BMR

SparkPoints: (50,830)
Fitness Minutes: (21,866)
Posts: 2,104
8/5/12 9:49 P

My guess is slightly different - It is more than likely that majority of your lost weight resulted from water loss.

Body Fat %: 25.0

30 27 24 21

18

SparkPoints: (13,865)
Fitness Minutes: (10,813)
Posts: 936
8/5/12 7:55 A

I had a couple weeks like you just described and I was beyond starving. I think I was in week 4-6 It was like my metabolism jumped into high gear. It stopped...LOL During that time, I ate at the high end of my range and over. I was craving protein and carbs. I couldn't get enough whole wheat spaghetti and eggs. And that is what I was hungry for, I had no desire for junk. All I can say is if you are truly hungry EAT and monitor your progress as well as your hunger cues. Listen to your body it will tell you what it needs...learning to know what it needs and what it wants are two different things. So if your hungry for lean proteins and healthy carbs...my guess is that you need them. You won't be doing yourself any favors by not eating enough.

current weight: 112.0

131 126.25 121.5 116.75

112

Posts: 33,304
8/5/12 2:26 A

Yeah sorry, you can't really take one week and say something works or not. It's entirely plausible your BMR is higher than calculated - we're all individuals. But it's much more likely that you're simply experiencing a peak in loss at the moment, as is normal with all weight loss. It's not linear and it isn't always exactly one pound per 3,500 calorie deficit. But over a much longer period of time, like months and years, it'll roughly average out to that.

It's also far more likely that you are burning more than giving yourself credit for, than that your BMR is higher than expected. Exercise estimates are really just "estimates" and way off on many things. Unless you're using an HRM to calculate all that, I'd guess that's where the biggest difference is most likely to be.

SparkPoints: (42,243)
Fitness Minutes: (12,476)
Posts: 7,924
8/4/12 9:07 P

BMRs are not an exact science, and our bodies are not calculators. Often, the numbers can be completely perfect, and things will not behave the way we expect. It may be that your metabolism is higher, you've shed a larger number of water weight pounds, or whatever. I wouldn't fret overmuch unless you continue this pattern for a few months. It's unlikely you'll sustain that rate of weight loss long; heck, I lost my first 14 pounds here in three weeks. :)

From what I've been able to gather, you've only been back for a couple of weeks; this is all normal, and it's unlikely you'll sustain this rate for long. IT's very common to lose very fast in the beginning... it'll level out.

current weight: 187.4

211 197 183 169

155

SparkPoints: (20,327)
Fitness Minutes: (4,399)
Posts: 1,249
8/4/12 8:59 P

Now before I start, I would like to point out that I am not "complaining"... more of a curiosity on how these things are figured out.

My BMR is obviously higher than the reports here say it is. below are my calorie deficites of each day of the past week. ...

7/29 - 451
7/30 - +435 (over ate + no exercise)
7/31 - 455
8/1 - 730
8/2 - 359
8/3 - 472
8/4 - 1203
TOTAL- 3235

according too my report, it says I should have lost barely 1lb this week... I lost 3. (again, not complaining lol)

another site I have used for things tells me my bmr is a tad higher than it is here, but even through them my total deficit is4830, which breaks down to 1.3lbs.

So basically, what it comes down to is that either my BMR is MUCH higher than the "average" or I burn more calories when working out than the average person. Like double. Again, soooo not complaining lol I'm just really confused. And this may explain why eating 2100 calories on a day that I've exercised, I'm starving lol

current weight: 227.4

250 230 210 190

170