Weight Loss
Moderators: Mollybygolly, spoiled_candy, coach_k, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


Finally Losing Eating BMR+?


Quote  |  Reply
Yes, the whole BMR subject has been the talk of CC. But it's hard to convince people--me included--that the key to losing more is eating more.

Anyway, IF YOU NOW EAT YOUR BMR AND ARE FINALLY LOSING WEIGHT please share the specifics for us hard-to-believers.

Tell us what you WERE eating, your losing situation at the time, what you're eating NOW and how much you've lost since.

Thanks.
34 Replies (last)
#1  
Quote  |  Reply

I've lost 65 pounds eating 1600-1800 calories a day, and I'm 136 (still losing), 5'4". 

You MUST eat enough calories to live, plus enough to fuel your workouts in order to lose weight.  Your body will not use its fat stores if it thinks you're starving.  It preseves and rations them because it wants to keep you alive through the famine.

body weight x 11 = calories to maintain your weight.

subtract from this 10%, 15%, or 20% (never dipping below 1200 for women, 1800 for men).  Then add in extra calories to fuel your workout based on your intensity level.  I never use the "subtract 500 calories" rule because if you only a few pounds to lose, you may need to cut out only a few calories, or exercise a tiny bit, and 500 would put you into starvation mode. 

If you have been crash dieting, starving, yo-yoing, you will at first gain weight on this because you have trained your body to operate on too few calories, so it has reset the bar down below 1200 to keep you alive.  You have to bring it back up to burning at least 1200 (higher if you're carrying a substanial amount of extra weight). 

In time, your body will get used to eating and will believe it's in a feast mode, so it will level off, and then start losing weight.  You have to be patient during this time because it's not an exact science - you can't say, "In 2 weeks my metabolism will be back to normal!" because it doesn't work that way. 

Every body is different and although generally responds the same, it's not exact cookie cutter.  If you've worked out and dieted with a friend, and she lost gobs of weight, and you lost a little doing the exact things....you start trying to figure out what you're doing wrong.  If you're doing the exact same thing, it's strictly metabolism vs metabolism, and your friend's may not be as damaged as yours.

I eat 5 mini meals.  I eat my sticky and simple carbs before 3pm when I'm most apt to burn them off (occasionally I bend the rule).  I eat fibrous carbs later in the evening because they're lower in calories, and I don't need many to couch potato out.  I do take fish and flax seed oils.  I do more weight training than cardio because muscle burns more calories than cardio, plus I don't want to look like a weak cat in a bathing suit - I want definition, and cardio can never give that to you. 

I eat almost no processed food - 99.7% is fresh or frozen, never prepackaged or canned.  I eat fish, eggs (toss the yokes), and chicken for my animal proteins, and seeds and nuts and avocados for my plant sources.  Veggies, lentils, and beans are my friends (as well as other good protein sources)!  I watch my sodium, sugar (cane, not naturally occurring as in fruit as an otherwise low glycemic diet balances out fruit sugars), and saturated fat intake and keep them below the USRDA limits.

If you can find fault in my ratios that are around 45% carbs, 35% protein, and 20% fat....I'm certainly open to entertaining another approach.  I'm not pig headed enough to think I know it all as there are always ways to tweak a better diet.  Even elite athletes can benefit from tweaks, and you'd figure they already got it down pat, which isn't always the case.

That's my two cents....take it for what it's worth.

Original Post by texmez:

I've lost 65 pounds eating 1600-1800 calories a day, and I'm 136 (still losing), 5'4".......

......body weight x 11 = calories to maintain your weight.




How is that possible? That would make our cals to maintain 1496 ( we weigh the same), and that's what other calculators say my BMR is around.

Original Post by texmez:

I've lost 65 pounds eating 1600-1800 calories a day, and I'm 136 (still losing), 5'4"...

...body weight x 11 = calories to maintain your weight...

If you're going to keep plugging the body weight x 11 formula you need to explain under what circumstances it's correct.  I'm currently eating way more than my body weight x 11 (like 4-500 calories over) and I'm losing weight.

#4  
Quote  |  Reply

You're not factoring in the exercise.....you have to add calories back in to fuel it, otherwise you'll be cutting into your maintenance calories, and you'll throw your body into a starvation plateau.  Look at what I posted:

body weight x 11 = calories to maintain your weight.

subtract from this 10%, 15%, or 20% (never dipping below 1200 for women, 1800 for men).  Then add in extra calories to fuel your workout based on your intensity level.

I'm eating around 400 calories over my body weight x 11, and adding in more as workouts become more intense.  I add in the calories slowly and watch what the scale does as there's no exact science.  If I gain, then I cut back a few calories, but right now I'm losing and eating closer to 1900 calories while trying to find my metabolism's sweet spot. 

Even if I didn't work out, I'd still be in a several hundred calorie deficit if I ate my weight x 11
i understand what you mean by eating back the calories texmez, but theres no way that 1496 is the  cals to maintain. If that were true, I'd be huge!!
#7  
Quote  |  Reply

Either it's a deficit or a gain....can't be both. 

I've exercised 5-6 days a week, lost a healthy 2-3 pounds a week, maintained and developed new muscle tissue (I use fat calipers weekly to track my progress) while using this formula.  I'm not starving in the process, either....   

Original Post by texmez:

You're not factoring in the exercise.....you have to add calories back in to fuel it, otherwise you'll be cutting into your maintenance calories, and you'll throw your body into a starvation plateau.  Look at what I posted:

body weight x 11 = calories to maintain your weight.

subtract from this 10%, 15%, or 20% (never dipping below 1200 for women, 1800 for men).  Then add in extra calories to fuel your workout based on your intensity level.

I'm eating around 400 calories over my body weight x 11, and adding in more as workouts become more intense.  I add in the calories slowly and watch what the scale does as there's no exact science.  If I gain, then I cut back a few calories, but right now I'm losing and eating closer to 1900 calories while trying to find my metabolism's sweet spot. 

Ok, I've seen you post about this "weight x 11" a bunch of  times. Could I ask what it is based on (why 11?), and what recommends this. Additionally...

First of all, your explanation states that weight x 11 = calories to maintain weight. However, this does not take into consideration normal activity level (sed, light, etc) nor does it take into acct exercise. You have given us no basis to further calculate that. If it is supposed to be sedentary (which from your explanation of weight x 11 plus exercise, it is), I can tell you that it is not correct. My sedentary burn is 1700, higher than the result from your formula.

Second, you state the same old 1200 min for women, 1800 for men (which is usually 1500, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this), which is, AGAIN, a very useless minimum, since it doesn't take into consideration an individual's size. BMR is a better minimum - see other posts arguing that, I won't continue on that point.

Third, you give 3 percentages from which we are supposed to choose and subtract that amount, but give no indication what weight loss would derive from these percentages, or how we should conclude which percentage to use.

I did a brief internet search, and found only one site that had a calculation similar to "weight x 11" - http://www.snac.ucla.edu/pages/Weight_Fitness /Weight_Managment.htm

It states that while MEN should multiply by 11, WOMEN should multiply by 10 (your formula did not include gender). It also said that in order to determine your actual burn, you need to multiply by an activity factor (for this formula, multiply by 1.3 for sedentary, more for more active lifestyles). On top of that, you would also add exercise. This site does not include any percentages that you should subtract for weight loss, so I'm guessing it is not your source.

You also seem to throw this equation around when people are discussing BMR.
1) THIS IS NOT THE EQUATION FOR BMR and should not be used as a substitute for an equation that takes into consideration your age, gender, height, and weight.
2) From your explanation, this formula is not even used to determine the personal minimum for individuals, and therefore is typically unrelated to the topic of discussion - which is, the minimum that they should be eating.

I understand that you are losing using this formula. And congrats. But I would really like you to fully explain where you got it and the rules for using it, if you are going to keep recommending other people follow it.

Thanks.

I was just looking at that site, and the calculation that you use to maintain is actually the calculation for the MINIMUM amount of calories you should consume in a day ----NOT to maintain.

I understand that you have had great success in your weight loss journey, but just make sure you have the right info before giving it out. 

My diet/exercise is almost identical to texmez. I only started losing weight after I increased my calories my about 500 a day!
#11  
Quote  |  Reply

Eating above your BMR at all times is extremely important.

The Body Weight x11 figure is garbage. A 200 pound male at 4% bodyfat has a MUCH higher BMR than a 200 pound female at 50% bodyfat.

Use a true BMR calculator for a more accurate result. These are all over the net. I find this one to be extremely accurate: http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/calneed

This is not an exact science, unless you're doing this in a laboratory. 

These calculations are all based upon averages and every individual varies from the 'average' in some way.  Your age, your frame, your body fat to muscle ratio, all of these will influence the 'average'.

For example, I am on the short side (5' 2" tall), but I have a large frame and I tend to be muscular.  Even at my absolute fittest, I weighed a lot for my height (132 lbs at 12% body fat).  Now I'm 20 years older and I'm having to tweak numbers once again to see any results.  It's been a real challenge to find the right formula, but if you're looking for a perfect calculation, you need to develop it for yourself, based upon your particular body and metabolic needs.

Use common sense when applying the numbers.  Small tweaks here and there can make all the difference for you!

P.S. 
the bmr site that imccarthy suggested was a bit different from the others...it gave similar numbers but told me that i should eat 500 below my resting bmr to loose a pound a week...I thought that we ate the BMR and do not drop below that...ummmm...guess just eat about that and see what happens right???

Kae - about the site that imccarthy suggested:

the first number is how much you burn in total (based on the activity level you put in).

the second is i think your RMR (i don't quite know how it is different than BMR, but it seems to be a little lower - I don't know if that's good or bad).

the third number is how much you should eat.

it gave me pretty much the same numbers i typically get. however, if i say my activity is "very light" (which I take to mean sedentary), it tells me to eat less than RMR, which you and I (and immcarthy, too) know is wrong. so i'm going to say don't bother with that site, and keep doing what you are doing.

thanks for clearing that up!
Original Post by imccarthy:

Eating above your BMR at all times is extremely important.

The Body Weight x11 figure is garbage. A 200 pound male at 4% bodyfat has a MUCH higher BMR than a 200 pound female at 50% bodyfat.

Use a true BMR calculator for a more accurate result. These are all over the net. I find this one to be extremely accurate: http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/calneed

 Thanks for that.  At 210x11, my mom would need to eat 2310 to maintain!  This website says 1510. Much more reasonable.

the times-ten, and times-eleven rules are:

1) for BMR only, they don't give you what you should eat to maintain. If a 120-lb woman eats 1200 cals a day, she will generally lose weight, not maintain. BMR times 1.2  =  sedentary burn, BMR times 1.5 = light-to-moderate activity burn, etc..

2) only accurate when the person is not especially overweight, or not especially muscular. Fat requires fewer calories to maintain than does muscle.  A person who is very overweight will require fewer calories than predicted, whereas a person who is very muscular and has little fat will require more.

The expenditure calculators on CC are actually pretty good - they take into account the alterations from being overweight, from what I can tell.  Honestly, you won't go wrong if you just pick the accurate activity level and go with what CC tells you you burn in a day.

Okay so I'm confused, I'm 5ft 10, how can I possibly only use 1470 to maintain my weight??? its not possible.

 
Thats like saying someone at 5ft 0 and me at 5ft 10 both need the same amount of calories to maintain or loose weight it seems a bit strange, its not a calculation I'll be using in the future as I can still loose weight without exercising eating 1600cals

 

.

Once again I am totally confused.  I am 49 years old, 5'5" tall and weigh 170 lbs.  I work out at least 5 days a week.  My workouts consist of the Quick Fix System by Gilad.  Some nights I will add in 30 minutes of walking.  I eat approx. 1500 calories a day.  I only started really keeping up with calories for the past 4 weeks.  I am only maintaining my weight.  Do you think I need to be eating more or less?

On this website I post my activity as light and my burn meter says 1990 calories.  I do not know how many calories I burn with my workouts.  These workouts consist of about 30-35 minutes of cardio and 15-20 minutes of sculpting.

Will someone tell me how many calories I should be eating to loose weight?  I would like to loose 1 - 2 pounds a week.  Thank you so much.

 

 

Foreverdieting - your BMR is 1470 using http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ , so eating 1500 is good.

 If your lifestyle (job, etc) is sedentary, but you are regularly doing these workouts, "light" is probably accurate, although you could set to sedentary and log them each day (some people recommend this. I just set to light, and don't log exercise)

I think you just need to give it more time.

Lindsay - that's why the weight x 11 (or 10) is not a good formula to use, especially if some claim it is for maintaining, but according to trustwomen, it's for BMR. If it isn't clear what the formula is supposed to measure, it's probably not very good. And you are completely right - there is no way that a 20 yr old 140 lb 5'10 woman needs the same number of calories as a 40 yr old 140 lb 5'0 woman. Use actual BMR calculators to get BMR, and use this site to figure out total calories burned in a day, and leave the simplistic formulas to others.

34 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement