1,000 Calorie Challenge!
Options
Replies
-
christinev297 wrote: »heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.christinev297 wrote: »I've been researching this for days and right now I'm just emotionally and physically drained. And obviously feeling sorry for myself to boot
It can be a bit overwhelming, especially as you try to make sense of more and more data. Sometimes it helps to take it back to the most basic of basics -- Are you losing weight? Yes. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? Yes. Good, keep doing what you're doing.
- Are you losing weight? Yes. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? No. Eat a little more.
- Are you losing weight? No. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? Yes. Eat a little less.
- Are you losing weight? No. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? No. Something is amiss. See a doc and/or re-evaluate what you're actually doing.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
meh.Pro? I am flattered, but not quite . Just an amateur who loves triathlon and bike racing
I don't believe you need to be paid- or sponsered to be a pro.
If you invest your life into it- and spend all your time and energy and resources (or most of it) then I think that makes you a pro. I know dancers who dedicate their lives to working on a whole nother level- and don't get paid.
getting paid/sponsored =/= pro.
Isn't that exactly what professional means? You can be an amateur and still be an expert. US Olympic athletes were just this for decades until recently. They would dedicate their lives to their sport but they were not pros. Amateur is not a pejorative.
I don't think so. I know plenty of pro's who shouldn't be... but coming from a very subjective 'sport' or field (as a dancer) professional doesn't mean you're getting paid- plenty of people get paid to do things aren't professionals.
One of the girls I study with- she's the assistant director/manager- she doesn't' get paid- she teachers- but only because she has a wealth of information- but she doesn't' go to paid gigs- and she isn't teaching regularly.
She's still a professional in EVER sense of the word. So yeah- if you're getting paid you're "a professional" but to me even if you aren't top tier- or even not getting paid but it's your life's calling- that's a prof.
Perhaps given that I'm looking from a subject field verses a completely objective one it's a little different- so I would say I have a slightly different colored glass lens through which I few things- our market is flooded with "pro's" who shouldn't be.
Triathlon isn't really a subjective sport. There are very specific requirements for becoming a "professional" triathlete.
(all due respect to Glevinso, I really have no idea where he may fall within the rankings, just discussing the topic, not his performance).
For what it's worth I am usually in the top 10% at my local races with fields around 1000. I can usually podium in my age group, if not win it outright.
I am, however, not nearly fast enough to earn a official USA Triathlon Pro License. I would need to drop a good 15 minutes off my Olympic distance time to get in the running for that kind of speed. Although this year I am starting to see my times come way down so who knows, maybe this is the year I break 2 hours at the Oly...0 -
-
This was a fun morning read!
Off to burn 3400 calories walking my dog in from the backyard to the front!
0 -
Count me in!0
-
Here's the thing ... IF the OP thinks she is burning 1000 calories per hour (not likely, but let's go with that for a moment), then really, the challenge she is proposing is to exercise for 1 hour per day.
We already have challenges similar to that here. The 24-hours of exercise in the month of April is one of them ... several of us do well over 24 hours already. Easily 30 hours (1 hour/day).
Not really the challenge looked more like people were being asked to see if they wnated to participate in burning 1000 calories a day through exercise. You could walk, cycle, gym or whatever, there wasnt a time limit other than you did it during the day. Perfectly doable if you apply and pace yourself. It wasnt meant to be for anyone who doesnt have the time or determination to do it, which is why its called a challenge.
I burned over 1000 yesterday because I put in the duration and intensity required. Will do it again today.
0 -
I'm ALL in.
Saturday, April 11 - 1845 calories (2:02:48 on the singlespeed hot laps stateside)
Sunday, April 12 - BUST (dang Air France flight was delayed in Detroit making me 3 1/2 hours late to Paris. By the time I caught another flight and got back to Germany, it was too dark to ride. Plenty of calories burned in frustration, but no way Sunday qualified - so reset for Monday.)
Monday, April 13 - 1289 calories (2:17:22 easy Zone 1/2 road bike ride)
Tuesday, April 14 - 1500 calories (2:05:41 Zone 2 road bike ride - hit 1000 calories at the 1:26 point)
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
0 -
Epic!So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Your rest weeks are double my regular weeks bahaha
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I guess the most important thing I need to know is....
when my fitbit syncs with mfp and it gives me my calories burned, these numbers are completely incorrect?
Which leads me to my next question of.... why did I bother getting a fitbit and syncing it to mfp when I can't go by the numbers it's giving me??
Sorry, I'm seriously about to lose the plot
The numbers are probably right on the money within 5%.
Those are NOT calories burned from just exercise though.
Look at yesterday's total daily burn on Fitbit. What was it?
Look at MFP's Goals tab - Calorie burn from daily activity. What is it?
And this figure is based on your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Fitbit - MFP = calorie adjustment.
End of story.
The Fitbit side floats around, the MFP side is static until weight drops, therefore BMR drops, therefore estimated daily calories burned drops.
But Fitbit would see this same effect as weight drops, because you'll burn less moving around.
What was said was if you increased your activity level to probably a more honest lightly active - MFP would estimate you'd burn more without exercise.
So Fitbit - MFP that is 150 higher = lower calorie adjustment.
Read through this, 2nd section, it'll help understand the math.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.
I think the best bet for me is to NOT eat any of my "exercise" calories, whatever the F they may be, back.
I'm sitting here in tears right now. I'm just going to keep on doing my 20,000 + steps (10 miles) everyday, and just hope that spending the majority of my waking hours walking is doing something, and what will be will be...
I don't know if this will help...
MFP gives me 1400 calories at lightly active losing 1lb per week.
I don't add any exercise calories to that until I have hit 10,000 steps and then I add 200 calories to my limit.
Then for each additional 5,000 steps I add another 200 calories.
I seldom eat the entire amount back but it gives me a little room if I need it. Also if I want to splurge occasionally I know that I have some left over calories.
I came up with this formula by calculating what my calories were at each different activity level on MFP and then tied them in to the activity levels for the number of steps.
If I do any resistance training I don't add those calories at all. Believe me...my resistance training is not that intense!
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
I want to be you when I grow up.
On a related note -how do you like training peaks? I keep contemplating using it to track mileage and work outs, as I use an old school notebook and forget to update it at least twice a week...0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
I want to be you when I grow up.
On a related note -how do you like training peaks? I keep contemplating using it to track mileage and work outs, as I use an old school notebook and forget to update it at least twice a week...
I have a coach, and Training Peaks is how we coordinate and schedule the training. I like it very much. The premium version has a bunch of features that are really useful when doing performance analysis. The free version is also great for tracking. I use a Garmin 920xt to track all of my training, so I never "forget" to update Training Peaks. It just happens automatically as soon as my workout is over. I save the data file on my watch and within a minute or so it is uploaded to Garmin Connect, Strava, Training Peaks and MFP.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »10 miles is the goal I strive for everyday. I'm walking right now and trying to read and type this!
It's just everything I've been reading on here lately pretty much says don't bother counting walking calories. Then others say definitely add your walking calories!
And then there's the numbers, and the percentages and the miles per hours mixed with the length of stride and on and on it goes! It doesn't help that I do not have a head for numbers..
So I think I'll stick with what I said above and just eat my normal calories and completely ignore the adjustments.
Thankyou all for your help, I truly appreciate the time you've taken
I've been researching this for days and right now I'm just emotionally and physically drained. And obviously feeling sorry for myself to boot
Think of it this way.
MFP made an estimate of what you will burn daily, based on nothing more than your BMR and your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Are you Sedentary?
Then they take a deficit off for eating goal, say 500 calories, to cause 1 lb weekly loss.
That may be reasonable and keep your body from getting stressed out - if you keep just a 500 cal deficit. (then again even that may not be reasonable at this point)
Fitbit is making a MUCH better estimate of what you burn daily based on your actual activity.
It is sending that figure to MFP.
MFP is correcting itself to the better estimate, removing the deficit for weight loss, and giving you an adjustment, and adjusting your eating goal.
Eat your goal as given by MFP, which includes the adjustment.
If you don't understand the tools, not sure why you'd think it would be better not to use them as designed.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
Exactly. I just did a rough estimate of my average training load for those weeks listed above and it is around 12:30 per week. The rest weeks were at 10 hours, most of the other weeks between 11:30 and 13:30. This week I am going to 15 hours.
So for the OP's benefit... burning 1000 calories per day on average requires an average of 12ish hours per week of training at a rather intense level. Every. Single. Day. That is not "walking with some jogging for an hour". That is running at sub 8:00 pace for an hour, plus a swim. Or riding a set of hard intervals at SuperLT for an hour and a half. Or running 12 miles at 8:00 pace.
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.0 -
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.
Did you see the Joe Friel article on calling for changing the name from "recovery" to "adaptation"?
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2015/04/supercompensation.html
0 -
No I didn't so thanks for pointing me there. It is rare that I have a complete "day off" where I truly have nothing scheduled. Sometimes I might have only a core strength session to do, but more often than not my recovery/rest days still include a small effort of some kind. Like a 45-60 minute ride at 120 watts. Or a 30 minute run at way slower than I am even comfortable running. Or a 45 minute "technique and drills" session in the pool.0
-
chivalryder wrote: »So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
Exactly. I just did a rough estimate of my average training load for those weeks listed above and it is around 12:30 per week. The rest weeks were at 10 hours, most of the other weeks between 11:30 and 13:30. This week I am going to 15 hours.
So for the OP's benefit... burning 1000 calories per day on average requires an average of 12ish hours per week of training at a rather intense level. Every. Single. Day. That is not "walking with some jogging for an hour". That is running at sub 8:00 pace for an hour, plus a swim. Or riding a set of hard intervals at SuperLT for an hour and a half. Or running 12 miles at 8:00 pace.
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.
This made me curious. I went back and looked at my burns per month for ultra training - the highest month was 36,206. So about 9000 cals per week (just running - this is Garmin so I don't have my burns for hiking or strength training). So that is about 70-80 miles per week, mixed between hard core trail work and speedwork on the roads.
But I guess this just reiterates the point - its something endurance athletes do all the time. Perhaps not best for a relative noob to jump into high level endurance training for one week for funsies. Also it gives you an idea of the actual intensity you have to be training at to log those kinds of burns. It sure as hell ain't 'walk/run for an hour'.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I guess the most important thing I need to know is....
when my fitbit syncs with mfp and it gives me my calories burned, these numbers are completely incorrect?
Which leads me to my next question of.... why did I bother getting a fitbit and syncing it to mfp when I can't go by the numbers it's giving me??
Sorry, I'm seriously about to lose the plot
The numbers are probably right on the money within 5%.
Those are NOT calories burned from just exercise though.
Look at yesterday's total daily burn on Fitbit. What was it?
Look at MFP's Goals tab - Calorie burn from daily activity. What is it?
And this figure is based on your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Fitbit - MFP = calorie adjustment.
End of story.
The Fitbit side floats around, the MFP side is static until weight drops, therefore BMR drops, therefore estimated daily calories burned drops.
But Fitbit would see this same effect as weight drops, because you'll burn less moving around.
What was said was if you increased your activity level to probably a more honest lightly active - MFP would estimate you'd burn more without exercise.
So Fitbit - MFP that is 150 higher = lower calorie adjustment.
Read through this, 2nd section, it'll help understand the math.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.
I think the best bet for me is to NOT eat any of my "exercise" calories, whatever the F they may be, back.
I'm sitting here in tears right now. I'm just going to keep on doing my 20,000 + steps (10 miles) everyday, and just hope that spending the majority of my waking hours walking is doing something, and what will be will be...
THe problem here is that walking is an exercise and if you are purposefully walking an extra 10miles a day that is extra calories to eat...maybe not all of them but some of them.
You aren't doing that you are eating 1800 gross calories a day and burning on average 1k (give or take) yes you are losing weight but it's muscle and fat because you aren't fueling your muscles...with the extra calories.
I don't use MFP NEAT method and have an activity tracker...I gross 1800 a day (10% from my winter TDEE about to change it to 2k again as summer is here and I have about 2200-2400 TDEE) and have my levels set at lightly active at my first 10k steps are pre exercise steps...any calories you see on my log is extra from exercise but I don't eat them back as I know my maitenance etc.
That's the kicker...how many steps are you getting without purposeful walking? If it's all from your extra walks eat those calories or at least some of them.
0 -
I'm in. I will start working out twice a day. I'm on my way to the gym now.
Should I just post to this forum, daily?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions