PDA

View Full Version : Question on BMR / Cal intake for fat loss



bedroomsport
03-20-2011, 11:38 PM
I used a couple of online calcs to get my BMR

@ 200lb, 6ft and 29 y/o male my average (several calcs) was 2029.2

This is significantly less than multiplying by 13-16 as mentioned to me before, so that is slightly confusing (again, please excuse my ignorance)

From my understanding of this, as long as I keep the calorie intake less than that number (say 1600) and with exercise, it is inevitable that I will start to lose this gut and be able to correctly?

Is this too low, and also, would the best way to establish my metabolism be by testing the intake over a couple of weeks and seeing what happens? Keeping in mind my entire diet has changed. (no more junk, fried and grains) all lean meat and fresh fruit and veg minus the potatoes.

tom183
03-21-2011, 01:25 AM
Is this too low

Yes.


also, would the best way to establish my metabolism be by testing the intake over a couple of weeks and seeing what happens?

Yes. Tracking your intake is going to be much more accurate than any formula or online calculator.

JT111
03-21-2011, 12:32 PM
I used a couple of online calcs to get my BMR

@ 200lb, 6ft and 29 y/o male my average (several calcs) was 2029.2

This is significantly less than multiplying by 13-16 as mentioned to me before, so that is slightly confusing (again, please excuse my ignorance)

From my understanding of this, as long as I keep the calorie intake less than that number (say 1600) and with exercise, it is inevitable that I will start to lose this gut and be able to correctly?

Is this too low, and also, would the best way to establish my metabolism be by testing the intake over a couple of weeks and seeing what happens? Keeping in mind my entire diet has changed. (no more junk, fried and grains) all lean meat and fresh fruit and veg minus the potatoes.

Did this take into account activity??
My guess is your around 2800-2900 Per day

lenny spero
03-21-2011, 02:39 PM
who gives a shit about calories..just cout macronutrients and you will be fine..how are your macro's set up?

SDS
03-21-2011, 02:44 PM
Are you weight training, or just trying to lose some weight?

Dan Fanelli
03-21-2011, 05:04 PM
There are some more important questions here.

1)How long have you been at 200lbs?
2)Were you previously counting calories, or just eating whatever?
3)Are you weight training?
4)Whats your estimated BF%?

And to answer your one question, no. Just eating in a deficit and exercising will not necessarily get rid of your gut.

bradley
03-21-2011, 05:25 PM
And to answer your one question, no. Just eating in a deficit and exercising will not necessarily get rid of your gut.

So you are saying that being in a caloric deficit will not make you lose weight?

Dan Fanelli
03-21-2011, 06:14 PM
So you are saying that being in a caloric deficit will not make you lose weight?

Nope. Didn't say that.

f=ma
03-21-2011, 06:32 PM
Just eating in a deficit and exercising will not necessarily get rid of your gut.

So you are saying that being in a caloric deficit will not make you lose weight?

Nope. Didn't say that.

does not compute

can someone please ban him from the diet forum

bradley
03-21-2011, 06:42 PM
Happy that I wasn't just reading that wrong.. What did you mean by that statement Dan? Sounds like you are saying that not being in a caloric deficit will not cause you to lose weight (or your gut) as you said in the above post.

RichMcGuire
03-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Damn - I just made a long winded post about this on your other thread that addressed macros. I'm too lazy to copy / paste it here so hopefully you find it.

bedroomsport
03-21-2011, 09:38 PM
Well to answer a few of the questions above.

Yes I am going to be weight training, will do HCT-12 to start with after a week or two of stretching and v light training.
You will have to excuse me but I have bugger all idea about macronutrients or what they are however i'm about to read an awesome looking post from Rich in my other thread.
http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?142412-General-advice-help-needed/page2

1)How long have you been at 200lbs? Not long, its been increasing over a year
2)Were you previously counting calories, or just eating whatever? Eating whatever
3)Are you weight training? Will be as mentioned above
4)Whats your estimated BF%? No idea

Dan Fanelli
03-21-2011, 09:43 PM
Happy that I wasn't just reading that wrong.. What did you mean by that statement Dan? Sounds like you are saying that not being in a caloric deficit will not cause you to lose weight (or your gut) as you said in the above post.

What I meant is that YES, a caloric deficit and exercise will cause you to lose WEIGHT(mass). But losing weight doesn't not equate to losing ones "gut"(fat). To some extent yes, but its WAY more complicated than that. All a caloric deficit tells you is that your weigh will likely go down. Fat is ONE of the possible sources of weight loss, but it is not the only source. And that is why I asked the OP the questions above.

Dan Fanelli
03-21-2011, 09:49 PM
1)How long have you been at 200lbs? Not long, its been increasing over a year
2)Were you previously counting calories, or just eating whatever? Eating whatever
3)Are you weight training? Will be as mentioned above
4)Whats your estimated BF%? No idea

Ok this helps a little. But there are still some unanswered aspects of this. I'll just asume that you gained weight over the past year because you weren't really training or watching what you ate?

If this is the case, im going to take the EXACT same stance as I did in a previous thread. Rather than start worrying about exact calorie counts or macronutrient percentages, just do better than you were doing for the past year.

Start training consistantly on the plan, and cut out the "bad" foods. (It looks like you already are planning to do this, so good.) I wouldn't worry about anything else. I wouldn't try to eat less, or even lose weight. For all you know the amount you are eating now is not enough. Focus on the training and eating better for 3 months and see what happens. You should make good progress doing that.

***I'll even add a little note for F=ma because I know what he's thinking. IF you are the type of person that will only be able to stick to eating better by counting calories and obsessing about macros, then go ahead and do it. Otherwise its not going to make a big difference.

bedroomsport
03-21-2011, 10:12 PM
[QUOTE=Dan Fanelli;2451220] I'll just asume that you gained weight over the past year because you weren't really training or watching what you ate?

Yep spot on, I grew up my whole life skinny and was skinny up till about 18 months ago where i started to pack on the fat. Since I stopped MMA and weight training due to injury and moved up here to the middle east, i have just eatin out everyday, massive meals and do next to no excercise.

Main goal is to lose the muffin top and get back into shape. I MISS MY SIXPACK!

bradley
03-22-2011, 03:17 AM
What I meant is that YES, a caloric deficit and exercise will cause you to lose WEIGHT(mass). But losing weight doesn't not equate to losing ones "gut"(fat). To some extent yes, but its WAY more complicated than that. All a caloric deficit tells you is that your weigh will likely go down. Fat is ONE of the possible sources of weight loss, but it is not the only source. And that is why I asked the OP the questions above.

Unless you are dieting down to competition bodyfat levels it might be complicated, but just dieting to see your abs is not complicated. Slowly reduce calories below maintenance or eat at maintenance and add in more activity. Myaybe a little cardio or a few HIIT sessions on your non training days.

Captain Awesome
03-22-2011, 05:19 AM
does not compute

can someone please ban him from the diet forum

Lol.

BMR and what it takes to maintain your current body weight are different. Your maintenance caloric intake is factored from your BMR and your activity level. As a reminder; BMR is the amount at which your body burns calories through normal bodily functions and processes. That is, what it takes to keep you alive with "normal" bodily systems running (live/kidney function, brain function, other metabolic fucntions, etc.).

And 1600 calories is often too low for most people. In my opinion, it takes someone rather knowledgeable to run a low calorie diet like that and still meat your macro/micro requirements. So the context of too low depends on the individual trying to design a dietary routine @ 1600 calories a day.

Dan Fanelli
03-22-2011, 08:43 AM
[QUOTE=Dan Fanelli;2451220] I'll just asume that you gained weight over the past year because you weren't really training or watching what you ate?

Yep spot on, I grew up my whole life skinny and was skinny up till about 18 months ago where i started to pack on the fat. Since I stopped MMA and weight training due to injury and moved up here to the middle east, i have just eatin out everyday, massive meals and do next to no excercise.

Main goal is to lose the muffin top and get back into shape. I MISS MY SIXPACK!

Ya, so just go back to the way you did things prior to 18 months ago. Doesn't it make sense that it would work? Add in progressive resistance training and make sure to get around 200+ g protein per day.

Dan Fanelli
03-22-2011, 08:49 AM
Unless you are dieting down to competition bodyfat levels it might be complicated, but just dieting to see your abs is not complicated. Slowly reduce calories below maintenance or eat at maintenance and add in more activity. Myaybe a little cardio or a few HIIT sessions on your non training days.

I think we are in agreement, except for a few minor things. I still hold that in the long run, calorie balance is primarily a determinent of WEIGHT. This tells you nothign about body composition. There is a whole host of other factors that go into affecting body comp.

You cant just say "eat in a deficit and exercise to get lean". You may end up lean, but you'll also end up at 130lbs.

If the OP wants to maintain / increase size and weight but lose fat, cutting calories is counter-productive. If he wants to stay above 200lbs he probably actually needs to INCREASE calories. The answer really lies in increasing activity and exercise and managing insulin.

bedroomsport
03-22-2011, 08:55 AM
[QUOTE=bedroomsport;2451227]

Ya, so just go back to the way you did things prior to 18 months ago. Doesn't it make sense that it would work? Add in progressive resistance training and make sure to get around 200+ calories per day.

Well i've never been this fat/out of shape hence the questions. Plus i want to get quite big now whilst sheding this fat

bedroomsport
03-22-2011, 08:59 AM
I think we are in agreement, except for a few minor things. I still hold that in the long run, calorie balance is primarily a determinent of WEIGHT. This tells you nothign about body composition. There is a whole host of other factors that go into affecting body comp.

You cant just say "eat in a deficit and exercise to get lean". You may end up lean, but you'll also end up at 130lbs.

If the OP wants to maintain / increase size and weight but lose fat, cutting calories is counter-productive. If he wants to stay above 200lbs he probably actually needs to INCREASE calories. The answer really lies in increasing activity and exercise and managing insulin.

Lol i dont want 130lb!! Id like to be around 250, but lean. So far i have learnt its best to get rid of grains and anything thats causing too much insulin, additionally i have measured out all my meals and have a low carb higher fat mix , until i shed this unsightly muffin top and my developing "moobs"

First day back in the gym today went well though! :)

Dan Fanelli
03-22-2011, 08:59 AM
[QUOTE=Dan Fanelli;2451352]

Well i've never been this fat/out of shape hence the questions. Plus i want to get quite big now whilst sheding this fat

Sorry that should have been 200+ g protein per day. And what I meant was that up until 2 years ago you had no troulbe being lean. Something changed in the past 18 months that piled the fat on. As I alluded to in my questioning, it was likely your activity level went down while your calorie intake went up, and the quality of your diet went down.

So jack up your activity level, and get stronger. This is the most important factor. Eat better, and adjust food intake to contorl weight. Simple as that. At 6' and 200lbs just getting back into training I wouldn't change the amount of food your eating too much. I think you are good to go. Good luck!

Off Road
03-22-2011, 09:03 AM
First, you aren't going to get quite big while losing your fat. Get over it and pick a goal. Reading your posts, I'd recommend losing the fat first, then put on some "quality" mass later.

Make it easy on yourself...Track everything you eat for the next couple of weeks and track your weight semi-daily. Then, start by cutting out a lot of junk food like sodas, candy, and chips. That alone would probably get the scale moving in the right direction. When that stops working, you can reduce your food intake a little, but nothing too drastic. This should be easy to track if you've been tracking your diet all along. Most of the time the simple steps can have a positive change and are easier to make habit.

Got my flame suit on :)

bedroomsport
03-22-2011, 09:49 AM
Thanks guys, much appreciated. I sure have learnt a lot more about nutrition and fitness programmes after searching these forums over the last few days. A lot of questions have been easily answered by searching the old threads and you lot have been most helpful.

Regarding the tracking I have made some pretty decent spreadsheets (I.T. Nerd :read: ) It's quite motivating having a bunch of empty cells screaming out to be populated so I can see the graphs and changes!

p.s. that Primal Blueprint book is one of the best books I've ever gotten stuck into.

Dan Fanelli
03-22-2011, 11:02 AM
p.s. that Primal Blueprint book is one of the best books I've ever gotten stuck into.

Im gonna have to check that out. I saw it in the store a few months back, but never got around to picking it up.

Captain Awesome
03-22-2011, 11:58 AM
p.s. that Primal Blueprint book is one of the best books I've ever gotten stuck into.

Mark Sisson is a complete fucking moron. Do not buy into his anti-carb nazism. His theories are made up or manipulated scientific research, or just plain terribly executed research. Paleo is some of the most moronic shit I've ever seen, and is backed by a bunch of BS claims and people who refuse to accept knowledgeable research that puts holes in all of their nonsense.

*Got my flame suit on too...*

Dan Fanelli
03-22-2011, 12:08 PM
@ Captain Awesome -- I gotta disagree. There is plenty of research validating paleo ideas, and just plain common sense should suggest thats how we are supposed to eat. But these fanatics out there take it to the extreme.

Captain Awesome
03-22-2011, 12:17 PM
@ Captain Awesome -- I gotta disagree. There is plenty of research validating paleo ideas, and just plain common sense should suggest thats how we are supposed to eat. But these fanatics out there take it to the extreme.

Mark Sisson is one of those who takes "Paleoism" to the extremes. Granted parts of their theories are indeed healthy and should be applied by most; a lot of their other nonsense is just bullshit about carbohydrates and insulin. More of Mark and Wolf talking out of their ass.

Sorry bro, but I've been down this road many times with a bunch of "paleo people", and I don't care to argue my side of things much beyond this. I will give it to you though, some of their ideas are beneficial in terms of general health. Just not for the reasons they believe.

RichMcGuire
03-22-2011, 12:18 PM
Lol i dont want 130lb!! Id like to be around 250, but lean. So far i have learnt its best to get rid of grains and anything thats causing too much insulin, additionally i have measured out all my meals and have a low carb higher fat mix , until i shed this unsightly muffin top and my developing "moobs"

First day back in the gym today went well though! :)

Thats great if maximal fat loss is your goal. Of course, you're more than likely going to drop some muscle along the way if you aren't smart about it.

If you are attempting to maximize LBM maintanance while losing fat, insulin isn't always all bad. Insulin can inhibit protein break down and amino acid oxidation(burning) and it inhibits the activity of cortisol by preventing it from being released from the pancreas.

The diet I gave you in the other thread was moderate carbs to spare LBM but gave you some wiggle room if you did better with less. I'll just quick post it to recap since it belongs in this thread anyways:


The numbers I gave you include activity. Not just BMR.

So, 200 x 16 = 3200.

With the formula you used (Harris Benedict) you got 3145.26. My calculation was a whole 55 Calories off ;)

If this really is how many Calories you need, you should reduce that amount by 250-500 to start. So this would put your Calorie range at 2700 to 2950.

Now for your macros, you need to break it down further. At first, I'd keep things really simple. Aim for 1g to 1.5g of protein per lb of bw. So, lets just say you would want 200+ grams.

200 x 4 = 800 of your Kcals. You have 1900 left to spend assuming your goal is 2700. To get to that total, you can pretty much eat any macro nutrient composition to hit your total. But I would keep fat around 17% to 30% of your kcals.

The reason there is such a big range is because some people do do better with less carbohydrates when trying to oxidize fat. So to keep it simple, if you have trouble losing body fat, aim for a higher fat % so you can reduce carbs, and if you are somewhat average, then go for the middle. I will say again, a really low carb diet is not what you want though.

Putting it all together:

You go for 2700 kcals.

200 grams of protein. (800 kcals)

25% fat is 675 kcals / 9 = 75 grams.

2700 - 800 - 675 = 1225. 1225 / 4 = 306 grams of carbs.

If that number of carbs rubs you the wrong way (it shouldnt) increase your protein or fat so you have less Calories to alot to carbohydrates.

If you want to keep things really simple to start, then begin by aiming for just the protein and Calorie amount and not bother with the other calculations until you need to.

Also, keep in mind, when you go on lower carbs, your cells shrink in size - the grape vs. raisin example. This is a difference you'll notice after a couple of weeks by just looking into the mirror. If maximum fat loss was your goal at whatever cost, then I'd say go for a low carb diet - why not. But you said you wanted to build LBM or at least keep what you have. I think carbs have too many muscle sparing properties to just toss to the side.

I know a lot of the information on the net can seem overwhelming but if you just eat less and move more, and are less precise about at least some things (such as protein) you're more likely to drop LBM along with fat.

RichMcGuire
03-22-2011, 12:29 PM
Mark Sisson is one of those who takes "Paleoism" to the extremes. Granted parts of their theories are indeed healthy and should be applied by most; a lot of their other nonsense is just bullshit about carbohydrates and insulin. More of Mark and Wolf talking out of their ass.

Sorry bro, but I've been down this road many times with a bunch of "paleo people", and I don't care to argue my side of things much beyond this. I will give it to you though, some of their ideas are beneficial in terms of general health. Just not for the reasons they believe.

I agree - High protein meals can cause even greater insulin responses than some carbs. Besides that, whole grains are rich sources of important cardio-protective compounds such as resistant starch, oligosaccharides, vitamins, trace minerals, antioxidants, fiber, and other phytochemicals. Just look at Japan for example - their diet consists of mostly rice, grains, fish, etc and are one of the leading populations in several health markers including low rates of coronarry heart disease and breast cancer.

To quote Alan Aragon, "The primary flaw of the Paleo stance is the fact that it has not a shred of concrete evidence to stand on. Abundant research of various design indicates the health-protective effet of whole grains, starchy vegetables, legumes, and other plant foods. In contrast, the paleo stance has not a shred of direct, concrete evidence. It has plenty of conjecture, but no hard data"

But I think if this is discussed, it should probably be another thread as to not take away from the OP's help.

Captain Awesome
03-22-2011, 12:29 PM
I know a lot of the information on the net can seem overwhelming but if you just eat less and move more, and are less precise about at least some things (such as protein) you're more likely to drop LBM along with fat.

That's a nice bit to add in. Good post Rich.

Captain Awesome
03-22-2011, 12:31 PM
I agree - High protein meals can cause even greater insulin responses than some carbs. Besides that, whole grains are rich sources of important cardio-protective compounds such as resistant starch, oligosaccharides, vitamins, trace minerals, antioxidants, fiber, and other phytochemicals. Just look at Japan for example - their diet consists of mostly rice, grains, fish, etc and are one of the leading populations in several health markers including low rates of coronarry heart disease and breast cancer.

To quote Alan Aragon, "The primary flaw of the Paleo stance is the fact that it has not a shred of concrete evidence to stand on. Abundant research of various design indicates the health-protective effet of whole grains, starchy vegetables, legumes, and other plant foods. In contrast, the paleo stance has not a shred of direct, concrete evidence. It has plenty of conjecture, but no hard data"

You and I are on the same page.



But I think if this is discussed, it should probably be another thread as to not take away from the OP's help.

I agree.

Behemoth
03-22-2011, 06:55 PM
You have to do things pretty stupid to catabolize. Only a true novice is skeptical of weightloss not being comprised of fat, water, and glycogen.

RichMcGuire
03-22-2011, 09:22 PM
You have to do things pretty stupid to catabolize. Only a true novice is skeptical of weightloss not being comprised of fat, water, and glycogen.

I agree with this if someone is just wanting general fat loss - as in getting to 10-15% bf depending on someones set point. I think getting under 10% should be a little more dialed in. But again, I think that depends on the set point.

bedroomsport
03-22-2011, 11:04 PM
Mark Sisson is a complete fucking moron. .*

Holy moly, OK I may just have to put the book back down then

Captain Awesome
03-23-2011, 04:56 AM
Holy moly, OK I may just have to put the book back down then

Check into people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, etc.. Those guys are unbiased and have a ton of great knowledge. Mark Sisson has built an "empire" from making people believe he holds the key to success. So anything that will support his little cult of paleo peeps is good for money, even if its not true or has no clear evidence supporting it. And if things contradict it, he'll fail to mention it, or fail to take notice. Him and Wolf have a habit of writing off contradictory data.

The thing I like about Alan and Lyle is that they lay out both sides of the table (the extremes), then they lay out the in-between, and then wrap it up with how it can be applicable or possibly detrimental. They give you the information you need to make an educated decision on a topic.

f=ma
03-23-2011, 05:21 AM
i like how there are still arguments about low carb vs high carb. people just dont get it

bedroomsport
03-23-2011, 05:24 AM
i like how there are still arguments about low carb vs high carb. people just dont get it

It sure makes it more difficult for people like me, I have taken Rich's diet idea on, given that it makes the most sense and his results in his older pics kick ass.

f=ma
03-23-2011, 05:50 AM
fact is, any variation of macro ratios using higher protein resulting in a calorie reduction coupled with resistance training will lead to weight (water, fat, glycogen) loss and greater retention of muscle et al. the exact deficit you create and timing of certain elements as you reach lower body fat levels (<10%) is what will start to determine preservation of that lean mass.

Captain Awesome
03-23-2011, 07:01 AM
^^^ what he said.

Alex.V
03-23-2011, 07:44 AM
fact is, any variation of macro ratios using higher protein resulting in a calorie reduction coupled with resistance training will lead to weight (water, fat, glycogen) loss and greater retention of muscle et al. the exact deficit you create and timing of certain elements as you reach lower body fat levels (<10%) is what will start to determine preservation of that lean mass.


Damn you. Now what's left for people to argue about on the internet?

....


QUICK! Someone post a study!

RichMcGuire
03-23-2011, 03:07 PM
I think it's common sense (at least on the internet) that higher protein + reduction of Calories + weight lifting will work to help reduce body fat and preserve muscle. But that doesn't mean it's not interesting to look at other details that could potentially help someone even more to become optimal. Some people aren't even aware that carbohydrates help to maintain muscle or that fat helps with hormonal maintenance. All you need is 1000000 grams of protein!!!11!