Just posting to check my numbers and remember what I was thinking.
I'll round the numbers from my actuals to make this easier.
Plan:
BMR: 1700 by calculation
just activities of a sedentary day (no explicit workouts) multiplier: 1.2
likely Active MR (AMR) 1700 * 1.2 = 2040
planned target daily cals: 1200
expected daily deficit: 840
840 * 7 = 5880 kcals which predicts a loss of 1.68 lb/wk (assuming 3500 kcal to the lb, all wt fat, etc.)
Actuals (mid-cycle, not skewed by any initial water drop days)
7 day average intake: 1185 (not including fish oil each day ~80 kcal)
7 day average (and actual) loss: 0.4 lb per day
calculated deficit for this loss rate: 1400 per day (same assumptions)
[note: I'm really comfortable with this food intake, energy levels and rate of loss]
So it would seem that the actual AMR is more like 2500-2600 not 2040. If 1.2 multiplier is appropriate, this puts BMR around 2083 (using the 2500 number).
Or, if the 1700 is accurate, then multiplier should be 1.47 (using 2500). Not likely - this is a sedentary period. Or some combination thereof.
I find that interesting, especially what it implies for calories I was eating when holding at this weight, but I digress.
That said, here's the new question. .
In theory, if I choose to add some activity, estimated around 300 kcal expended and also add 300 kcal food for each session, (and no concomitant reduction in NEAT) the deficit should remain the same and weight loss (assuming no fluid retention for inflammation or other confounder) should continue at the same rate.
Right?
Just posting to check my numbers and remember what I was thinking.
I'll round the numbers from my actuals to make this easier.
Plan:
BMR: 1700 by calculation
just activities of a sedentary day (no explicit workouts) multiplier: 1.2
likely Active MR (AMR) 1700 * 1.2 = 2040
planned target daily cals: 1200
expected daily deficit: 840
840 * 7 = 5880 kcals which predicts a loss of 1.68 lb/wk (assuming 3500 kcal to the lb, all wt fat, etc.)
Actuals (mid-cycle, not skewed by any initial water drop days)
7 day average intake: 1185 (not including fish oil each day ~80 kcal)
7 day average (and actual) loss: 0.4 lb per day
calculated deficit for this loss rate: 1400 per day (same assumptions)
[note: I'm really comfortable with this food intake, energy levels and rate of loss]
So it would seem that the actual AMR is more like 2500-2600 not 2040. If 1.2 multiplier is appropriate, this puts BMR around 2083 (using the 2500 number).
Or, if the 1700 is accurate, then multiplier should be 1.47 (using 2500). Not likely - this is a sedentary period. Or some combination thereof.
I find that interesting, especially what it implies for calories I was eating when holding at this weight, but I digress.
That said, here's the new question. .
In theory, if I choose to add some activity, estimated around 300 kcal expended and also add 300 kcal food for each session, (and no concomitant reduction in NEAT) the deficit should remain the same and weight loss (assuming no fluid retention for inflammation or other confounder) should continue at the same rate.
Right?
L
In theory, everything adds up. In reality... rarely.
I mean, just being a pre-menopausal woman is a confounder all by its lonesome...
I do hope you keep up your posting, Lisa. In your own log, too, that is.
and by "here" of course I meant in my log -
my words on the rest of the forum are pure gold
Looks more like a pinkish peach from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaS
That said, here's the new question. .
In theory, if I choose to add some activity, estimated around 300 kcal expended and also add 300 kcal food for each session, (and no concomitant reduction in NEAT) the deficit should remain the same and weight loss (assuming no fluid retention for inflammation or other confounder) should continue at the same rate.
Right?
On paper anyway. Until you add in what type of workout, additional stressors and nitpicky changes from it all, digestive crap, etc, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkinsley
In theory, everything adds up. In reality... rarely.
I mean, just being a pre-menopausal woman is a confounder all by its lonesome...
I do hope you keep up your posting, Lisa. In your own log, too, that is.
Bad Lisa. You have so much valuable knowledge crammed into that oversized brain of yours and I love seeing how you apply it to your own life. Bad, bad Lisa.
Not that you should feel any pressure or anything...
__________________ It all starts with the mind, but the thoughts, the intention aren't enough. Action needs to come next. Dream it, believe it, plan it, execute it, celebrate it. - Wendy
so, I loved Cook's book but then I found his audio downloads here
since I get like a "1" on several screens, I need to stop trying to put fitness on top of dysfunction and get clean on these movements, along with NEAT for the next little while.
so, I loved Cook's book but then I found his audio downloads here
since I get like a "1" on several screens, I need to stop trying to put fitness on top of dysfunction and get clean on these movements, along with NEAT for the next little while.
Rather than flailing about on my own, Julie has hooked me up with a short (6 wk) program to address some of my mobility and imbalance issues (including lingering issues from past injuries).
Quote:
Originally Posted by UConnJulie
But, Lisa will be posting more frequently, right?!
[Apparently] I'll be tracking them here in my log so that she can beat me in public if I slack off - I mean, monitor my progress long-distance.
Taking a page from Leigh's book on "what has worked well for you before - do that": my history says I do better in weight loss with a big(ger) deficit and a light(er) workout schedule - so that's the direction I'll be taking for the next little while. I'll be eating at a pretty good deficit and we're doing the workouts of the program at a light(er) level but with the intention of still addressing my imbalances.
Linear Mode
