat will have a higher BMR, TEF, etc. than the same man who isn't very muscular and not active at all but has 12% body fat. Make sense now?
While I'm not Emma's brain, her comment on deficit amounts is more or less true. The OP may even be losing fat but water is masking his weight loss, in which case I'm going to refer him to this:
I agree her information seems very sound, but everything you've posted is a matter of opinion. In order for it to be true and her to be "right" it would have to apply to everyone always and there is no possible way to know that 100%. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying you're not right. Make sense now?
I agree her information seems very sound, but everything you've posted is a matter of opinion. In order for it to be true and her to be "right" it would have to apply to everyone always and there is no possible way to know that 100%. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying you're not right. Make sense now?
It isn't opinion... Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. If they were on a level playing field, it wouldn't explain why most people on this site cut on 3,000 Kcal a day now compared to 1,800 a year and a half ago (as an example). There will always be variances in bodies, but the fact still stands. You can't gain weight if you're truly in deficit. I mean, if you're going to object to this, provide some peer reviewed medical studies supporting the aforementioned accusation. If you can't, stop posting what you're posting because it's simply going to be viewed as a troll effort.
It isn't opinion... Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. If they were on a level playing field, it wouldn't explain why most people on this site cut on 3,000 Kcal a day now compared to 1,800 a year and a half ago (as an example). There will always be variances in bodies, but the fact still stands. You can't gain weight if you're truly in deficit. I mean, if you're going to object to this, provide some peer reviewed medical studies supporting the aforementioned accusation. If you can't, stop posting what you're posting because it's simply going to be viewed as a troll effort.
I'm very well aware of the actual rates of burn going on per pound of either. Layne's article is focusing on single pounds of either fat or muscle (in the BMR and RMR section). On a grand scale of things, it's make it or break it, IMHO, when you're talking about mass aka whole humans. And that's just for resting. Cummer (Paul) has explained it on a grander scale in the past. The difference seems minute until you look at the grand scheme of things. That is where I was getting at, unless I missed something here.
It isn't opinion... Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. If they were on a level playing field, it wouldn't explain why most people on this site cut on 3,000 Kcal a day now compared to 1,800 a year and a half ago (as an example). There will always be variances in bodies, but the fact still stands. You can't gain weight if you're truly in deficit. I mean, if you're going to object to this, provide some peer reviewed medical studies supporting the aforementioned accusation. If you can't, stop posting what you're posting because it's simply going to be viewed as a troll effort.
Again, Soja. I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm personally attacking your entire nutritional belief system with my statements, I'm merely attempting to state my own opinions on the matter. It's not a "troll effort" to question things on a particular subject, and clearly that was not my intention. Although I know where you're coming from, when I was younger and I'd read something from someone who was an authority on the subject I'd often see it as some sort of irrefutable dogma. I've read a lot of Lyle's e-books. (The Stubborn Fat Protocol, Ultimate Diet 2.0, Rapid Fat Loss) And I respect his opinions as well, although I will admit the amount of typographical errors in those books was a bit disconcerting. Also they seem a bit outdated as well, in fact in the Stubborn Fat Protocol he admits that a former version of the protocol was not entirely as accurate and he had altered his new protocol to suit his new findings. With that being said, who's to say that in a few years from now after more research he'll develop yet another variant. Anyway, good luck on everyone's progress here, whatever method you use to reach your goals as long as you're getting results and not hurting yourself in the process I'd say go for it. Cheers.
I'm not taking their beliefs to heart. I'm not sure how I can say this in a form that you can comprehend. On the other hand, I remember you from some other threads. Your post quality is nothing to write home about. You even admit to not having success on your cut or body composition. Mhmm, I wonder why.
You cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics. Basic human physiology 101 here. Takes in less energy than needed, the body will take energy from stores. Those stores will be anything it can get its hands on. Eat more than you need, and your body will store the excess as fat. There's no personal belief about that, it's science. Calories in versus calories out has been the staple for decades. Lyle's books are merely customized versions of what is in essence calories in versus calories out.
If you eat at your actual BMR, you will lose weight, because it has yet to be factored into your activity rate estimate variable. If you eat under your BMR, you will lose weight. If you eat at maintenance (BMR plus your activity rate estimate variable amount) you will maintain the same weight. If you eat more than that, you will gain weight. Now if the OP is tried and true and is honestly eating less than what he needs, he has lost weight. Water is masking is fat loss. See here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...uishy-fat.html
The Minnesota experiment directly correlates to water masking fat loss. If it didn't, it would not answer why so many on this board have suddenly woken up one morning 4-15 lb lighter than the night before. Care to explain how else that would be possible? I have never read any fitness book, I refuse to waste my time on information that's readily available on PubMed for free. What I do know is they all share one fundamental basis: Calories in versus calories out. Nothing more and nothing less. All you say is everyone is different. I didn't realize at 29 years old you're still a snowflake and that science simply doesn't apply to your body or the OP's. Good luck on your fitness goals in 2011.
Feel free to prove me how the OP's body defies the law of thermodynamics and why, as you put it, the Minnesota Experiment which explains whooshes and squishy fat simply do not apply to either of you. I expect some peer reviewed medical studies. Or feel free to start a thread in the nutrition section and explain why you don't believe in calories in vs calories out. I'm sure you can enlighten the folks in that section.
Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
BACKGROUND:
The possible advantage for weight loss of a diet that emphasizes protein, fat, or carbohydrates has not been established, and there are few studies that extend beyond 1 year.
METHODS:
We randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets; the targeted percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the four diets were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. The diets consisted of similar foods and met guidelines for cardiovascular health. The participants were offered group and individual instructional sessions for 2 years. The primary outcome was the change in body weight after 2 years in two-by-two factorial comparisons of low fat versus high fat and average protein versus high protein and in the comparison of highest and lowest carbohydrate content.
RESULTS:
At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels.
CONCLUSIONS:
Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasis.
It's all calories. But feel free to prove science and medicine wrong.
SOJA, I am in no way disagreeing with you or trying to defy the science and logic you presented (for the record)
I have been eating under my maintenance for the past month, I am taking in 1900-2200 calories daily (got cutting numbers from 20%- from maintenance 2400-2600) I consider myself lead a light to moderate active lifestyle. I am a high school student, I have light wrestling practice 4 times a week, lift weights heavy 3 times a week, and attend Brazilian Jiu Jitsu classes 3 times a week, the actual time spent active as in rolling(sparring) and warm up included i would say is 45 minutes.
With all this in account for I have stayed at my home of 168-170, Am i simply miscalculating my calories taken in? My muscle to fat ratio is too low to see significant fat loss? I do have to say that I have experienced this wooshing water phenomenon where sometimes the stubborn fat around my midsection feels squishy and filled with some liquid.. It'd say it reminds me of a loose bag filled with water.
Firstly - you are a 17 yr old athlete - you shouldn't be trying to 'cut' unless you are trying to make weight for an upcoming fight.
Additionally - also to consider with your age is that you are still GROWING <-- sure, you might not be adding LOTS of height, but you are still solidifying your mass. Bones, muscles, etc are all still going to be changing. And the LAST thing you want to be doing at this stage of the game is trying to drop weight quickly. You'll only do yourself more harm than good. PLUS - this growth impact is going the be a MAJOR whack when it comes to things like calculating your maintenance (did you use regular calculators or the teenager calculators for that calculation)... So I would imagine all those numbers you have are off completely.
Then.... With regards to the numbers -->>
- how are you tracking your calorie intake (? calorieking / nutridiary / nutritiondata )
- how are you measuring your food intake (? scales / cups and spoons / visual )
- how accurate are you being with both of these things?
- how often are you having 'treat meals' or days?
^^ these things will all have more of an impact than you think.... cups and spoons are off by a bunch, and can add 300-500 cals EASILY in your day, and if your deficit is only 300-500 cals / day then it is easy to see why you will not be making changes.
WATCH ==>
*perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim*
"The greatest rewards are always reserved for those who bring great value to themselves and the world around them as a result of whom and what they have become." - Jim Rohn
It's your call. DRIV.... E.
Reps for protein powder, puppies, or anyone who buys me a house.
Firstly - you are a 17 yr old athlete - you shouldn't be trying to 'cut' unless you are trying to make weight for an upcoming fight.
The thing is most people around my age I think would agree that we cut just to get aesthetic. Everyone wants the low bodyfat and 6 pack so we have to cut to get it. Will a few months cutting really hinder growth as much as you implied it would?
Firstly - you are a 17 yr old athlete - you shouldn't be trying to 'cut' unless you are trying to make weight for an upcoming fight.
Additionally - also to consider with your age is that you are still GROWING <-- sure, you might not be adding LOTS of height, but you are still solidifying your mass. Bones, muscles, etc are all still going to be changing. And the LAST thing you want to be doing at this stage of the game is trying to drop weight quickly. You'll only do yourself more harm than good. PLUS - this growth impact is going the be a MAJOR whack when it comes to things like calculating your maintenance (did you use regular calculators or the teenager calculators for that calculation)... So I would imagine all those numbers you have are off completely.
Then.... With regards to the numbers -->>
- how are you tracking your calorie intake (? calorieking / nutridiary / nutritiondata )
- how are you measuring your food intake (? scales / cups and spoons / visual )
- how accurate are you being with both of these things?
- how often are you having 'treat meals' or days?
I appreciate the response, I am trying to cut in order to make a weight class for wrestling other wise I'd be bulking and yes i did use the regular calculation for calories.
- how are you tracking your calorie intake (? calorieking / nutridiary / nutritiondata )
I am using Loseit.com through the iphone app
- how are you measuring your food intake (? scales / cups and spoons / visual )
I am using a scale for all foods except oil I use spoons.
- how accurate are you being with both of these things?
I believe myself to be FAIRLY accurate.
- how often are you having 'treat meals' or days?
I have atleast 1 'treat meal' a week.
What you said about growing really hit me hard, thank you for that. I dont think i want keep trying to cut!
Right, but the problem here is that she is right. BMR varies because of the muscle ; fat ration in humans. More muscle than fat, a higher BMR. The calculators are very generalized. Eating too little calories won't cause weight gain - which is something some tend to associate with the ill-famed "starvation mode", which is nothing but a bunch of bull****.
Your body (and I'm speaking in general, not just you) simply cannot break the laws of thermodynamics. If you eat less energy than your body requires, it will tap into a combination of stores for energy, with the exception of muscle unless you truly starve yourself for weeks and months.
If you take in more energy than you require, you will gain weight. It is as simple as that. But back to my earlier point.
A 6' 185 lb man who is active, has a muscular build and has 12% body fat will have a higher BMR, TEF, etc. than the same man who isn't very muscular and not active at all but has 12% body fat. Make sense now?
While I'm not Emma's brain, her comment on deficit amounts is more or less true. The OP may even be losing fat but water is masking his weight loss, in which case I'm going to refer him to this:
completely agreed. this post needs to be stickyed for people to understand that unless ur starving urself to the point where u can hear ur stomach rumbling and u just feel bad as phuk, go as low as u want.
SOJA, I am in no way disagreeing with you or trying to defy the science and logic you presented (for the record)
I have been eating under my maintenance for the past month, I am taking in 1900-2200 calories daily (got cutting numbers from 20%- from maintenance 2400-2600) I consider myself lead a light to moderate active lifestyle. I am a high school student, I have light wrestling practice 4 times a week, lift weights heavy 3 times a week, and attend Brazilian Jiu Jitsu classes 3 times a week, the actual time spent active as in rolling(sparring) and warm up included i would say is 45 minutes.
With all this in account for I have stayed at my home of 168-170, Am i simply miscalculating my calories taken in? My muscle to fat ratio is too low to see significant fat loss? I do have to say that I have experienced this wooshing water phenomenon where sometimes the stubborn fat around my midsection feels squishy and filled with some liquid.. It'd say it reminds me of a loose bag filled with water.
Thanks for reading-
I can't comment with certainty without a picture. Feel free to start a new thread in the post your pics section. There are too many variables presented with your post, as Emma stated below your post.
Discounts & Deals - Sign Up!
and yes i did use the regular calculation for calories.
Bookmarks