#i eat like 1450 cals a day | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thickgoesstick · 6 years

Text

Hello my name is Mac and this is my non-thinspo, non-fitspo blog. I have struggled with food and weight since I was a kid but decided last winter to actually do something about it.

In 2016, my first year of college, I was around 218 lbs. I bordered 219 lbs but would hop off the scale like it was on fire to avoid seeing that number set. In high school I ballooned from 160-200 in one and a half years (I think). I maintained 205 for a while but then went to 210 and up in my last year of high school.

Last winter I decided to clean up my diet and I lost 6 lbs just with cutting down what I was eating and how much processed food was in my cupboards. After the new year I started going to the gym 3-5 times a week doing uphill fast walking on the treadmill. I went down to 206 before getting a cold and being out of commission for two weeks. I have exercise induced asthma and when I have a cold I have bronchial spasms.

I stopped going to the gym and went back to being 210-215lbs from February to April. In April I had the stomach flu and my weight went down to 209/210. I was able to maintain that weught. Over the summer I worked in an office so I didn't get any exercise in. That's when I learned about r/1200isplenty. I started really tracking my calories and was getting between 1200-1450 cal a day. I've kept up with that since then even though I am more active than I was. From end of July to now (Sept 13) I've gone from 210 to 197 (-13 lbs) which means I have lost 21 lbs since my first year of college.

I feel great and I want to go at this as healthy as I can. During the summer I was weighing myself multiple times a day and restricting heavily. However I realized that dropping the weight too fast can lower my chances of having children when I'm older. I'm now sticking to 1200-1500 cal a day depending on if I get a workout in. My workouts are usually just inclined walking for an hour straight until I can build stamina to do classes and maybe run.

I also may have a placement for my program in the spring at an eating disorder clinic. I can't help others if I don't help myself first and believe in what I'm saying.

Stay tuned for progress pics and other notes!

3 notes · View notes

cassieminus-blog · 7 years

Text

experimenting w/ calories

at the beginning of the summer, I lost weight while eating in the mid to high 2000 calorie range. I don’t even know how I lost weight eating that much cuz even at my highest weight, 2,300 calories was well above maintenance. But anyways, I was off to a decent start. I was aware of how much I was eating and I was consciously trying to make better food choices; I don’t even wanna know how many calories I was eating when I wasn’t writing everything down. I slipped up briefly before getting really frustrated, which is when I decided to take things seriously. I started eating 2,000 calories and under daily. I didn’t struggle that much with it. I probably mis-estimated my calories now and again (oh, one slice of lemon pie is probably 210 calories even though I’m not sure exactly what’s in it) but I was tracking my calories via a food scale, measuring cups and carefully examining nutrition labels, and it was working. I kind of got a little stricter with myself after a while, trying to stick closer to 1,300 than 1,700, but still letting myself eat 1,700 now and again. then I changed the settings on MFP from 2,000 to 1,650. the problem was that I was now using every calorie up, unlike when I had 2,000. although 1,650 was a number that was supposed to create a deficit for me, I went from 162.2 to 161.6 and now, Thursday of the week after 161.6, I’m at 161.4 after bouncing around between 161 and 161.6 all week. while I’m not too worked up over it, it did cause me to look at my TDEE and BMR on a couple other websites, and I decided my new daily limit is now 1,450. If that doesn’t work I’ll go another hundred calories lower, but I thought a two hundred calorie cut should help me see weight loss. I realize that at 1,650 I was able to fit Starbucks and treats into my day just about every day, and that’s fine, but I definitely had more calories than I needed just to feel energized and satisfied and to get through the day! So 1,450 should be better. If it doesn’t work, I’ll tweak it. But I needed to make a change because I want to see some more progress these next few weeks. After this week, which only has the rest of today and all of tomorrow left in it, I only have five weeks left of summer. And, I’m not leaving Saturday morning anymore for school, I’m leaving Friday. So I’ll have one day cut off my overall summer 15 pound weight-loss challenge. Unless the hotel I’m at happens to have a scale, or I buy my new scale Saturday morning and set it up in the hotel, I won’t be able to weigh myself that day. So I think I’ll just have my last day be Friday, so basically, I have five weeks left of summer to work towards my goal. Which is okay, but I’d really like to see another 5 pound loss between now and then and I won’t if I don’t try this new caloric intake.

I’m a little nervy about going to D.C. but I’m just going to tell my friends I’m trying to lose weight and count calories and they’ll be understanding. They’re both athletes and in good shape, and they’ll understand where I’m coming from and be supportive. I can’t tell you how much FatLogic has opened my eyes. Realizing that my skinny friends like the one I’m visiting aren’t ‘naturally thin’ unless ‘naturally thin’ = naturally low appetite and love of physical activity. Realizing that I can be skinny and still eat Cane’s is awesome! It’s just, realistically, it’ll be the only big meal I can eat all day. If I want a 1,200 calorie chicken finger box, and I’m eating 1,450, I can have 2 eggs, a coffee and an apple in the early afternoon and then Cane’s for dinner, but that’s it. knowing that has been useful; it explains how skinny people eat junk and stay skinny, and it explains how I can fit my favorite processed, fried foods into my new lifestyle. realizing that my thin friends might order than 1,200 chicken box but only eat half of it and eat it slowly, or that they might only eat that all day, or that they might eat it and other meals but then eat a lot less the next couple days just naturally from overeating the day or two before....that’s opened my eyes. It’s true, too. my thin friends eat less than me. which inspires me! I’ve written before about wanting to emulate my friends who are thin because they eat a lot differently from me, and I think that holds true. I read today on Reddit about someone who watched her thin relative eat; small portions, eats slowly, drinks water, talks a lot and is focused on the company at social events rather than focusing on the food. which brings me to my next point...

food’s always been a big part of my life. I think this is pretty obvious, because I was technically obese literally last month. but realizing that it doesn’t need to be something I focus on so much has been really freeing. I plan out my meals and often jot down in a note on my phone what I’m going to eat during that day or the next one. It helps me stay focused and on track. but it’s nice to realize I’m perfectly functional without eating large meals every few hours. like today, I had an 80 cal bag of popcorn and a 20 cal coffee before babysitting, and when I got home I had a pint of halo top (240 cal) and a diet soda (0 cal). so I haven’t eaten a super dense meal yet today, and I don’t feel like I’m doing something wrong. my appetite is adjusting to more reasonable portions and I’m not overeating and justifying it by saying that I need to get things done, I need energy, blah blah blah. I have a lot to do before I leave for my trip tomorrow, so I’m going to get some cleaning done (and laundry/maybe dishes) and then I’m going to make myself food afterward. I don’t need to eat now, so I’m not going to do it. As a result, I’ll be able to eat more when I am hungry and I won’t have to feel deprived.

Ugh. These get so rambly, but they help me kinda take stock of where I’m at. I think I’m at a good place. If I start losing weight super fast and feeling like I could benefit from a few more calories every day, I’ll go back to 1650. But for now, I think 1450 is a good amount and I think it’ll work! 1450 a day with some sort of exercise most days will lead to safe weight loss and allow me to eat healthy amounts of healthy, delicious foods. I’m really excited and motivated! I’m past that initial omg I’m losing weight!!! so shiny and new and fun!!! stage of weight loss but I’m still pushing. just knowing I can handle what someone on Reddit put as that ‘intermediate’ stage of weight loss has been really comforting so far. it’s also nice to know that while yeah, I’ll have to count calories probably for the rest of my life, it’s not hard, and it’s not a chore or an obligation so much as it’s just something that I do. it doesn’t add much time to my day and it keeps me aware of my consumption. a small price to pay for a healthy weight if you ask me. and it’s nice to know that in no more than a year, I’ll be in maintenance meaning I can eat around 1950 a day as long as I’m regularly exercising once I’m done losing weight, and I won’t gain weight. remembering that I’m in a deficit helps me bear in mind that I’m supposed to be a lil hungry or a lil unsatisfied now and again (hence making low-cal ‘diet’ foods a good choice for me rn). Once I’m in maintenance I can either just make my portions a teeny bit bigger, choose higher calorie food, or a small combination of both. or I can eat more frequently. I’m sure it won’t be hard :-). but the point is, I’ll never truly have to feel deprived cuz even now, I’m never feeling exhausted or nutritionally deprived. at most, just a lil irritated cuz i want seconds or a random snack but know it won’t fit into my calories for the day. again. I’m rambling! but it’s a good kind cuz it’s an excited and determined kind. In just over 5 weeks, I’ll be heading back to my campus in the 150s! now it’s time to kill these next 5 weeks.

1 note · View note

loosenmybones · 6 years

Text

thoughts // february 26 2018

total calories: 1,299

ok, so i could have done better today as i am trying to stay sub-1200. however, i’m super proud of myself anyways. i have been meal prepping for over a month now, and now that i have started weighing my food it is waaaay less than what i was used to! i was also previously striving for 1390 cals/day and regularly hitting like 1450-1700 calories but didn’t think much of it because it was mostly healthy, but in actuality i was probably eating much more. no wonder i wasn’t losing weight!!

i chugged water (like my whole bottle or at least 20oz) every time i was mildly hungry or my meal didn’t leave me completely full today and even though i feel fat because i am so full of water, it worked and i know it’s better my stomach stick out because it’s full of water for now than actually gaining more. proud of that. however, i’ve also peed more times than i can count today bc of it lol. it was very inconvenient.

i also only started going sub 1200 on friday and messed up and binged saturday, but today when my parents ordered out food i didn’t and when they offered fries i weighed out 6, calculated the calories, weighed out 6 more, and then promptly made my dinner because i knew i was just starving and that’s why i wanted more. and i knew that if i waited just a little bit my parents would finish them on their own.

plan for tomorrow is that since class is cancelled, i’m holding off on my prepped breakfast and eating it for my 11:30am class, and then bringing no extra snacks to school (made that mistake today, was starving and trying not to eat the protein bar, lesson learned) so i won’t eat them even if i am hungry, and then having my prepped lunch for dinner. i’m a little nervous because my nieces are coming over (they do every week) and i know my mom will make them something unhealthy like mac n cheese with ice cream for dessert. gonna try to stay strong and not indulge. trying to aim for sub-1000.

also been super nervous because i think the birth control for my endometriosis is causing me to gain weight. only a pound or two so far (not water weight or anything bc i checked various days at different points throughout the day) but with meal prepping and tracking my food for 6 months i only lost about 10lbs so a couple pounds is a big deal for me. it’s the third birth control i’ve tried and the only one my doctor warned me about weight gain on, and i think that’s what triggered this heightened obsession. maybe it gave me a good kick in the ass though, just hoping i can still lose weight on it if i keep restricting.

i wish i could just eat healthy and when i am hungry and be fit like most people. i guarantee i think about my food more than most people, eat mostly only when i am hungry, watch my portions, obsess about healthy food, and still stay the same or gain weight. how is that fair??

#thoughts #personal #rant #pro ana #promia #proana #pro mia #ednos #ed #eating disorder #eatingdisorder #skinny #thin #fat

0 notes

justwaittoloose · 5 years

Text

today was my thanksgiving dinner and the whole family was over most of the day so I did end up eating a lot more than what I would have liked/normally do, so it was around 1450 cal and I feel GROSS

0 notes

stellatateblog · 6 years

Text

Adjusting calories when bulking or cutting

This topic was inspired by a combination of this thread from POB and the generic "add/drop 500 cals" advice I see across the boards. We’re going to dig into data for bulking followed by cutting and, hopefully, give some more practical recommendations to help us do things a bit more accurately. Bulking

The caloric surplus you calculate vs the caloric surplus actually in play can be vastly different predominantly due to the wild inter-individual differences in NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). NEAT refers to unconscious physical activity such as fidgeting, maintaining posture, etc – stuff you don’t really think about doing but are actually doing.

To truly understand how large the inter-individual differences can be when it comes to NEAT, we’ll be focused on this classic study. – They took non-obese, 25-36yr old adults and fed them a 1,000 calorie surplus for 8 weeks. No training or exercise protocol needed. – Body comp was measured via DXA & energy expenditure (EE) via doubly labeled water. Both gold standard methods. – The results of this surplus:

Mean Range Baseline weight (kg) 65.8 53.3-91.7 Overfed weight (kg) 70.5 58.8-93.1 Weight gain (kg) 4.7 1.4-7.2 Fat gain (cals/day) 389 58-687 Fat-free mass gain (cals/day) 43 15-78 Baseline dietary intake (cals/day) 2824 2265-3785 Baseline resting energy expenditure (REE) 1693 1479-1990 Overfed REE 1772 1460-2040 Baseline thermic effect of food (TEF) (cals/day) 218 89-414 Overfed thermic effect of food 354 133-483 Baseline total EE 2807 2216-3818 Overfed TEE 3361 2508-4601

Most would’ve predicted that a 1000cal/day surplus should lead to a weight gain of 2lbs per week. So, for a total of 8 weeks, we should expect a total weight gain of 16lbs. Right? Well, in this carefully controlled study, only 4.7kg (10.34lbs) was gained on average. That means most would’ve over predicted the weight gain by 54.7%. That’s a big miscalculation.

Worth noting, of that 1,000cal surplus, only 432cals were stored & 521cals burnt off. Two-thirds of the latter through NEAT – the key difference maker. The range of NEAT increase was a huge variable (100-700cals/day) and explains why we have some folks who are "hard gainers". If you’re eating 1,000 cals more but also, unconsciously , burning off 692 of those cals then…that "calculated" surplus isn’t really what you thought it was.

Summary

So, how much of a caloric surplus is needed for bulking? Answer: it depends. For some folks, a 200-300cal increase will be plenty. For others, you may need to go 700-800. And for a select few, such as the person in the study who only gained 1.4kg (3.1lbs), 1000+ might be required. Trial & error is necessary. I’d advice starting on the lower-mid range (depending on how susceptible yo are to fat gain) and adjusting from there based on results.

How much weight gain to aim for? Here you go: – For natural beginners I honestly wouldn’t focus too much on how much to gain as long as you’re gaining. Focus on progression in the gym and dieting fundamentals (protein intake, etc) and leave the rest for later down the road. – For non-newbie naturals an average gain of 2-3lbs/month is PLENTY. For women in the same category, go 1.5-2.5lbs/month. – For enhanced lifters you can easily justify going to 5-8lbs/month for guys, 4-5lbs/month for women. Obviously it will depend on dosages, how comfortable you are with stretch marks, etc, etc but even at this rate I don’t see fat gain being a real issue.

Cutting This section will build off some of the stuff from this thread with regards to the metabolic adaptations that occur when dieting that make the "calculated" weight loss inaccurate. In other words, you lose less than you expected with NEAT playing a big part again. So, how much less and why?

Does metabolic compensation explain the majority of less-than-expected weight loss in obese adults during a short-term severe diet and exercise intervention? (PM for full paper) OBJECTIVE: We investigated to what extent changes in metabolic rate and composition of weight loss explained the less-than-expected weight loss in obese men and women during a diet-plus-exercise intervention. DESIGN: In all, 16 obese men and women (41 ± 9 years; body mass index (BMI) 39 ± 6 kg m(-2)) were investigated in energy balance before, after and twice during a 12-week very-low-energy diet(565-650 kcal per day) plus exercise (aerobic plus resistance training) intervention. The relative energy deficit (EDef) from baseline requirements was severe (74%-87%). Body composition was measured by deuterium dilution and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured by indirect calorimetry. Fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were converted into energy equivalents using constants 9.45 kcal per g FM and 1.13 kcal per g FFM. Predicted weight loss was calculated from the EDef using the ‘7700 kcal kg(-1) rule’. RESULTS: Changes in weight (-18.6 ± 5.0 kg), FM (-15.5 ± 4.3 kg) and FFM (-3.1 ± 1.9 kg) did not differ between genders. Measured weight loss was on average 67% of the predicted value, but ranged from 39% to 94%. Relative EDef was correlated with the decrease in RMR (R=0.70, P<0.01), and the decrease in RMR correlated with the difference between actual and expected weight loss (R=0.51, P<0.01). Changes in metabolic rate explained on average 67% of the less-than-expected weight loss, and variability in the proportion of weight lost as FM accounted for a further 5%. On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of the predicted values. CONCLUSION: Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. Although lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic downregulation should not be discounted. Brief comments on the methodology

– At 565-650cals/day, all from lean meat & veggies, we’re talking about a crash diet. – Protein intake was too low for both sexes (0.94g/kg for men, 0.9g/kg for women) and really needed to be at least 1.5g/kg in this context. – Not all meals were lab provided, which makes compliance issues (not doing what you were told) likely. Especially on a crash diet where we knowing bingeing is more likely.

– On the plus side, these folks did undertake 4 cardio sessions & 2 lifting sessions per week. Cardio started at 30 mins per session and gradually built up to 60mins. Lifting involved full body work (shoulder press, chest press, lat pull downs, leg press, bench, squats, upright rows & ab stuff) starting at 60%1RM and working up to 80%1RM across 2 sets to begin with before moving on to 3 sets per movement. Results & discussion

metabolic table.jpg

The main discovery was that weight loss was 33% less than predicted. Here’s why: – Resting metabolic rate (RMR) went down by 228cals/day (11%) & diet induced thermogenesis (DIT), which was only predicted not actually measured, went down by 236cals/day. That’s a total of 464cals/day explaining 60% of the less than expected weight loss. – 30% of the remaining discrepancy is explained by the fact that less lean mass was lost than predicted. The calculation predicted 79% fat, 21% LBM loss but LBM loss was actually only 18.8% (3-3.1kg out of a total weight loss of 16.1-16.3kg). That’s 90% of the difference between predicted & real weight loss explained. – The last 10% can be explained by lack of compliance by the subjects. Happens all the time and more likely with a study design like this.

Why am I telling you all of this? To show that predicted weight loss becomes incredibly inaccurate once you’re deep into your cut. It’s important to be aware of that and know how to react. Some metabolic adaptations are inevitable and easily explained. RMR drops because you now weigh less = less energy needed to maintain lower body weight. DIT drops because you’ve been consuming less food = less energy needed for digestion. Adaptive thermogenesis is the wild card, not directly measured in this paper.

Adaptive thermogenesis is responsible for the wildly varied drop in energy expenditure due primarily to a drop in NEAT. This drop can be anywhere from 10-27% depending on a myriad of factors (how long you’ve been dieting, how you’ve been dieting, activity levels, bf% change, etc). Some of this is avoidable – do not go batshit crazy with the cardio, do not have batshit crazy macros and do lift some real weight to keep your muscles.

Summary

So, we now know why predicting weight loss in inaccurate. What can we do about it? – Give yourself 15-25% leeway when it comes to caloric intake. Be flexible. That means being prepared to drop it by that extra amount as you get deeper into dieting. I generically recommend starting with a 20% deficit to see weekly results and rolling on from there. – Drugs will help reduce the impact of all of this. Not completely but more than good enough.

Dealing with women specifically: – You girls tend to have lower energy requirements than men and that may cause problems down the line. A typical smaller female may need 1800-2000cals to maintain. 20% deficit knocks that down to 1450-1600cals. 15-25% leeway knocks that down to an average of 1150-1300 cals. This is why women are more susceptible to eating disorders and health issues when dieting. – Health issues are coming once fat intake gets too low. Thyroid will absolutely crash if calories get too low. It’s difficult to track progress over a short timeframe due to the menstrual cycle impact on water retention. My point – taking extreme action can get you girls into big trouble really quickly.

My advice:

– Cardio, not taken to excess, will help tremendously. Do not rely on diet alone. – Diet breaks are your best friend – use them frequently. – Do not be afraid to reach out to someone who knows what the **** they’re doing. Prevention is so much easier than treatment in this situation.

Attached Images

metabolic table.jpg (59.5 KB)

Adjusting calories when bulking or cutting syndicated from https://ugbodybuildingblog.wordpress.com/

0 notes

ugbodybuilding · 6 years

Text

Adjusting calories when bulking or cutting

This topic was inspired by a combination of this thread from POB and the generic "add/drop 500 cals" advice I see across the boards. We're going to dig into data for bulking followed by cutting and, hopefully, give some more practical recommendations to help us do things a bit more accurately. Bulking The caloric surplus you calculate vs the caloric surplus actually in play can be vastly different predominantly due to the wild inter-individual differences in NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). NEAT refers to unconscious physical activity such as fidgeting, maintaining posture, etc - stuff you don't really think about doing but are actually doing. To truly understand how large the inter-individual differences can be when it comes to NEAT, we'll be focused on this classic study. - They took non-obese, 25-36yr old adults and fed them a 1,000 calorie surplus for 8 weeks. No training or exercise protocol needed. - Body comp was measured via DXA & energy expenditure (EE) via doubly labeled water. Both gold standard methods. - The results of this surplus:

Most would've predicted that a 1000cal/day surplus should lead to a weight gain of 2lbs per week. So, for a total of 8 weeks, we should expect a total weight gain of 16lbs. Right? Well, in this carefully controlled study, only 4.7kg (10.34lbs) was gained on average. That means most would've over predicted the weight gain by 54.7%. That's a big miscalculation. Worth noting, of that 1,000cal surplus, only 432cals were stored & 521cals burnt off. Two-thirds of the latter through NEAT - the key difference maker. The range of NEAT increase was a huge variable (100-700cals/day) and explains why we have some folks who are "hard gainers". If you're eating 1,000 cals more but also, unconsciously , burning off 692 of those cals then...that "calculated" surplus isn't really what you thought it was. Summary So, how much of a caloric surplus is needed for bulking? Answer: it depends. For some folks, a 200-300cal increase will be plenty. For others, you may need to go 700-800. And for a select few, such as the person in the study who only gained 1.4kg (3.1lbs), 1000+ might be required. Trial & error is necessary. I'd advice starting on the lower-mid range (depending on how susceptible yo are to fat gain) and adjusting from there based on results. How much weight gain to aim for? Here you go: - For natural beginners I honestly wouldn't focus too much on how much to gain as long as you're gaining. Focus on progression in the gym and dieting fundamentals (protein intake, etc) and leave the rest for later down the road. - For non-newbie naturals an average gain of 2-3lbs/month is PLENTY. For women in the same category, go 1.5-2.5lbs/month. - For enhanced lifters you can easily justify going to 5-8lbs/month for guys, 4-5lbs/month for women. Obviously it will depend on dosages, how comfortable you are with stretch marks, etc, etc but even at this rate I don't see fat gain being a real issue. Cutting This section will build off some of the stuff from this thread with regards to the metabolic adaptations that occur when dieting that make the "calculated" weight loss inaccurate. In other words, you lose less than you expected with NEAT playing a big part again. So, how much less and why? Does metabolic compensation explain the majority of less-than-expected weight loss in obese adults during a short-term severe diet and exercise intervention? (PM for full paper) OBJECTIVE: We investigated to what extent changes in metabolic rate and composition of weight loss explained the less-than-expected weight loss in obese men and women during a diet-plus-exercise intervention. DESIGN: In all, 16 obese men and women (41 ± 9 years; body mass index (BMI) 39 ± 6 kg m(-2)) were investigated in energy balance before, after and twice during a 12-week very-low-energy diet(565-650 kcal per day) plus exercise (aerobic plus resistance training) intervention. The relative energy deficit (EDef) from baseline requirements was severe (74%-87%). Body composition was measured by deuterium dilution and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured by indirect calorimetry. Fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were converted into energy equivalents using constants 9.45 kcal per g FM and 1.13 kcal per g FFM. Predicted weight loss was calculated from the EDef using the '7700 kcal kg(-1) rule'. RESULTS: Changes in weight (-18.6 ± 5.0 kg), FM (-15.5 ± 4.3 kg) and FFM (-3.1 ± 1.9 kg) did not differ between genders. Measured weight loss was on average 67% of the predicted value, but ranged from 39% to 94%. Relative EDef was correlated with the decrease in RMR (R=0.70, P<0.01), and the decrease in RMR correlated with the difference between actual and expected weight loss (R=0.51, P<0.01). Changes in metabolic rate explained on average 67% of the less-than-expected weight loss, and variability in the proportion of weight lost as FM accounted for a further 5%. On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of the predicted values. CONCLUSION: Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. Although lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic downregulation should not be discounted. Brief comments on the methodology - At 565-650cals/day, all from lean meat & veggies, we're talking about a crash diet. - Protein intake was too low for both sexes (0.94g/kg for men, 0.9g/kg for women) and really needed to be at least 1.5g/kg in this context. - Not all meals were lab provided, which makes compliance issues (not doing what you were told) likely. Especially on a crash diet where we knowing bingeing is more likely. - On the plus side, these folks did undertake 4 cardio sessions & 2 lifting sessions per week. Cardio started at 30 mins per session and gradually built up to 60mins. Lifting involved full body work (shoulder press, chest press, lat pull downs, leg press, bench, squats, upright rows & ab stuff) starting at 60%1RM and working up to 80%1RM across 2 sets to begin with before moving on to 3 sets per movement. Results & discussion metabolic table.jpg The main discovery was that weight loss was 33% less than predicted. Here's why: - Resting metabolic rate (RMR) went down by 228cals/day (11%) & diet induced thermogenesis (DIT), which was only predicted not actually measured, went down by 236cals/day. That's a total of 464cals/day explaining 60% of the less than expected weight loss. - 30% of the remaining discrepancy is explained by the fact that less lean mass was lost than predicted. The calculation predicted 79% fat, 21% LBM loss but LBM loss was actually only 18.8% (3-3.1kg out of a total weight loss of 16.1-16.3kg). That's 90% of the difference between predicted & real weight loss explained. - The last 10% can be explained by lack of compliance by the subjects. Happens all the time and more likely with a study design like this. Why am I telling you all of this? To show that predicted weight loss becomes incredibly inaccurate once you're deep into your cut. It's important to be aware of that and know how to react. Some metabolic adaptations are inevitable and easily explained. RMR drops because you now weigh less = less energy needed to maintain lower body weight. DIT drops because you've been consuming less food = less energy needed for digestion. Adaptive thermogenesis is the wild card, not directly measured in this paper. Adaptive thermogenesis is responsible for the wildly varied drop in energy expenditure due primarily to a drop in NEAT. This drop can be anywhere from 10-27% depending on a myriad of factors (how long you've been dieting, how you've been dieting, activity levels, bf% change, etc). Some of this is avoidable - do not go batshit crazy with the cardio, do not have batshit crazy macros and do lift some real weight to keep your muscles. Summary So, we now know why predicting weight loss in inaccurate. What can we do about it? - Give yourself 15-25% leeway when it comes to caloric intake. Be flexible. That means being prepared to drop it by that extra amount as you get deeper into dieting. I generically recommend starting with a 20% deficit to see weekly results and rolling on from there. - Drugs will help reduce the impact of all of this. Not completely but more than good enough.

Dealing with women specifically: - You girls tend to have lower energy requirements than men and that may cause problems down the line. A typical smaller female may need 1800-2000cals to maintain. 20% deficit knocks that down to 1450-1600cals. 15-25% leeway knocks that down to an average of 1150-1300 cals. This is why women are more susceptible to eating disorders and health issues when dieting. - Health issues are coming once fat intake gets too low. Thyroid will absolutely crash if calories get too low. It's difficult to track progress over a short timeframe due to the menstrual cycle impact on water retention. My point - taking extreme action can get you girls into big trouble really quickly. My advice:

- Cardio, not taken to excess, will help tremendously. Do not rely on diet alone. - Diet breaks are your best friend - use them frequently. - Do not be afraid to reach out to someone who knows what the **** they're doing. Prevention is so much easier than treatment in this situation.

Attached Images

metabolic table.jpg (59.5 KB)

0 notes