login
Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat?
-
No new posts
 2014-12-03 12:24 PM |
 1502   Katy, Texas |  Subject: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat?I've been maintaining a food diary (MyFitnessPal) since I started triathlon about six months ago. When I started I was around 170 with close to 20% body fat. As I started the higher training load I lost weight pretty quickly and steadily for the first couple of months then leveled off at where I am now at around 156 with about 9% body fat. Looking back, I was comfortable and fully fueled at an average of 1,500-1,800 net calories a day (gross around 3,000-3,500 ave). This stayed very very consistent for months until I dropped below 10% body fat at which point, like a light, my net calories increased to average around 2,100 which is pretty significant. I watch what I eat, but not really how much. If I'm hungry, I eat. I just make sure it's healthy and do my best to get the right macro-nutrients per my workouts (i.e. lots of protein after hard workouts and lots of carbs before demanding or long days). My diet didn't change and although my workload has been increasing, that shouldn't show up by looking at "net" calories. My only theory is that my body had the fat stores to go to previously and now that those are pretty low, it's demanding more food. At least that's my theory. The increase in hunger has been alarming but my weight is maintaining and even dropping still slightly. Also, since I dropped below 10% I have had a lot of cravings for fatty foods which is not normally something I go for. Has anyone else experienced this? I don't want to deny myself any fuel to keep seeing gains from training, but at the same time I don't want to overeat and gain back any weight that may slow me down. Below is the graph of my daily weigh ins that shows where the curve has flat lined. I use calipers to test body fat about every other week. (Capture.JPG) Attachments ---------------- Capture.JPG (34KB - 3 downloads) |
| 2014-12-03 1:25 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Member 1748  Exton, PA | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? Your numbers don't add up. If you are eating 3000 calories a day and have a net of 1500, meaning you are burning 1500 a day you would be gaining weight. About 3 lbs a week. If I'm reading this wrong and your eating 3000 cals a day and burning off 4500/day which leaves you negative 1500 a day you would be losing about 3 lbs a week. So by these numbers you should have either lost or gained 72 lbs in six months, which you did not do. you lost 14lbs. So your calorie counting is very bad, not really an uncommon thing. Calipers for measuring body fat can be relatively accurate if done correctly; they can also be way off done incorrectly. Was there a question in this? |
| 2014-12-03 1:31 PM in reply to: mike761 |
| Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? When he says net calories, it just means what he eats (3000) less what he burns off during workouts (1500). The net is 1500, but his body is still burning calories for the other 22 hours a day that he is not working out. So probably around 2000 calories, leaving him with a "real net" of -500. It's just the way myfitnesspal has you track your calories. Based on your lifestyle (not workouts) it generally assumes how many calories you burn per day. That said, I understand the OPs theory that once your body gets to a low enough body fat, it will resist burning that fat more...thus you need more calories from your diet. However, the bigger thing I see at play is that the OP stopped losing weight. It seems he was at a 500 calorie per day deficit while losing weight, and now he's stopped losing weight. So it does make sense that he's eating around 500 calories per day more to sustain that weight. It's not always that simple as your metabolism likely changes...and we don't know if the OPs workouts have changed...but that's one thing that popped out to me just based on the data available. |
| 2014-12-03 1:36 PM in reply to: mike761 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? Originally posted by mike761 Your numbers don't add up. If you are eating 3000 calories a day and have a net of 1500, meaning you are burning 1500 a day you would be gaining weight. About 3 lbs a week. If I'm reading this wrong and your eating 3000 cals a day and burning off 4500/day which leaves you negative 1500 a day you would be losing about 3 lbs a week. So by these numbers you should have either lost or gained 72 lbs in six months, which you did not do. you lost 14lbs. So your calorie counting is very bad, not really an uncommon thing. Calipers for measuring body fat can be relatively accurate if done correctly; they can also be way off done incorrectly. Was there a question in this? Yeah, I suppose your definition of "net" is much more literal than mine. I was using MyFitnessPal's definition which is just total calories - exercise, which isn't truly net. I guess anyone's baseline calorie burn is a bit hard to define, so rather than getting wrapped up in the symantics of it, let me rephrase: My overall caloric intake was extremely consistent until I reached about 10% body fat at which point it increased by about 20% seemingly overnight with all other things staying constant. The high increase in calorie intake has not really affected anything else, so I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this phenomena. Is this due to the body not having fat to go to any longer (or at least not wanting to) or is there some other reason. Are there any concerns with just "going with it" for now. |
| 2014-12-03 1:39 PM in reply to: Jason N |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? Originally posted by Jason N When he says net calories, it just means what he eats (3000) less what he burns off during workouts (1500). The net is 1500, but his body is still burning calories for the other 22 hours a day that he is not working out. So probably around 2000 calories, leaving him with a "real net" of -500. It's just the way myfitnesspal has you track your calories. Based on your lifestyle (not workouts) it generally assumes how many calories you burn per day. That said, I understand the OPs theory that once your body gets to a low enough body fat, it will resist burning that fat more...thus you need more calories from your diet. However, the bigger thing I see at play is that the OP stopped losing weight. It seems he was at a 500 calorie per day deficit while losing weight, and now he's stopped losing weight. So it does make sense that he's eating around 500 calories per day more to sustain that weight. It's not always that simple as your metabolism likely changes...and we don't know if the OPs workouts have changed...but that's one thing that popped out to me just based on the data available. You and I were typing at the same time, but yes on all points. One thing I'll note however is that my weight leveled off prior to my calories increasing so it wasn't a direct cause and effect relationship. My workouts have increased, however, that is why I am looking at net calories since this will take that into account. Even with an increase in workout time and intensity, the gross calories may increase but the net will stay the same all things being equal. |
| 2014-12-03 1:53 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 7547  Albuquerque, New Mexico Bronze member | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? Some simple math: Before: 170#, 20% BF means you have 136# of non-fat mass (muscle, bones, fluid, etc.) After: 156#, 9% BF means you've increased your non-fat mass to 142#. While you might have a marginal increase in bone mass due to training, assume that almost the entire 6# is due to an increase in muscle mass. Muscle mass requires energy to maintain. You're "feeding" an extra 6# over what you started with, so you'd likely need more calories to maintain stable weight. Now there are other physiology factors that come into play as your body fat changes. While about 3500 calories are stored in a pound of fat, it may take more than that to unlock those calories. |
| 2014-12-03 2:01 PM in reply to: McFuzz |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? Originally posted by McFuzz Some simple math: Before: 170#, 20% BF means you have 136# of non-fat mass (muscle, bones, fluid, etc.) After: 156#, 9% BF means you've increased your non-fat mass to 142#. While you might have a marginal increase in bone mass due to training, assume that almost the entire 6# is due to an increase in muscle mass. Muscle mass requires energy to maintain. You're "feeding" an extra 6# over what you started with, so you'd likely need more calories to maintain stable weight. Now there are other physiology factors that come into play as your body fat changes. While about 3500 calories are stored in a pound of fat, it may take more than that to unlock those calories. Interesting, I hadn't thought about that part of the equation honestly (i.e. maintaining higher muscle mass). The other thing is the crazy cravings for high fat food, which I've never had an inclination towards. That one is new. |
| 2014-12-03 2:27 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Higher Calorie Need at Lower Body Fat? also see: dietary thermogenesis |
|
|
|
| Dr. Ross Tucker Talks Low Carb, High Fat, Barefoot Running and 10,000 Hours | ||
| |||
| Colder due to lower body fat? Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK