Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2013, 09:10 AM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 358
Gallery: Slimming-up
Stats: 180/134/135 5'7"
WOE: Maintenence - 5:2 (as of 3/1/14)
Start Date: 7/7/13 - JUDDD
Question About Calorie Deficit

Out of curiosity, I spent a bit of time looking at my calorie intake over a period of time, and compared it to the weight loss for the same period.
This is what I found over a 44 day period. I used this time period because I was so consistent on JUDDD and very diligent in entering my food diary:
Total calorie intake: 52,913
Total weight loss: 11.4 lb

My daily calorie requirement is calculated at 1800, so my deficit for that period was 26,287.
Which should have resulted in a weight loss of 7.5 lb...

Since my loss was 11.4lb during those 44 days, the deficit must have actually been 39,900...

Does that mean my requirement is probably more like 2100?

Hope someone can follow what my train of thought here!
Slimming-up is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 09-20-2013, 09:29 AM   #2
Senior LCF Member
 
jacquelinejolie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 385
Gallery: jacquelinejolie
Stats: 183.4/163/130
What was your loss in your first week or two? Mine was 4 and 6.4 pounds respectively so I figured that at least 2-3 of that was water so you might want to back those out of your equation?

I think Johnson uses the Harris Benedict equation which isn't always accurate (but fairly close, about 10% too low on me) depending on your lean body mass levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris%...edict_equation

Last edited by jacquelinejolie; 09-20-2013 at 09:39 AM.. Reason: add
jacquelinejolie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 09:40 AM   #3
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 358
Gallery: Slimming-up
Stats: 180/134/135 5'7"
WOE: Maintenence - 5:2 (as of 3/1/14)
Start Date: 7/7/13 - JUDDD
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacquelinejolie View Post
What was your loss in your first week or two? Mine was 4 and 6.4 pounds respectively so I figured that at least 2-3 of that was water so you might want to back those out of your equation?
This was 2 weeks after I started.
I figured those first pounds included water, even though my loss wasn't too dramatic initially - but that's why I chose this 44 day period. It was an uneventful and consistent time.
Slimming-up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 09:43 AM   #4
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 358
Gallery: Slimming-up
Stats: 180/134/135 5'7"
WOE: Maintenence - 5:2 (as of 3/1/14)
Start Date: 7/7/13 - JUDDD
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacquelinejolie View Post
I think Johnson uses the Harris Benedict equation which isn't always accurate (but fairly close, about 10% too low on me) depending on your lean body mass levels.
Harris
That's interesting.
I think I'll keep things as they are right now, since I feel like I'm not limited on my UDs.
But when I get to goal, I might be happy to find out I can maintain on more -
Slimming-up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 10:14 AM   #5
Senior LCF Member
 
jacquelinejolie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 385
Gallery: jacquelinejolie
Stats: 183.4/163/130
It's also so highly dependent on your activity levels. Since I've been monitoring that this last 3 weeks or so, I've had burn rates anywhere from about 1850 - 3200 calories a day, average about 2400. Whereas the calculator only gives a really rough estimate of that. ie. At my weight, the extremely active exercise max is only 2544 calories and moderate is 2286. I think most more active people underestimate this kind of thing with the "choose sedentary" recommendation.

FWIW, proponents of the Mifflin RMR equation found that the HB BMR equation is 5% overstated - so good for you if you lose faster than the UD maintenance limit!

PS - You probably don't want to be as anal as I was in figuring this out. I just couldn't figure out why I didn't sleep well on DD's and it appears to be when I'd go into negative calorie territory.
jacquelinejolie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 11:23 AM   #6
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 358
Gallery: Slimming-up
Stats: 180/134/135 5'7"
WOE: Maintenence - 5:2 (as of 3/1/14)
Start Date: 7/7/13 - JUDDD
Thanks - I think I'm understating activity level. I think of myself as fairly sedentary, but that's probably not accurate.
I'm just glad that if I'm wrong on calorie intake, that I'm understating and not overstating!
Slimming-up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 11:32 AM   #7
.
 
ravenrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,680
Gallery: ravenrose
Stats: lost 130 lb so far, and miles to go before I sleep
WOE: low carb controlled calorie
Start Date: June, 2009
those charts and calculators are just generalizations. no one's metabolism works exactly like that. you lose what you lose, because your body doesn't look at the numbers LOL

your metabolism can also change abruptly one way or the other, and suddenly what was working doesn't anymore. all you can do is pay attention and work with your body as best you can.
ravenrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 02:32 AM   #8
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tyrone Georgia U.S.A.
Posts: 1,215
Gallery: E.W.
Stats: 318/297/ a lot less
WOE: Fast5
Start Date: restart again 1/17/2014
I have seen two articles that relate to this. In one study about people doing JUDDD they found that the weight loss was more than could be accounted for by the calorie deficet.
Then in a scientific paper looking at metobolic rate on a total fast they found that for about the first 48 hours of a fast instead of your basic metabolism slowing down it was actualy higher, about 10% higher. So we probably burn more calories on a DD than we do
on an UD.
E.W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 07:27 AM   #9
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,049
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
That's interesting, E.W. I have resisted doing the math for my weight loss, and have been doing a rough estimate of everything since the beginning of starting Juddd...basically eod, with breaks thrown in, hoping to lose regardless of what I'm actually doing lol. It has worked, somewhat, in that I am losing but not very quickly. I am eating way more than my maintenance levels most days, so not getting enough of a deficit to lose more than a lb or 2 a month. I'm grateful for that little bit, but decided to step it up a bit. I am going to stick to my numbers, with set UDs and a high MD on the weekends. I hope to start consistently losing 3-4 lbs a month, and don't really care to lose any faster because so far I have not experienced the dreaded hanging skin, and hope to minimize it by slow losses.

My set plan could be derailed as the holidays approach and we are bombarded with lunches out at work, and goodies being brought in. I won't mess up a DD if it's not a planned luncheon, but I will most likely accomodate a set holiday get-together.

Good news is that we are off nearly the entire month of December for a HVAC replacement. That will curtail some of the partying.
__________________


"Never give up on a dream just because of the length of time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway."


"In every triumph there is a lot of try."

"Have the courage of your desire."
*Cindy*
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 12:31 PM   #10
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 358
Gallery: Slimming-up
Stats: 180/134/135 5'7"
WOE: Maintenence - 5:2 (as of 3/1/14)
Start Date: 7/7/13 - JUDDD
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.W. View Post
I have seen two articles that relate to this. In one study about people doing JUDDD they found that the weight loss was more than could be accounted for by the calorie deficet.
Then in a scientific paper looking at metobolic rate on a total fast they found that for about the first 48 hours of a fast instead of your basic metabolism slowing down it was actualy higher, about 10% higher. So we probably burn more calories on a DD than we do
on an UD.
So interesting! I know some studies have indicated that women do not respond as well as men to IE, so it has made me pay very close attention to the numbers, because if there is any sign of a negative effect, I want to know.
But so far, it's going better than expected, which leads me to believe that although it may be true that women in general are less successful with IE, I do not seem to be one of them.
The SIRT effect seems to be working for me.
I may regret speaking too soon though!
Slimming-up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 08:15 PM   #11
Senior LCF Member
 
Anonymousity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 310
Gallery: Anonymousity
Stats: 195.2/190.0/135 5'6" (highest wt. 215)
WOE: Low Carb/Low Fat Stills
Start Date: August 8, 2014 (restart)
Calories in doesn't always equate with calories out in those calculations. Protein takes more energy to digest, so that could play a part. And so on....
Anonymousity is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.