ex-athlete, advice from other ex-athletes please

aaroessler

I was a fairly high level endurance athlete in high school and college for around 6 years. For the past 10 years I have focused on career and family and have put on 50lbs. I'm still at a fairly healthy weight, but would like to lose half the weight I've since put on.

I have noticed that maintaining a moderate calorie deficit doesn't seem to have much of an effect. I work a desk job, but am fairly active outside of work. I started a few weeks before I got the app at 1700 calories a day. I noticed 1700 calories/day didn't affect me; I was eating a lot less, but dropping no weight and hadn't started to exercise yet (so it wasn't being off-set by muscle gains). I was recommended the app and started to experiment after 3 weeks at 1700 with nothing to show.

My observations after 5 weeks (3 weeks at 1700 and 2 weeks experimenting):
1.) If I dropped 1700 calories a day down to 1200-1400 calories there was improvement.

2.) Exercising and burning 600-800 calories a day while being around that 2k calorie amount seemed to have slightly better results, but it seems like that's a much higher calorie deficit than should be necessary.

I'm more curious than anything and looking for tips or explanations for my observations.

victoriaamarie1330

Especially since you are an ex athlete, I would definitely recommend eating more and exercising in order to get a calorie deficit. 1200-1400 calories a day is not really enough for your body to function, you will have that immediate weight loss, but then plateau. Try retracing your actual activity as well, just like with food (thinking you eat less than you actually do), sometimes we can overestimate our calorie burn. And with exercising, you do gt the added benefits other than just losing weight.

usmcmp

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1

cheshirecatastrophe

1. Weight loss isn't linear. A lot of people here talk about dropping a bunch immediately and then the rate tapers down. Me? It took me four solid weeks of steady 250-500 kcal/day deficit to see *any* change. Then boom, 4 pounds gone and didn't come back. I'd suggest a little more patience.

2. The links @usmcmp posted are spot-on. How sure are you that it was actually 1700 kcal?

3. What kind of exercise are you doing, and how much? How are you calculating the calorie burns from it?

vadimknobel

was 1700 you basal metabolic energy requirement? it certainly depends on your weight, height, sex, age. My 90 year old grandma who's 4'10" can get by on 1000 kcal per day easily. I can't though :-)

Cari93

If you aren't necessarily obese and you're at average weight just a little over then your more likely to see a body fat lose of 1-2% a month. 10 years is a long time of not being active. You can't expect to see results within a month with no exercise. Your caloric expenditure must be higher than your caloric intake in order to lose weight and excess body fat. The more fat you have the harder you have to work to see just a little bit of results. This is true because fat is stored energy and takes very little caloric intake to move. But if you keep at it then eventually you'll hit a mark where you'll build lean muscle and muscle takes a big caloric intake to move. Your muscles will need more calories to function and everything you're eating will be used as energy instead of being stored. Hope this helps

Cari93

One more thing. If you want to lose weight without exercise you must eat less than what you burn daily (resting metabolic rate). Sitting at a desk doesn't burn many calories so you'd have to decrease the amount of calories you intake by a lot. It's possible just might want to have a physician and dietitian to make sure you're eating healthy and you're body is functioning well.

DavPul

It's highly doubtful that you're accurately logging the amount of food that you're consuming. What you think it 1700 is likely significantly higher.

aaroessler

@DavPul I scan the barcode on what I'm eating, weigh the servings, and make sure the calories indicated on the serving size are matching up (if I find they don't match I generally type it in manually and someone generally has inputted the correct info). I've been logging everything from iced tea to ketchup. If it's not water or ice, I've been logging it. Today my intake was 1547. Exercise was 746.

@victoriaamarie1330 I use Strava to calculate calories burned; I mostly bike and run (I started to lift lightly once a week, but don't factor that into my calories).

@vadimknobel "weight, height, sex, age" 210, 5'11", M, 30

Thanks for info sofar!

DavPul

Burned 746 calories doing what?

aaroessler

3.7 mile trail running. A pathetically slow 14:33 pace, but there's a ton a vertical on the trail. According to Strava that's what I burned anyways

DavPul

750 calories for less than 4 miles running? I may have found the problem.



Unless you weigh 400 pounds?

matsprt1984

DavPul wrote: »

750 calories for less than 4 miles running? I may have found the problem.



Unless you weigh 400 pounds?

+1

aaroessler

Thx, so Strava is overestimating the calories burned, good to know. Probably should break out my old heart rate monitor to try compare and see how much of a difference it is.

DavPul

It's like, double what I would give you for that

aaroessler

Even trail running and with 600 ft vertical?

DavPul

You're the one that's not seeing results with what you're currently doing so I'll let you decide how many calories you'd like for your exercise. Losing weight is a math problem tho and if you're inputting the wrong numbers you're going to get poor results

aaroessler

DavPul wrote: »

You're the one that's not seeing results with what you're currently doing...

I never said that; in fact I said pretty much the opposite of that. I'm seeing results, but wondering why the calorie count would need to be so low to start to see results. You are 100% right that Strava is slightly overestimating the calories (I looked through a couple of threads that were purely devoted to talking about that). @Cari93 is probably more correct as she's addressing a couple of things I hadn't considered; primarily that my metabolism and muscle mass might be just that low currently. I was thinking it may have been a residual effect of having trained so hard for so many years, but she might be right that I'm subconsciously less active after cutting my calories and moving around for normal daily function just doesn't burn many.

DavPul

An adult male dropping his calories down to 1200 isn't my idea of seeing positive results, but to each their own. Good luck in all your health and fitness endeavors

Mr_Knight

aaroessler wrote: »

I noticed 1700 calories/day didn't affect me; I was eating a lot less, but dropping no weight...

You need to open your diary. It sounds like your logging is broken quite badly.

californiagirl2012

Your body is the end game, not the calculator. Just keep tweaking until you find the right energy balance for your own self. Listen to how you feel, are you strong at the gym, do you recover well, do you sleep well, and do you have enough energy to complete your daily responsibilites? Those give you the answer if you are eating too low or not -- regardless of any opinions. Then as far as fat loss, if you lose over time and that is your goal there you have it. It won't be linear, but if you give it 3-6 weeks with consistent caloire effort/tracking/deficit you should see some results.

mwyvr

I find Strava consistently grants more calories for a run than my Garmin watch / Garmin's "connect" web site will. Strava also seems to estimate elevation gain higher than Garmin almost always.

The differences are not an order of magnitude apart but for a 7 to 10km run often add up to 200+ calories which can certainly add up if running 5-7 days a week, and this despite Strava being fed data by Garmin. 606(Garmin) vs 824(Strava) for one 8km run with 350 feet of elevation gain.

For my 28km run this week Garmin allotted 2,094 calories/1,319 feet climbing; Strava called it 3,126 calories/1,620 feet elevation. That delta (1,032 calories!) definitely adds up over time.

I go with the low number from Garmin by default.

As for cycling... if your cycling is more casual/recreational in nature as opposed to heads down steady state pounding for 2 hours, assume most apps (heart rate data or not) will get it wrong and vastly over estimate.

aaroessler

That's really interesting @mwyvr ! I use Strava now for its convenience and because it's free. When we were really training Polar was the brand we'd use for HR monitors. Garmin was just coming on the scene a little bit, but weren't worth it unless you were sponsored by them (a few of us were). We found they broke once or twice a year and unless you had unlimited free replacements, that would be overnighted, the hassle just wasn't worth it. I've heard they've improved a lot since then, but I haven't kept current with the technology.

jacksonpt

Yes, I agree with your observations, but I think you're missing (or underestimating) much of the expected variation when it comes to calorie "counting".

Weighing food, scanning bar codes, etc is still just estimating. It's likely more precise than guessing, but there is still a meaningful margin for error, so it should still be seen as estimating.

Strava, HRMs, activity monitors, etc are still just estimators. They're likely more precises than guessing, but there is still a meaningful margin for error, so it should still be seen as estimating.


Ultimately, there is usually a bit of trial and error when getting started. You started with something, saw the results you saw, now you need to tweak something. Log your calorie burns has 1/2 of what Strava says, or cut your intake by 15%, or... whatever you think. There is no exact with all this regardless of what people want to think.

Once you get yoru expected results to be reasonably close to your actual results, THEN you have a baseline to work from.


And now back to your regularly scheduled MFP regurgitation.

JoRocka

aaroessler wrote: »

Even trail running and with 600 ft vertical?

switch to TDEE instead of trying to guess workout burns- because no way in hell 4 miles is burning almost 800 calories.

Just- not happening.
You're over eating if you're eating to compensate for those burned calories.

CSARdiver

I was in the same situation a year ago and here's what worked for me:

Overestimate your calories in. Nutritional labeling has an inherent 20% degree of error. Just ensure you hit your macros for protein as you want to retain your muscle mass. Carbs as well, but tailor to suit your goals.

Underestimate your calories burned to ensure you are maintaining a healthy deficit. I used to log every activity and eat back calories, but instead use a Fitbit Flex and just go by step count, regardless of intensity or regimen. I eat back all protein, but often way below on carbs.

Concentrate more on your gains other than weight - performance, endurance, strength, etc. The weight will come off as a side effect when you get into a training regimen that works for you.

aaroessler

Ended up slightly increasing protein intake vs everything else; I'm still eating a decent amount of carbs and fats. I moved about 300 calories from dinner to breakfast and it's definitely increased my energy level throughout the day. I'm also making a more conscious effort to try and time my dinner so it's right after work. Seems to be working well. I've moved my calorie intake from 1200-1400 up to 1500-1700 depending on the day and making good progress.

Great advice sofar, thank you!

aaroessler

15lbs down sofar