is eating 1900 cal a day and burning 1000 in the gym healthy
Options
Replies
-
mandalynne wrote: »HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
Why wouldn't it be accurate when it's straight high intensity training?
Because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie expenditure outside of very limited conditions.I don't see how it would be any different then using it while running or any other sport.
There are 8 billion posts on MFP explaining why in excruciating detail - search bar will reveal more than you ever wanted to know.0 -
mandalynne wrote: »HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
Why wouldn't it be accurate when it's straight high intensity training? I don't see how it would be any different then using it while running or any other sport.
Zumba isn't straight high intensity training ... neither are intervals or most classes. HRMs are designed and programmed to estimate calories from steady state cardio activities where the HR is used as a proxy for effort level when plugged into a formula. Rapid changes where true exertion and HR don't match result in errors .... activities without the testing to develop formulas result in errors ... using them for anaerobic activities when they are designed only for aerobic activities results in errors.0 -
I am a male under 6 feet. I currently weigh about 280 pounds. I did a work out on the cross trainer on Saturday for one hour and burned 880 calories. I used my Polar M400 and Polar HRM. So...this is possible if the poster is heavier. I would agree that netting 900 calories would not be healthy. I ate back about 70% of the calories burned.Burning 1000 at the gym is difficult for someone under 300lbs to imagine. Trust me, it can be done. Whether or not it's healthy? Well that's for a physician to determine. I can burn 1000 in less than an hour at the gym.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
0 -
Wow, late for the party again.
No OP, netting 900 calories is not healthy.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
So your question would be like how fast can you lose weight that would not take a bunch of LBM with it?
PSMF is the answer to that question. It's a brutal protocol to follow, but if the goal is rapid fat loss, that's about as good as it's going to get in terms of LBM preservation. The Lyle McDonald (short) book is a pretty decent read, for those inclined that way.
I'm not asking how best to do it, but what the effect is on LBM of different rates of loss/different deficits, with the understanding that this may vary depending on your fat percentage.
For example, in the thread where people were insisting 1.5% of total weight (for a 120 lb woman that means 1.8 lb/week) was totally fine and doable there was no consideration of (a) the effect on LBM, and (b) the effect on LBM IF she were also exercising intensely. Indeed, when someone pointed out that -1.8 for that sedentary woman would require something like 600-700 calories per day as her total calories (which is insane, IMO), this was brushed away with the assertion that if she were tough she'd be exercising a lot and have a TDEE of, say, 2200. So it would only require a daily goal of 1300+intense exercise.
My questions were: wouldn't that (a) have a negative effect on LBM, and (b) be unsustainable, at least to the extent she was trying to make fitness advances with the exercise? Those questions were ignored.
Maybe I'm wrong here--although your Ranger example suggests perhaps not--but I'm curious why those blithely assuming no problem have concluded that. On what sources are they relying?
I'm always curious about possible tweaks, so I did quickly check out the PSMF, but one of the first things I saw on McDonald's site is that you can't do cardio with it, which would be a problem for me anyway, even if it didn't sound miserable. (So it's not just my lack of toughness that makes me unsuitable.)0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.
But he isn't in negative net calories on here unless he puts in the calories he burns through BMR as exercise.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.
But he isn't in negative net calories on here unless he puts in the calories he burns through BMR as exercise.
yeah i didn't follow that subtracting rmr part either...0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.
But he isn't in negative net calories on here unless he puts in the calories he burns through BMR as exercise.
You need to eat less calories than you burn, but you also need to fuel your body properly. The prevailing MFP wisdom is you should eat to your calorie goal, plus a portion of your exercise calories, so you get proper nutrition and don't burn out. 900 net is very low. 1200 is usually considered a minimum for females, though it might be a little lower if you are very small and older.0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »yeah i didn't follow that subtracting rmr part either...
I'm glad it's not just me! I've just started a thread on BMR and net calories so I can stop hijacking this one with my curiosity!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »karintalley wrote: »A treadmill run burns anywhere from 700 to 800 for an hour.
I wouldn't trust the machine, and I would keep in mind it's gross, not net.
I run about 9-10 min miles in a typical hour long session and burn 600 or less.
I suppose if I ran at race speed for an hour it would be a little more (not 800 calories), but it's much more about bodyweight/miles covered than intensity.
0 -
I'm not using the treadmill alone. I also have a hr monitor. I run about 6 miles in 1 hour on average and I weigh 176 pounds right now. I'm far from athletic but I'm not in terrible shape either. Running 9 miles would take me 90 minutes then. Also. .the times I burn close to 800 is when I get over 7 miles in one hour.0
-
-
Dear Naysayers,
I have lost a pile of weight here, 47# and counting in just under 7 months. I have days where I burn 1000+ and have no reason to disbelieve it. I eat anywhere from 1200 to 1500 calories/day and have been losing 1 to 2#/week. I add 2-300 calories/day to my intake to make up for any discrepancies and am still losing. Hmm. By the way, my diary is closed so don't run to look.0 -
I am not really sure why people think that burning 1000kcal a day is impossible. When I first started running, my HRM said I burned 550cal in 35minutes.
I think you should try different things and find out what works best for you. Whether that includes not eating them back, eating some back or eating all of them back.0 -
I am not really sure why people think that burning 1000kcal a day is impossible. When I first started running, my HRM said I burned 550cal in 35minutes.
I think you should try different things and find out what works best for you. Whether that includes not eating them back, eating some back or eating all of them back.
No one thinks it is impossible, just not as easy as some claim.
HRMs are not proof of this. There are any number of factors that can affect accuracy.0 -
KristenMarie1181 wrote: »
The machines are not off that much...to me. It's different for different people.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 973 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions