The allowance tool should be shot and buried!

After seeing so many people using the allowance tool number and then complaining about not losing or gaining I cannot stand it anymore!

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.

Then keep going the way you are going. If you find your weight loss slow, or you are worried that it is going too fast and you are losing muscle, then you can play around with your target (and increase strength training!), but if it ain't broke...

There are members on this site that eat their BMR and thats it! Whether they exercise or not.  Think about it, if you eat your BMR you have a deficit just being sedentary.  A bigger deficit if you move around a little more and if you exercise, like whoa!  So stay with the BMR, its required calories.  If you have a car that requires Super unleaded are you going to put diesel into it?

jjlewis - look through some of my posts, and you will see I'm a big fan of the "eat your BMR theory" - it's what has worked for me, and I often recommend it for people whose weight loss has come to a halt

However, just because it works for me (and many others) does not mean it is going to work for wombatboi, or that he needs it, since he is still losing weight. On the other hand, if he wants to up his calories "just to be safe", I'm sure he would still lose weight, because as you say, he'll still be at a deficit. It's a balancing act, and you need to find what works for you.

I did just look through wombatboi's old posts, and I see that he is 17 - to me, that is a better reason to eat a little more - you are probably still growing (even if you aren't getting taller). So if he does choose to eat more, it should be to make sure he reaches full height (anyone else remember the guys coming back to high school for senior year a foot taller? i do) and is developing right, not because some strangers told him about what worked for them.

dude i dont get any of what yall are saying. cc says that in order for me to lose 50lbs by jan 1,2009 i need to consume 1650 a day. it says i burn 2270 a day.  than  i put in my weight loss for the  for the week and it tells me  that  i will reach my goal weight by feb. so in order to reach it by jan i should cut my calorie intake more? i am so confused with all of this. i know that i am getting use to eating 1650 a day and dont feel  like i am starving myself. i eat about every 2 hours and i am fine. i think the hunger is more in my head than anything. i would imagine that the number is fine for my body. 

 before i decided to change my life, i would consume probably between 1500 and 2000 calories in alcohol  every night.  thats not even including the food i ate throughout the day or the food after i left the bar with the munchies. i think that 1650 is fine and that when i do add exercise that i can increase the number by maybe 300-400 cuz of the workout.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

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.

I didn't realize what I said could be viewed that way. :) No, I eat like 1400-2300 calories.  1200 is so low, I don't know how anyone can eat so little.

so i've been STARVING MYSELF THIS WHOLE TIME?? i just went to that website and it told me 1600!! i've only been eating between 1200 and 1400 (more 1200 than 1400) should i up my calories?? i'm so confused now.

Original Post by lizshuler:

{snip}
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!"

{snip}

I'm glad to see that someone finally addressed this issue! I used the tool to calculate what I should eat to lose 10 lb at a 2 lbs per week date and it gave 1200 cal. My BMR is 1235-1250 depending upon the site calculator. [I had enough sense not to follow that in Jan. Been there, done that.]

After reading Mary's response, I reset goal to lose in 6 mo and tool spit out 1400 cal which wasn't working by trial and error in Feb.

Then I decided to play around with tool and set my conditions to maintenance rather than weight loss and the tool told me to eat 1400 cal at the same moderate activity for weight loss in spite of the fact that Burn meter was showing 1900 cal daily burn.

In my case, there is something definitely wrong with the tool but if it works for others then it's case by case.

I've been on a plateau for 3 months and am starting to see some results at 1700 cal. In the meantime, Body Fat % has decreased and LBM has increased as measured by Tanita scale.

ok

I've been experimenting with a BMR calculator here: http://phord.com/cc/

Try it out and let me know if it gives you "expected" numbers.

Note that I don't use the 90-year-old Benedict equations, but the updated Mifflin ones.  Also, if you know your body fat percentage, there are far more accurate data available.

The numbers I got for the four different formulas were so totally different: 1555, 1622, 1140 and 1234 for BMR.

How about averaging the four numbers. I too have been hovering  for the past 2 months around the same weight, give or take a half pound. Granted, I've been lifting heavier 3 times a week and eating an average of 1400 calories. I feel and look more muscular, my arms and legs look leaner but not my waist and hips. I'm giving it another month at 1300 and see what happens.

Original Post by phord:

I've been experimenting with a BMR calculator here: http://phord.com/cc/

Try it out and let me know if it gives you "expected" numbers.

Note that I don't use the 90-year-old Benedict equations, but the updated Mifflin ones. Also, if you know your body fat percentage, there are far more accurate data available.

Nice form and work you have on your site.

Tanita doesn't use those outdated ones either and the healthy Body Fat% range, of 24-36% for my age, is much higher than other calculators. I got 4 differenct BMRs from using different Body Fat figure, as to be expected but then result is as accurate as the weakest input.

Body Fat %     BMR

0                     1181

26.5                1321

29                   1290

31.2 (Tanita)   1262

Edited: 3/25.  I should have added that I entered the same waist & hip values for the above figures.

Original Post by artiparte:

The numbers I got for the four different formulas were so totally different: 1555, 1622, 1140 and 1234 for BMR.

How about averaging the four numbers.

I thought about that, but it would actually make the numbers less accurate. I put all four on the page just to have the numbers to compare, but some are known to be less reliable than the others.

For comparison, let's say you're driving your car and you look out the window to guess how fast you're going. You guess 45. You ask your dad in the passenger seat to do the same; he guesses 42. You look at the speedometer; it says 49. A cop pulls you over and hands you a photo of your car with a radar gun reading showing 52.4.

You have four different estimates of your speed: 45, 42, 49 and 52.4. The radar gun has been shown to be the most accurate when compared with known speeds, so that is the speed you should go with. But the average of all four is 47.1. That is actually less accurate an estimate than the radar gun is known to be, so in this case it is not a useful number.

Now, in the case where you don't know your percent body fat, you will only get two numbers, both based on "average populations" of a certain height, weight and age. Both equations used are developed without knowing how much muscle mass is really present (muscle mass is the key to metabolism). Both are estimates based on comparisons to real people done in studies. But one is found to be more accurate in more cases than the other. So that is the one I use. If I average it with the "less accurate" estimate, I will actually be diluting the accuracy of the estimate, according to the study. It may actually be closer to right in some cases, but there is no way to predict that without more information (like body fat percentage), in which cases there are better ways to estimate.

There's a lot of number theory tied up and glossed over in that explanation, and I hope it wasn't too boring. Does that help explain why I don't use an average, though?

I don't have an accurate number for bf%. The form calculates an estimated from waist and hip, I had an estimate from another calculator that is 2% higher than this calculator.

So I punched in the numbers again with the body fat % and got a 30 calorie difference with the previous numbers. 

I think it would make sense to go with the lowest allowance. That means I'll have to up my activity, I can't live on 1264 calories. I wake up hungry on the 1400 I've been taking...

Thanks phord.

How do you figure your BMR??  I don't want to be making stuch a mistake

I've been using your calculator phord nice tool I must say...sadly I can't get myself to do the exercise...:(

I calculated my calorie needs at about 2300 and my exercise needs at 1233 a day for max burn, and I'm beginning to figure out I just can't rely on myself to do the max...or I do nothing at all.

I feel so stupid...but I hate the idea of losing weight at a really small pace.....Even the fast rate I calculated that was still safe because of my weight of something like 2.98 lb feels so slow..

I guess I need to just stop obsessing though and set myself some minimums to do so if I don't feel like doing 1233 I can at least lose something...

Body fat % is something I was using entering at 37% that I got with my digital scale...I stopped cause the weight changes everytime I get on it so I don't trust its accuracy.

24  male 6'0"  295 lb at looking to get down to 180....its on the high end of my healthy range but even it seems to low to me...lol

I may change my mind depending on how I feel if I ever get that low.

Okay so just to clarify something.  My BMR is 1500 calories a day.  I just bought a heart rate monitor to use when I run.  So i will be able to add those calories to my BMR correct?  Then I will be able to figure out my deficit easier.  The website said I should burn 800 calories a day to lose 1.6lbs. a week sound right?

More people need to be aware of this post! I printed what Mary had to say.

Increasing my calories to eat my BMR (thank you phord!)...how long should I expect to gain? Ugh, I don't want to gain.

Now I am REALLY confused.

Right now, I eat about 1500-1600 cals a day and don't get hungry. My BRM says to eat about 2100??

I also recently added about 30 minutes a day of exercise (stationary bike) into my schedule. Maybe because I was very overweight my BRM is too large?

I find the science of dietint TOTALLY confusing! Can anyone explain it to make it more simple? I feel ignorant...yet have a master's degree.