Hello, I’m back on the weight loss train after a successful bulk. This will be my last bulk as I intend to maintain and train until I’m dead after this.
I’m a 125kg male at 191cm tall. Im a construction worker who easily has 15k steps a day, I weight train 3-5 days a week (newborn baby chaos permitting)
The NIH calculator says I should be on 4100 cal a day to reach my goal of 110kg In 180 days. The ‘to be a beast’ article says I should eat 3100 a day. All these numbers are wrong, and I’m wondering it’s thats a problem, because they’re very very wrong.
My coach has tracked me for years, and we’ve established that right now at this weight my maintenance calories is about 2800-2900. So to lose weight I’ve been eating 2300 a day, and even then the progress is very slow. I’m confident in my calorie counting skills.
Given that all the calculators say i should be eating much much more, i was wondering if theres a medical reason for my calories needing to be so low. Any diseases i should look out for? Or things that should be checked in general?
It is highly unlikely that your maintenance energy intake is actually 2900 Calories. I also do not think you’ve been averaging 2300 Calories per day during this cut given the lack of weight loss. I don’t know your age, but if I sub it for 35, the NIH BW planner puts you at 3600 Calories for maintenance with a 1.6 activity multiplier. I would not put 99% of people above that activity multiplier regardless of occupational activity. I suspect your maintenance Calorie level is within 200-300 Calories of that mark and that your current intake is averaging around that or just below with a bit of weight loss. ~3000 Cal/d would be a good ball park for weight loss.
I think you’re eating more than reported, which isn’t unusual btw. Even trained professionals who are incentivized to track everything are off by hundreds of Calories per day. Outside of medical conditions that affect water balance, there aren’t any that produce this response, though some folks on the internet have built large businesses out of convincing people their metabolisms are broken, they’re resistant to an energy deficit, etc. I would not do any medical evaluation for this finding unless there are other signs or symptoms warranting a work up.
In sum:
Find where the eating habits are leading to more Calories than being reported and address them.
Alternatively/in addition, change eating habits and environment so this happens by defaullt
Make sure to get enough non-occupational conditioning work to meet/exceed guidelines
Ok no worries, I’ll see where I can tighten things up, and maybe even increase intake a bit since 2300 leaves me feeling terrible and hungry. This Is hard news to hear since I scan barcodes with myfitnesspal and use food scales, but the evidence isn’t in my favour.
I’m doing jogging (7.4m/km) once per week, hoping to increase it. I even tried macrofactor and it had me within that 2800-2900 range and wanted me to eat 2k a day, that was miserable.
To be fair I am losing weight, just very slowly, about .5 - 1kg per month. Is there any evidence that counting errors increase in severity the lower you try to take your calories? Will increasing them a bit possibly lead to more accuracy?
I will jog more, increase calories a bit but probably not to 3k to keep ridiculous hunger away, and try to measure better, maybe use higher calorie options on myfitnesspal when logging.
Ah! Good to know. I’ve found the descriptions don’t pair well with the activity modifier. “Light industrial work” plus “active” gets you to 1.8, and I’ve found this to consistently overshoot (I think it had me at 3300 or so for maintenance when in reality it’s probably 2800). Even “Very light” plus “Active” gives a modifier of 1.7.
How do you feel about walking briskly? I would be aiming to do that for ~ 20 minutes a day, 5-times a week in addition to your jogging.
I haven’t looked into the lower intake, larger errors, but I suppose it’s possible. I think the difference in consumed portions/servings is probably the biggest issue here. This isn’t unique to you, however.