The allowance tool should be shot and buried!
The tools on this site use a BMR equation to figure out what you burn, the number it actually gives has an activity factor already calculated into it. This is the first thing that confuses people. If you want your flat out BMR, calculate it yourself, CC will not give it to you.
The allowance tool (ugh makes me cringe to even think about it) simply subtracts a deficit somewhere between 500-1000 cals from whatever you burn (depending on goal date) This is where the mistake comes in. There is no brain to this tool that tells the calculation to go "no stop, the number you calculated goes below the bmr!"
Me for example. I'm 5'5, 133 lbs, 22 years old. When I started on this site I was 128 lbs. I was losing weight slowly but healthy and got a little too excited when I fit in a size 4 dress one day (the only size 4 I have ever fit in, normally i'm bigger 6, small 8) So plugged in my stats to CC and put my burn on sedentary. I wasn't able to get to the gym very often because of school and I horseback rode 1 time per week. I figured I would rather underestimate my burn than overestimate. so the allowance tool told me to eat 1200 cals. At sedentary I burn 1700 so this gave me a 500 deficit.
BIG MISTAKE!!!!
I started this 1200 cal/day diet in November 06. By Christmas I was 135. I had gained 7 lbs and I was not overeating. By January 07 I was 143/4. What??? how could I have gained 15 lbs by eating only 1200 cals. For the next several months I started going to the gym more, but not consistantly and stayed close to the 1200-1300 cal range, I would lose a few lbs here and there and then would be back up to 144. At one point I went to 138 and thought I was finally losing, but within weeks I was back at 142 consistantly.
I had always read about BMR but I never really put two and two together. So one day while at work I sat down and researched and realized i'm starving my body... I need to allow myself to eat.
Around Oct 2007 I wasn't counting cals, but since cal counting is pretty much engrained in my head I knew I was eating about 1400-1600/day sometimes more on the weekends. I was still not excersing regulary. Dec 2007 I had a schedule that allowed me to go to the gym everyday. The first day I went, I weighed myself and the scale read....134! 10lbs gone, by eating more. Turns out my BMR is 1450. CC Allowance tool told me 1200, it set me up for failure. I'm not saying to not use this tool, just be more knowledgable than I was and know your BMR first. If it gives you a number less than your BMR, ignore it and stick to the BMR.
As your Calorie Count nutritionist, I hope I can help to clarify this discussion.
Estimating calorie requirements is an inexact science because individuals differ in the amount of lean body mass (LBM) they carry. For instance, two people who both weigh 150 pounds could have different amounts of LBM, hence different calorie requirements.
LBM includes muscle and organ tissue. (Organs are the liver, heart, kidney, lungs, etc.) LBM is not fat, water, bone, or waste. LBM is metabolically active tissue, which means it burns calories to do work. Men, younger people and people who “work-out” typically have more LBM. That is why there is one equation for calculating BMR for women and another equation for men. Both formulas take age into account. These formulas are standard tools used in nutritional science and Calorie Count does the calculations automatically.
There are also other factors that affect BMR. They include hormonal status (e.g.
hypothyroidism, the menstrual cycle), extremes in temperature, the composition
of the diet, fidgeting, stress, certain drugs, adaptations encountered in
starvation, etc. No equation can account
for all of those factors.
In addition to the calories burned for BMR, you burn
calories for physical activity. Physical
activity levels can range from resting to very heavy. To determine activity calories, the BMR
calories are multiplied by a factor. For
instance, BMR is multiplied by 1.5 for very light activity. At Calorie Count, the Burn Meter automatically
adds an activity factor to your BMI. Note, however, that the calories burned in physical activity are also an estimate
because men, young people and fit people burn more calories when performing the
same activity. Calorie Count gives you
the option of adding up the calories you burn in each of your activities throughout
the day, but that should be saved for activities above and beyond your usual
because it is a hassle for something that’s inexact.
The Calorie Target can indeed suggest a calorie level that
is less than your BMR if your weight loss goal date is too aggressive or if you
want to attain a weight that is low for your height. We have taken a liberal approach in applying our
calculations, but perhaps we should not allow anyone to aim for a weight that
is too low or to try to lose too quickly.
To set your Calorie Target properly, you should aim for a loss of 10% of your weight over six months (26 weeks). Look for an average loss of 0.5 to 2 pounds a week. Then, learn to eat a balanced diet within your calorie allowance and you can’t go wrong.
Thanks, Mary, for the thorough response.
Original Post by maryhartley:
The Calorie Target can indeed suggest a calorie level that is less than your BMR if your weight loss goal date is too aggressive or if you want to attain a weight that is low for your height. We have taken a liberal approach in applying our calculations, but perhaps we should not allow anyone to aim for a weight that is too low or to try to lose too quickly.To set your Calorie Target properly, you should aim for a loss of 10% of your weight over six months (26 weeks). Look for an average loss of 0.5 to 2 pounds a week. Then, learn to eat a balanced diet within your calorie allowance and you can’t go wrong.
Mary - thanks so much for this response. I would like to add one thing:
If I set my goal weight to 135, which would give me a BMI of 21.8 - so not underweight for my height, and I let CC+ select my goal date, so it can't be too agressive, and if I set my activity to sedentary (which is what I am unless I go to the gym), CC+ gives me a calorie target of 1200, which is 250 calories below my BMR. In fact, even when I started, over 25 pounds ago, it still told me that I should eat 1200. (Note: if I set my activity to light, taking into account my exercise, CC+ recommends 1500)
My experience was that eating that little did not yield results, and that eating at least 1450 (my BMR), did. I've heard from many that eating at least their BMR helped restart their weight loss.
My point is that my goal weight and goal date were not too agressive, yet the calorie target tool still recommended below my BMR. And because so many people on this site choose to set themselves to sedentary and add the exercise, many of them are receiving calorie targets that are too low, causing a lot of frustration. Maybe this is something that could be tweaked on CC+?
Just a thought on some things -- I've seen a lot of people complain about calories, amount of calorie deficits and time and such. Cutting back 300 calories may not get me anywhere quickly, but, you figure, if I exercise regularly, cut back 250-300 calories a day and be consistent, then over 6 months I would lose about 15 pounds. Sure, that's SLOW, but, when you figure that when I cut back 1000 calories a day, I end up binging, tired and spend 6 months gaining and losing the same 5 pounds -- WOULDN'T I HAVE DONE BETTER JUST STICKING TO A MANAGEABLE 250 calorie deficit?!!?!? I'm not any farther along by cutting more, just more yo-yo effect and more frustration. So, I'm giving up on the TIME, TIME, TIME thing. I have to lose 15 pounds by May 1st, blah, blah, blah. I'd rather lose 15 pounds by September and keep it off than spend the whole summer hating myself and going through the roller coaster of success/failure/success/failure. Gearing up and getting all calorie cutting bad-ass has not worked, so maybe it is time for a kinder, gentler approach!
Original Post by lizshuler:
yes you have to eat less to lose weight, but there is a point that should stop, it is possible to eat less and gain weight, case in point...me.
i never believed that. so its really true?
i agree.
if i eat around 1300 calories, i lose weight
if i eat around 2000 calories, i do not lose weight
my bmr is around 1700 (has it measured professionally)
i burn about 2200
i have lost weight before by counting calories. i am losing weight now. my endocrinologist advised em to eat around 1200 (she is a doctor dealing with peoples metabolisms for living, and she is a top notch doctor and scientist. i tend to believe her).
i have lost about 13 kilograms and know for sure it is not "water weight" - the fat amount on he belly is what is smaller.
who says 1200 is too little? is there any scientific backup to this? why do doctors say 1200 is ok, CC site says 1200 is OK, and some people on discussion boards say it is too little? i tend to believe doctors and this website, but then out nutritionist might have more info?
i am not eating less than 1200, usually it is 1300, but sometimes also 1500.
has there been any new evidence my doctor does not know? i see we have a nutritionist here so that she might know a lot, but i tend to believe what i see and am told...
are you sure there is scientific backup to "your loss will come to a halt"?
she is losign weight by eating an amount of calories that seems to be working for her and is not unhealthy. - is what i tend to think.
but i might be wrong - i am not expert
It's funny how my inability to eat just 1200 calories may have actually helped me lose weight! I'm 5'7" so I assume my BMR is higher than that. This is quite interesting...
Are there any lean/muscular 5'7" women out there who've had their BMR's measured professionally? The posted link says mine is 1400 cals, but I have a bit a muscle on me so I'm wondering how accurate it is. I'm 127 lbs.
Original Post by ebilebes:
It's funny how my inability to eat just 1200 calories may have actually helped me lose weight! I'm 5'7" so I assume my BMR is higher than that. This is quite interesting...
Short term only, I assure you. What you're saying is that you can't even eat the minimum the Mayo Clinic suggests to keep your body running smoothly. Oh, I believe you you're losing weight. For now. But eventually your metabolism, which is no doubt slowing doubt as we speak, will catch up to what you're eating. That is the essence of Starvation Mode, that your body eventually finds an equilibrium with your daily intake and that you will cease losing weight that way.
I highly suggest that you work towards eating more. It really is worth it. It works, long term, and you don't have to fear the effects of malnutrition that typically comes with eating too little.
Original Post by hkellick:
Original Post by ebilebes:
It's funny how my inability to eat just 1200 calories may have actually helped me lose weight! I'm 5'7" so I assume my BMR is higher than that. This is quite interesting...
Short term only, I assure you. What you're saying is that you can't even eat the minimum the Mayo Clinic suggests to keep your body running smoothly. Oh, I believe you you're losing weight. For now. But eventually your metabolism, which is no doubt slowing doubt as we speak, will catch up to what you're eating. That is the essence of Starvation Mode, that your body eventually finds an equilibrium with your daily intake and that you will cease losing weight that way.
I highly suggest that you work towards eating more. It really is worth it. It works, long term, and you don't have to fear the effects of malnutrition that typically comes with eating too little.
the way this was phrased, it's unclear whether the member is stating that she was unable to eat as much as 1200 calories per day or was unable to eat that little per day
I thought she meant she was unable to eat that little and that eating more had helped her.
You may be right. :) I hope you are right. :)
Reading back, I think you may be right and I was wrong. If so, my apologies. :)
Original Post by ka2007:
who says 1200 is too little? is there any scientific backup to this? why do doctors say 1200 is ok, CC site says 1200 is OK, and some people on discussion boards say it is too little? i tend to believe doctors and this website, but then out nutritionist might have more info?
No one says 1200 is too little FOR EVERYONE, it's just that it's too little for A LOT of people. Let's say someone who weight 100 lbs and is 5ft tall can get all the nutrients they need from eating only 1200 calories, do you think someone who weights 200lbs and is 6ft tall can get their minimum nutritional requirements from the same 1200 calories? Does anyone really believe that two people with very different heights/weights both have the same minimum nutritional requirements?
Original Post by peacelovehominy:
Original Post by lizshuler:
yes you have to eat less to lose weight, but there is a point that should stop, it is possible to eat less and gain weight, case in point...me.i never believed that. so its really true?
It is true, read this article:
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by peacelovehominy:
Original Post by lizshuler:
yes you have to eat less to lose weight, but there is a point that should stop, it is possible to eat less and gain weight, case in point...me.i never believed that. so its really true?
It is true, read this article:
yea but im not talking about 700. more along the lines of 400. is that true?
Thank you for this post I came across it accidentally and am glad I did. I think I finally understand how BMR and the BMR deficit work.
I currently weight 132 lbs, 5'3", 29.
My BMR is 1389 (This is the min. I shoud eat every day being sedatory)
My Calorie Intake is 1667 (1389 X1.2)
So if I consume 1389 my calorie deficit is 278 everyday.
On days that I work out and burn 200 calories my calorie deficit on those days is 478.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my analysis above.
On Average I was consuming 1400 calories during the last month and working out for an hour (walking 3 miles) 4 to 5 times a week. This gave me a steady result of 1 lbs lost per week. However, last week I decided to cut my calories to 1200 to speed up my weight loss and after reading this I realized I could have ended up in starvation mode...I am glad I found this thread. I will start eating 1400 calories again and try to work out extra to burn more calories.
Thank you all :-)
Original Post by peacelovehominy:
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by peacelovehominy:
Original Post by lizshuler:
yes you have to eat less to lose weight, but there is a point that should stop, it is possible to eat less and gain weight, case in point...me.i never believed that. so its really true?
It is true, read this article:
yea but im not talking about 700. more along the lines of 400. is that true?
Same theory applies
I'm so confused.
Apparently my BMR is 1800. I shouldn't eat less than that? I've been doing 1500 a day in addition to running almost every day or some other kind of cardio. Now I don't know what the hell to do. ;_;
Wombatboi - are you losing weight?
Yes. I've lost 12lbs already.
Why am I gaining weight after a gastric bypass?
After a gastric bypass, absorption becomes more efficient over time. And so, unless you have dumping syndrome, assume that absorption is not a problem... Read more