The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
The math of calories burned - calories eaten = fat lost?
I've been thinking of the GWF and logging calories and creating results over time (not in 2-4 weeks, but over a period of 6 months, say...)
If I eat 1400 cal and burn 2400 cal, or hit a deficit of 7000 cal per week, could I really expect to lose 2 pounds per week averaged over that 6 month period? Or close to that?
Say 25 weeks, that would be 50 pounds.
Hopefully I would gain some muscle, and so, with extremely vague math, say that would decrease the 50 pounds to maybe 35-40pound loss, or still a net of 1.5 pound loss per week?
Is it that simple, even for those of us who don't seem to drop scale weight? Perservere with the math of cal burned and cal consumed, and results will follow over the long term?
what is missing? Is it only that I get frustrated after a month and binge for some weeks that foils me?
Now that I have the GWF and fitday.com, it seems I can take a more rationale mathematical approach, and if the actions are spot on, it should generate results.
1) The deficit math of 3500 cals works for fat. I don't know how many calories are provided if you're cannibalizing muscle? I haven't seen that number published anywhere
2) Losing 50 pounds is going to make your "calories burned" is probably going to go up, or down, or both, but anything but remain constant.
I donno. it'd prolly be in the general vicinity of that, but remember that even with the GWF, your "burn" may not be super accurate, and moreover, the cals you're consuming are still estimates/averages and are subject to a margin of error. So, you only can get so accurate, and when you add one set of margins of error (expenditure), another set of margins of error (consumption), and the weird workings of the body when it comes to water, electrolytes, hormones, etc…, AND you add in that you can't really know bf without ANOTHER margin of error… Darlin, it's a royal pain in the ass. It does seem to work out great for some people, and the math is spot the fuck on. Then there's the rest of us…
But taking into account all the error-prone bits, yeah, you'd prolly see some kind of trend average over a longish time period. I don't know that it'd be, but it'd prolly end up as something you could use as a guide for yourself, i spoze.
1) The deficit math of 3500 cals works for fat. I don't know how many calories are provided if you're cannibalizing muscle? I haven't seen that number published anywhere
2) Losing 50 pounds is going to make your "calories burned" is probably going to go up, or down, or both, but anything but remain constant.
- Let's then take muscle gained out of the equation
- Let's also say as you get thinner, and need to eat 1250, you burn 2250, still burn 7000 cal / week deficit.
- so therefore you wont' have lost 50 lbs in 25 weeks.
But is the theory of 7000 cal deficit in a week, over time, like over 6 months, should be showing a 1.5lb to 2lb scale loss for anyone? That it's just math and science and biology. And it should work?
I think it is that simple at the highest level.. In fact, it worked almost exactly like that when I approached fat loss with a linear mind. BUT there are obviously more variables that play here. Muscle burned, gained (that is 2800 cals per lb), water gained or lost, the number of times you cheat (probably the biggest compoenent here) etc.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
You have the theory correct, but you must remember that EVERYTHING is a guess and approximation and not a scientific measurement.
METS is an informed estimate of what a theoretical person might burn, activity counters are a guess at METS, GWF is a guess at METS.
Food tables are based on samples of foodstuffs which may or may not match your actual foodstuffs which you may weigh with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy. Water fluctuation, food in your system, etc. can confound even body weight measurements.
So, yes, in theory if you continually adjusted activity and intake to have a constant deficit over a 6 month period, you would have a trend line matching what you expect.
In practice, you'd probably get a similar trend line over a long enough period. If you aren't seeing a trend that approximates what you expect, one or more of your variables could be off and you need to adjust. Perhaps you need a deficit on paper of 825/day (based on your activity calcs and your food measuring) in order to get a trend line that shows 1 pound per week. Yes, the math says 500/day but if you need a deficit of 825 on paper to see it, then that's what you have to work with based on what you can measure & the calculations you do.
Pretty much guaranteed that if you are on a water only fast for a month, you will lose weight and you will greatly reduce your daily activity and you will still be losing at the end of a month. Everything else is a science experiment with n=1.
RE: what we discussed in PM, if measurements are going down, if some change is happening in a downward direction, then you are losing.
Also, I have noticed a lot when people using the Gowear increase their daily activity beyond normal that this creates more strain on the body and therefore a more likely hood to create retention.
If you are doing what you are supposed to be doing, it will happen and stop worry about the numbers, they will come.
1) The deficit math of 3500 cals works for fat. I don't know how many calories are provided if you're cannibalizing muscle? I haven't seen that number published anywhere
Muscle tissue has somewhere between 600-1000 calories per pound. Muscle is not all protein, but a lot of water, too, and fat. That's why a 1 lb lean bison steak is only 600kcal (a fattier strip steak is about 950).
So.... if your diet was going "all wrong", you could be in a deficit of a mere 1000 calories and lose 1 whole pound of muscle and almost no fat. Good for the scale but not for the mirror or tape measure.
If my metabolic biology is whack, please let me know.
Andrea
__________________ "My yoga class had me trembling and sweating and I feel MUCH better." - Fang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenacious Training and Tweaking (the A lotta Alitteration thread)
Espi and all,
I think I caclucated my math incorrectly for my first 4 weeks of OPT for Fatloss. I wonder if you could check my math... especially for weeks 5-8 which I've just begun
BMR = 1399 (rounded up to 1400); age 63
Harris Benedict Formula
Weeks 5-8: 30% deficit, would be 1372 calories: does this look correct?
6 days a week exercise (4 resistance, 3 cardio)
I chose 1.4 as my calorie target; I'm working moderate, but 6 days a week. Is 1.55 too high?
1.2 x 1400 = 1680cal x .70 = 1176cal
1.375 x 1400 = 1925cal x .70 = 1348cal 1.4 x 1400 = 1960cal x .70 = 1372cal MY TARGET ???
1.55 x 1400 = 2170cal x .70 = 1510cal
______________________________ _______
I think Weeks 1-3 was incorrect:
6 days a week exercise (4 resistance, 3 cardio)
It looks like I chose range of 1.4-1.55 as my calorie target;
I'm working out moderate, but 6 days a week. Is 1.55 too high?
Ahhhh, I think I chose 1.55, probably should have chosen 1.4
1.2 x 1400 = 1680cal x .65 = 1092cal
1.375 x 1400 = 1925cal x .65 = 1250cal
1.4 x 1400 = 1960cal x .65 = 1274cal
1.55 x 1400 = 2170cal x .65 = 1410cal
My average calories eaten for the 3 weeks was 1489, even higher than the 1.55. My daily average deficit was 725, still a good deficit, but maybe not enough for fatloss, and I doubt I was at 1.55 burn multiplier.
And I think week 4 was even more incorrect;
It was a rest week, and I think I did 40% deficit of an exercise week instead of 40% of a rest week. I ate 1131 calorie average
1.2 x 1400 = 1680cal x .6 = 1008cal My daily average deficit even in rest week was 896 cal.
So I should have eaten only 1008 cal/day???? UGH
Is that correct?
Well, I'll do it better on the second time that I do my 12 week OPT for Fatloss. My goal is reach goal weight of 145 by the end of the 2nd round of 12 weeks.
lots and lots of NEAT
thanks for any input.
SUMMARY:
I think beyond the math, I did have a 750-850 cal deficit. But
1. I wonder if 1006 calories for a "rest" week is just too low
2. Since my scale fat loss is only 1 lb in 4 weeks, maybe I should take it as low as possible that I can stand
or.
3. It's better to have it (calories eaten) as high as I can and still lose weight
4. What multiplier do you choose? 1.4?
thanks,
(sorry this was a bit unclear, but I'm rushing it off from work)
What does Leigh's quiz say you should choose as multiplier?
Quote:
It was a rest week, and I think I did 40% deficit of an exercise week instead of 40% of a rest week. I ate 1131 calorie average
You use the same number for maintenance… the 40% takes care of it being a rest week, so you don't need to redo a multiplier for a rest week and THEN take off 40%. ie… you're making it more complicated and out-thinking it.
Math apart, the body can sometimes just act weird. If you throw food at it, it is more likely that you get more active, even if unconsciously (and you're tracking steps and having a GWF). I've seen mtn go up to 2400 while I was still eating slightly less than this in January (Jan-Feb being the traditional awf*kit months) and when starting to diet, mtn went down to 2000ish.. and when on IF I've seen it drop to 1900, but only since I was eating very closely to that amount..
In other words, maintenance is highly flexible and sometimes you got to eat far less than math tells us to lose. Not pretty when your priorities are to have fun in the gym & stay strong.. a slow recomp FTW.
What does Leigh's quiz say you should choose as multiplier?.
MATH ALERT!!
My numbers:
FLTS says my BMR is 1442 by the equation.[SIZE=/>
1442 x 1.2 = 1730 sedentary
1442 x 1.375 = 1983
Which of these is my maintenance? I would say 2235cal when I am
exercising 6x/week moderately could be my maintenance if I'm thinking
the math right?
The goal range I chose in OPT when I am exercising moderately 5-6 days/week at 30% deficit is 1388-1564, with a target of 1413cal
100%....70%....65%....60%
1983 …1388…1289….1190 1.375 multiplier 2019…1413…. 1312…1211 1.46 multiplier I chose
2235…1564…..1453…1341 1.55 multiplier
My actual daily average over the past 4.5 weeks is 1400kcal, with an average daily deficit of 757kcal, which, I believe, is all in the correct range. I'm eating at 70% this next 4 weeks, which I would say is
1388-1453kcals range
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aoife
You use the same number for maintenance… the 40% takes care of it being a rest week, so you don't need to redo a multiplier for a rest week and THEN take off 40%. ie… you're making it more complicated and out-thinking it.
I still don't understand this. 60% of my maintenance when I'm exercising 6x/week is 1211 cal at a 1.46 multiplier. But I am being sedentary that week, not active.
Math apart, the body can sometimes just act weird. If you throw food at it, it is more likely that you get more active, even if unconsciously (and you're tracking steps and having a GWF). I've seen mtn go up to 2400 while I was still eating slightly less than this in January (Jan-Feb being the traditional awf*kit months) and when starting to diet, mtn went down to 2000ish.. and when on IF I've seen it drop to 1900, but only since I was eating very closely to that amount..
In other words, maintenance is highly flexible and sometimes you got to eat far less than math tells us to lose. Not pretty when your priorities are to have fun in the gym & stay strong.. a slow recomp FTW.
How are you determining these maintenance numbers?
I find sleep is crucial for my activity level, more so than food!! Imagine! You’d think I’d have figured that out about sleep, but no, not until I read Leigh’s books and even later, not until the middle of REPAIR did I “get it” about sleep.
When I throw food at my body, it is usually pizza, ice cream, chocolate, and then I feel numbed. Are you saying if you throw high quality good-macro food at your body you can eat more and it makes you be more active and then your maintenance number can go up? That would be something to strive for!!
Not a 60-70% deficit; 60-70% of maintenance. It's cutting out a math step. Instead of, say, 0.3 x 1500 = 450; 1500-450 = 1050, it's 0.7 x 1500 = 1050.
But I have to admit, Etana and Espi, aside from that my math skills are flummoxed. I seem to recall a while back that someone asked Leigh how frequently one should recalculate maintenance calories while on OPT, and I think Leigh said it's not necessary to recalculate until the end of OPT. Like Espi said, the .4 deficit of the initially calculated cals should take care of the decreased activity.
I think that was somewhere on this board; I may be able to try to search for it later, but I have no clue how I happened upon it in the first place.
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
So that may not help in terms of calculating your exercise maintenance, but it does mean you don't need to recalculate maintenance for the rest weeks.
Etana, just to keep things simple why not look at GWF's average burn while on OPT (not including rest week), then your initial thought on Leigh's activity quiz, and split the difference?
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
So that may not help in terms of calculating your exercise maintenance, but it does mean you don't need to recalculate maintenance for the rest weeks.
Etana, just to keep things simple why not look at GWF's average burn while on OPT (not including rest week), then your initial thought on Leigh's activity quiz, and split the difference?
Scribess,
Very interesting idea:
My GWF average since beginning OPT May 4 is 2275
My calculated maintenace at "moderate exercise 5-6 x/week," which IS what I am doing, is
1442 x 1.55 = 2235.4
I thought I was a bit less than "moderate" still recovering with the foot, and also older, so being cautious, so I was using
1442 x 1.46 = 2019
but the 2012 and the 2235 are both very similar to the GWF actual 2275, and also a bit lower, so maybe at some point I actually will be able to eat 2000 cal/day and maintain my weight (haha it'll be lower since now I'm maintaining 175lb, but still, it's encouraging that the numbers are all pretty close)
What does Leigh's quiz say you should choose as multiplier?
You use the same number for maintenance… the 40% takes care of it being a rest week, so you don't need to redo a multiplier for a rest week and THEN take off 40%. ie… you're making it more complicated and out-thinking it.
But I still don't understand the concept of the calorie math for the "rest week."
If I am being sedentary, why wouldn't I do a 40% deficit of my sedentary maintenance calculation:
1442 x 1.2 = 1730 sedentary x 40% or eating 1038 cal
It doesn't make sense to eat 40% deficit of an active week's #s
1442 x 1.46 = 2019 with moderate exercise equation, or 1211 when I'm not being active.
I think last week I chose:
1.375 multiplier= 1983 = 1190 and ate that, but since I wasn't moving, I I got confused that I had eaten too high.
Did you read the thread I posted in my post #16? I assume Leigh has her reasons for building OPT the way she did. I think eating a 40% deficit of activity maintenance will still result in eating cals below what you're burning during rest week. Maybe she's trying to stave off cravings. Maybe the body needs a break from the more extreme fat loss. But Leigh herself does say there's no need to recalculate unless you've had a big drop.
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
I agree with the others. Look at the forest not the trees. Maintenance is going to vary day to day week to week. Using an overall average for what you do most days makes the most sense to me otherwise you'll drive yourself crazy. Even people who regularly exercise should take regular rest breaks and I don't think it's necessary to make adjustments for short term breaks.
The deeper deficit on rest weeks is how Leigh set up the program to account for the decreased activity.
Etana, I ate just more food and by far not just 'clean' food, that's just a health & satiety issue and has not much to do with maintenance.
What I meant is that I came from 1900-2000kcal and upped to 2400 kcal in 1 month w/o doing much more and saw maintenance follow along like a slave.
Then I dropped calories again and once again, maintenance follows like a slave.. I just can't manage to create a bigger deficit than say 100-150 kcal/day and not even all the time.
Maintenance is a math thing from the ROLLING average of 30 days of intake versus bf% /scale tracking where the fat% is leading.. it's not optimal for absolute numbers but the actual bf% doesn't matter in calculating maintenance only the trends are.
Eat more-move more: You can eat more and burn more and work towards that. A deficit still needs to be achieved AND know that you weight trend will change and take weeks to adjust to a downward trend again.
The reason I asked about what you intake was is I was curious if there was a change that your calculation could be off. Trader joe food is notrious for being wrong in any of their prepepared foods. Packaged foods in general you can't trust and even veggies can vary to small degree.
My take home point is if you aren't losing and if changes aren't happening then you need to either A- wait for the whoosh or B-create more of a deficit and watch for change.
I know you are big on numbers, but you have to remember that your numbers are again estimates of a best guess situation and they can still all be wrong and off, even on large levels. Everything is a start point to move up, or to move down.
Water weight masking progress is hyooge for a lot of women, apparently even for post-menopausal ones. Actually for men too when they are easily stressed.
And from the sound of it, you still aren't sleeping enough
Eat more-move more: You can eat more and burn more and work towards that. A deficit still needs to be achieved AND know that you weight trend will change and take weeks to adjust to a downward trend again.
The reason I asked about what you intake was is I was curious if there was a chance that your calculation could be off. Trader joe food is notrious for being wrong in any of their prepepared foods. Packaged foods in general you can't trust and even veggies can vary to small degree.
My take home point is if you aren't losing and if changes aren't happening then you need to either A- wait for the whoosh or B-create more of a deficit and watch for change.
I know you are big on numbers, but you have to remember that your numbers are again estimates of a best guess situation and they can still all be wrong and off, even on large levels. Everything is a start point to move up, or to move down.
Leigh,
Thank you for the reply/explanations.
Didn't know that about Trader Joe's... a lot of my food comes from there, using their nutrition labels. I just thought it enough to stay away from their food high in sodium..
If I'm eating 1400 cal average, I think I just might take the calorie average down to 1300 and see if I can hit that 6 pound per week weight loss that I'd like. And then on days I'm really really hungry, eat more. Because there are only occasional days where I'm hungry, since I'm eating 6 meals/day.
I'm big on numbers since palm of protein, fist of carbs didn't work for me.
When Jedi, who wasn't losing, switched to another trainer, she was told to drop her calories, then she started losing.... Even though her GWF deficit was large.
I don't have much emotion in this anymore... I just want to get it done. And I know when I see results, my emotion will spur me on!
The math of calories burned - calories eaten = fat lost?
In fact, it worked almost exactly like that when I approached fat loss with a linear mind. BUT there are obviously more variables that play here. Muscle burned, gained (that is 2800 cals per lb), water gained or lost, the number of times you cheat (probably the biggest compoenent here) etc.
Linear Mode
