I always thought that weight loss was as simple as:
If (calories in) - (calories out) < 0, then you have weight loss. I’m not even focusing on fat loss… just pure and simple weight loss.
My BMR (basal metabolic rate) is: 1725 calories. In other words, just to live through a 24 hour period, my body consumes 1725 calories.
My % body fat is about 10% which is in the low range for a male that is 5’8" and 168lb, 31" waist, “M” in clothes sizes across the board.
I have a ‘high side of normal’ proportion of muscle mass due to my regular workout regimen.
I work out 5 days a week and burn from 500 to 1000 calories per workout depending on my training schedule. Most of that is in cardio related activities such as running and cycling.
I consume approx. 1400 to 1700 calories per day (carefully counted). None of that in buttered pop tarts and the like.
BUT… my BMI is just inside the overweight range! AND I’m not losing any damn weight when I clearly should be given the number of calories I burn on any given day.
Your quoted BMR is an estimate based on population averages. As such, it’s very good for guessing the average BMR of a population of folks just like you, but it’s not hot at predicting things for you.
It’s not as simple as calories in vs. calories out. The body has feedback mechanisms that regulate your metabolism based on how much you eat. Once you adjust for that, you have to worry about what sort of things you’re eating, and maybe even when you eat them.
Welcome to the real world. While the calories in < calories out equation is true, the calculations for figuring out precisely what the calories in and out are is basically unknowable. Sounds like your metabolism is slowing down–either due to age or because you don’t feed yourself very much. As for the BMI, if you have a higher muscle mass than most people, that renders the BMI meaningless. Body builders are obese according to the BMI, remember.
I’d have been interested to see this posted in the other “fat thread” currently running, and see what the sneering folks who keep parroting “fatties are fat because they eat more calories than they burn off” would have to say.
Were I in your shoes, I’d probably ask my doctor. Thyroid levels can play havoc with your metabolism, for example.
BMI may not be, and probably isn’t, and accurate representation of your body’s makeup. BMI was designed for population averages. It doesn’t work well for certain individuals. It sounds like you work out a lot and probably have a lot of muscle development. Muscle weighs more than fat so it will throw the BMI off. If you have a direct measure of body fat, then that is what you can use instead.
This site tells why BMI may not be accurate for individuals.
10% body fat is well below the normal range for males.
Quicksilver, 5’8" 168 lbs isn’t fat. Seems like you just may have more muscle than most people. Now if you were eating and exercising that way and you were 250 lbs of fat, I’d be confused.
Well, technically speaking, it is that simple. Sorta.
The problem is that the human body isn’t simple.
You can calculate the calories in, but just how efficiently is your body USING those calories? Og only knows how many calories go right through our system without getting used at all. I figure that when you go into “diet mode”, suddenly the body starts latching on to calories it used to ignore. Talk about a lose/lose situation!
Okay, I can appreciate the fact that my body may not be burning 1725 calories per day as the BMR suggests. My body may be quiet efficient and burning as little as half of that. (let’s just say…)
If that’s the case, am I also wrong to assume that the work required for moving my 168lb ass through a 30 minute run does not consume the ~450 calories that is estimated by the various gym machines and personal body monitors? So even under working conditions I’m burning less than what is being reported? I guess that would make sense…
Anyway, I’m not so much complaining about being fat. I don’t really think I am. I’m just trying to reach a goal I’ve set for myself some time ago and I’m getting a little frustrated with myself because of this plateau I can’t seem to break for the better part of a year. I don’t really fancy eating even less than I do or spending even more time at the gym. It’s not like I’ve got better things to do with my time but I’m wondering now if maybe I should find some and re-adjust my expectations.
That works up to a point, but you’re talking serious diminishing returns. And if you’re at or below 10-12% body fat (18-20% if you’re female), then losing fat requires a different approach than what you suggest.
As others have indicated, it’s not just how many calories you consume but in what form and proportion. A diet that is out of balance–for instance, extremely high in protein and low in carbs–might cause you to lose weight but only because your body isn’t utilizing all nutrients.
The most accepted nutritional recommendation is a diet composed of 45-60% carbohydrates (mostly complex, nonrefined carbohydrates), less than 30% fat (preferably monounsaturated vegetable lipids like olive or canola oil), and 20% protein. If you are doing a lot of aerobic exercise you might up the carbs; unless you are engaging in bodybuilding you don’t need excess protein. You do need a certain amount of fats in order to “burn” fat, so extreme low-fat diets are actually counterproductive, as are those that fail to differentiate between refined and unrefined carbs. Fiber, although generally indigestible, is also important in providing bulk, scavenging the GI tract, and controlling digestion rate.
If you’re eating around 1800 calories a day you can’t really reduce your intake for an extended period of time without significantly reducing activity. (The calorie restriction advocates eat even less–often as little as 800 calories a day–in an effort to extend lifespan, but generally suffer from lethargy and anemia.) You can, however, shift your intake to more vegetables and low glycemic index carbohydrates (which keeps blood sugar levels from peaking and storing excess energy as fat) and try to maintain some amount of low-level physical activity throughout the day (frequent rapid walking or climbing stairs) rather than or in addition to concentrated aerobic activity at the gym. This allows for continuous use of glucose throughout the day, which results in less fat accumulation and “sugar hunger”.
Also, BMI is a rather poor indicator of fitness; it fails to take into account the difference between dense muscle mass and lighter fat accumulation, making a muscular person look “fatter” than they are. It also doesn’t account for differences in height/frame proportion. If your body fat percentage is 10% then you probably fall out of the range for which BMI has any good metric anyway. I’d ignore BMI and look at percentage body fat and aerobic performance as a better measure of fitness, although accurately measuring body fat is tricky unless you’re willing to jump in a pool with weights.
There’s no trick–not even vigorous exercise or drinking eight glasses of water a day–that will compensate for a correctly balanced diet. Contrarywise, the right balance of nutrients will make you feel full and provide the energy you need to want to be physically active.
The problem here is that you’re using BMI to determine if you are overweight or not. BMI is BS. Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson would be obese by BMI standards. Don’t rely on the BMI to determine if you are overweight. A better measurement is your percentage of body fat, and there you seem to be doing pretty well.
Your problem is not with your exercise regimen or with the notion of calories in vs. calories out. Your problem is relying on the inaccurate BMI.
I pretty much knew the BMI was not anything for me to measure myself against. I simply threw it out there as part of the other inconsistencies I’ve encountered with measuring my over all fitness level and personal calorie intake/burn rate.
The harder I try to nail down the truth of the matter (for me), the more illusive it seems. It appears there is no simple guage that I can depend on with any certainty to point out where exactly I’m missing the mark in order attain my goal.
Seems the only thing left is to visit a sports clinic and spend a lot of money on getting a physicall assesment with VO2Max, water displacement measurements, cardio output under stress tests, etc…
Dude’s at 10% body fat? What are the chances of him metabolizing his own muscle tissue in the absence of food in order to make up what his body requires given the workouts & limited intake?
Another vote for “bag the generic charts.” Back when I was in the service (heh) I looked thin, had respectable muscle definition & strength and aerobically was fit enough to run at a 7:30 mile pace until ordered to stop. We did 10k runs for fun! At 5’5" and 165 pounds at 29 years old I was well into the “Fatboy” category. The charts said I needed to be closer to 145 given my height and age. So while I’m taking all this heat for being fat, the no-muscle-having, gravy swilling non-athletic slugs in the unit didn’t tip the scales for want of heavier muscle mass! Phooey.
Get your body fat measured in a water tank and go from there to see if you need to lose/gain anything. You could be trying to screw yourself up because you’re working with the wrong numbers. Just sayin.
If you’re looking just to lose weight, then stop doing any strength training. Stop building up the muscles and you’ll lose that weight. Of course, I doubt that’s what you’re looking at. From your description it seems as if you’re alarmed that your BMI has you at overweight and that you can’t lose weight. However, from your description it does not appear as if you are fat (10% body fat) so I would venture that you don’t have any real problem except in your head. You somehow think you are overweight. Weight really means nothing. It’s the type of weight you have. It seems as if your “excess” weight is not fat but muscle. That’s not a bad thing.
Also, be aware that both the more aerobically fit you are, and the longer you exercise, the less calories you are burning at the same exercise level (although the more aerobically active muscle mass you have the more glucose you can break down per unit time). The former because you are using the calories more efficiently (up to a point) and the latter because once you’ve depleted the glycogen levels in your blood you shift from the Krebs cycle to anaerobic respiration to generate ATP and start to break down both fat and muscle via fermentation.
In other words, at the bottom end, aerobically fit people require more calories than sedentary people, because the use glucose more efficiently and consistantly. At elevated aerobic levels, an athletic person uses less energy than a couch potato, all things being equal. At extreme (anaerobic) levels of exertion, metabolism activity is contrary to preferred weight loss and energy usage, as you are using the lean muscle mass (in addition to fat) which otherwise promotes efficient and consistant use of carbohydrates. So, if you’re in excellent physical condition you are probably burning significantly less than the machine says, espeically as the estimates provided are “optimistic” in order to encourage users and bolster claims of how effective the machine is.
Okay, I’m back - this hasn’t gone sideways (yet). One other thing to consider is that if you’re not varying your work-out, you’re not getting the same benefit from it, because our bodies get efficient at the things we do most often (and efficient means less calorie-burning).
Another thing to consider, which others have touched on already, is that this might be a goal that you are better off not reaching, and just letting go of it. Goals are good to have, but they can also be detrimental. You’re healthy, you’re fit, you’re not fat, what more do you want?
Wealth, fame and fawning adoration by millions.
Everyone else… thanks for the informative thoughts. I’m going to research the link info and get it through my thick skull that there is more to life than trying to have a six pack. But just once, for a little while, it would be nice.
I guess that would make sense…
