Caloric deficiency?
Replies
-
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
No, good advice, if she's actually burning 865 calories (she's probably not). Eating at least some calories above 1200 if exercising is a very good and smart thing to do. Why do you want her not to? She's losing on average about 3 lb/week, so bumping calories to, say, 1600-1800 (assuming that there was some water weight at first), for example, would make it a lot more sustainable and still likely result in a good rate of loss.
For me, burning that much would be the equivalent of running 10 miles. I hardly see why it would be problematic to eat 2000 calories on a day one ran 10 miles. (How one divides up the calories has nothing to do with it.)
ksharma's post is worth reading, too.1 -
kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
What she's saying makes far more sense (and is a far better idea) than your advise that it's perfectly okay to net 300 calories per day. Now that's terrible advice, for a number of reasons.
I NEVER said it was OK. I asked about specifics regarding its drawbacks. PS - I would never do it because using a non-scientific phrase - it makes no sense.
But neither does stuffing yourself with 2,100 calories to net to 1,200 calories.
Yeah, if you think the 865 is accurate (I have doubts), then "stuffing oneself" with 2065 is very sensible, as a starting point.
It's exactly analogous to what I did while losing 60+ pounds to achieve a goal weight I hadn't seen on the scale for 35 years. I set my MFP profile as accurately as possible, with a reasonable weight loss rate target, and ate back all my exercise calories. I lost 63 pounds in 10-11 months (2 pounds a week at first, and more slowly as I got lighter).
My actual advice to OP would be a bit more nuanced: Set up MFP carefully. Eat back perhaps half the exercise calories. Get adequate nutrition. Stick with that 4-6 weeks, as long as you feel OK.
Then discard the first week or two's numbers (because we often see a big water weight drop at first), and average the weight loss of the latter weeks. If the average is no more than 1% of your bodyweight (approximately), and it feels sustainable, keep doing that.
If you're losing too fast, or it feels unsustainable, eat back more exercise calories or increase your calorie goal. If you're losing too slowly, gradually decrease your calorie goal (or increase exercise), as long as you feel good, until you lose at your target rate. If you can't achieve a reasonable weight loss rate while feeling good, see your doctor to rule out medical problems.
Rinse & repeat until 20(ish) pounds from goal, at which point reducing loss rate to 1lb/week max makes sense. At 10 pounds to goal, reduce loss rate to half a pound a week.
Lose weight, stay strong, stay healthy. It works.3 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.1 -
The issue here is that you are WAY overstimating your burn calories. Where did you get those numbers from?
Do you weigh your solids and measure your liquids and log every single thing you ingest?0 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.
And how are you estimating that exactly?
It may be in the ballpark if far longer than an hour workout of course.
But I do echo that your calorie goal on here is plus exercise calories.
If you want to eat the same every day then please set your goal using a TDEE calculator and not this site.0 -
OP what is your height, current weight, goal weight, and what rate of loss did you select?
While it sounds good to lose as much weight as fast as possible, that actually has quite a few drawbacks. Aiming for a moderate rate of loss at a calorie goal that is appropriate for the amount you have to lose helps avoid some of those things.
1. You need to fuel your activity, and you need to take in adequate nutrition (macro and micronutrients). Adhering to a net calorie goal can help keep you on the right track for both of those.
2. Losing weight rapidly can result in fatigue, loss of lean body mass (ie becoming skinny fat), hair loss, brittle nails, sallow skin, etc. None of these are desirable, right?
Bottom line weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit, represented by CI < CO. Being as accurate as possible with both your CI (using a food scale, logging everything you eat) as well as the estimates of your CO (not trusting gym equipment or MFP estimates implicitly) can help optimize your rate of loss and make sure you avoid unnecessary plateaus.
Lastly, weight loss is not linear, so it is not uncommon to see a faster rate of loss initially that then tapers off.
Good luck.3 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Try kickboxing and you'll see.
I have done kickboxing before (Muay Thai to be exact), and while I do know that it does burn off a lot of calories, I doubt you'll actually burn more than 400 calories in an hour. Yes it's intense, but I doubt any exercise will burn off 865 calories so easily in 1 hour. Unless you're a professional who kickboxes 3 hours a day, you may want to try getting an accurate form of measure like a heart rate monitor.4 -
From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.0
-
OP. I've done kickboxing on a regular basis for years and can tell you your burns are exaggerated. 400-500 is a better burn per hour.
Before upping your calories, you MUST start using a food scale. Due to your losses, I am quite certain that you're under eating, too.kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
Oh good lord.
You've got to be kidding, right? How in the world is netting ~300 calories daily a good thing? She should be netting at least 1200 to prevent malnutrition and a host of other illnesses and disorders. How is her body supposed to survive on so little nutrition? She's netting far less than a toddler would. Crazy. You do realize that the body needs fuel to function, right?2 -
Thanks for your feedback, comments and suggestions!0
-
amyrebeccah wrote: »From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.
Anyone giving you a cookie-cutter calorie burn regardless of your body size, gender, age, etc, and heart rate is not doing you a service. Frankly, I have my doubts about your treadmill's calorie burn as well.
No one's saying you're not working hard and getting a good burn. But those calorie burns are overstated.
And yes, I've also done kickboxing. Drenched in sweat. Panting and thinking I'll puke or die. Still, no way did I burn anywhere near what you're talking about.amyrebeccah wrote: »From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.
Anyone giving you a cookie-cutter calorie burn regardless of your body size, gender, age, etc, and heart rate is not doing you a service. Frankly, I have my doubts about your treadmill's calorie burn as well.
No one's saying you're not working hard and getting a good burn. But those calorie burns are overstated.
And yes, I've also done kickboxing. Drenched in sweat. Panting and thinking I'll puke or die. Still, no way did I burn anywhere near what you're talking about.
Ok, as I've stated, these are numbers provided to me by different sources. Thanks.0 -
Or the issue is that she's lost 9 pounds in the last 3 weeks - or 3 pounds a week -- except that over the last 9 days she's only lost one. So she lost 8 pounds in the first 11 days, and people are calling her loss "slow" and suggesting its because of her overestimating her burns?
How about the loss in that first 8 days was probably mostly water, and she's now putting water weight back on as she loses "real" weight?0 -
Or the issue is that she's lost 9 pounds in the last 3 weeks - or 3 pounds a week -- except that over the last 9 days she's only lost one. So she lost 8 pounds in the first 11 days, and people are calling her loss "slow" and suggesting its because of her overestimating her burns?
How about the loss in that first 8 days was probably mostly water, and she's now putting water weight back on as she loses "real" weight?
She isn't eating back the exercise calories so it's a moot point.
They are dreadfully inflated though but that's of more academic interest.
What does "putting water weight back on as she loses real weight" actually mean?
2 -
kristen6350 wrote: »1) How are you figuring that each session of kickboxing burns 865 calories? Is that something they told you in class or are you wearing a heartrate monitor?
2) You've been doing this for 3 weeks...9 lbs in 3 weeks is 3lbs/week. And this upsets you? It's probably best to set realistic expectations right now so you don't crash and burn and give up.
3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
Agree with this, I highly doubt you are burning that many calories in a kickboxing session but you should be eating at least half of those back and definitely not reacting to "only" 3 pounds a week loss by eating even less.0 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »OP. I've done kickboxing on a regular basis for years and can tell you your burns are exaggerated. 400-500 is a better burn per hour.
Before upping your calories, you MUST start using a food scale. Due to your losses, I am quite certain that you're under eating, too.kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
Oh good lord.
You've got to be kidding, right? How in the world is netting ~300 calories daily a good thing? She should be netting at least 1200 to prevent malnutrition and a host of other illnesses and disorders. How is her body supposed to survive on so little nutrition? She's netting far less than a toddler would. Crazy. You do realize that the body needs fuel to function, right?
So what are you saying, it's 10 PM, she's not hungry, she's 400 calories below where she should be, but she eat 400 calories anyway?
Do you believe that one shouldn't eat after a certain hour of the day?1 -
cerise_noir wrote: »OP. I've done kickboxing on a regular basis for years and can tell you your burns are exaggerated. 400-500 is a better burn per hour.
Before upping your calories, you MUST start using a food scale. Due to your losses, I am quite certain that you're under eating, too.kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
Oh good lord.
You've got to be kidding, right? How in the world is netting ~300 calories daily a good thing? She should be netting at least 1200 to prevent malnutrition and a host of other illnesses and disorders. How is her body supposed to survive on so little nutrition? She's netting far less than a toddler would. Crazy. You do realize that the body needs fuel to function, right?
So what are you saying, it's 10 PM, she's not hungry, she's 400 calories below where she should be, but she eat 400 calories anyway?
Ideally, a person who is consistently netting that low wouldn't be waiting until 10pm to realise they're chronically under but would be managing their intake by ensuring that they intake enough calories through the course of the day to not end up with a significantly low net figure.1 -
cerise_noir wrote: »OP. I've done kickboxing on a regular basis for years and can tell you your burns are exaggerated. 400-500 is a better burn per hour.
Before upping your calories, you MUST start using a food scale. Due to your losses, I am quite certain that you're under eating, too.kristen6350 wrote: »3) Eat more. Even though I think it's BS that you are actually burning that many calories per session, 1200/calories daily and exercising isn't good. You should be NETTING 1200, not just eating that much.
That makes no sense at all. If she in fact burning 865 calories, you are telling her to eat 2,065 calories, whether she is hungry or not hungry.
So if she has a 200-calorie breakfast (two eggs and sauteed mushrooms, for example), she's supposed to have an 800-calorie lunch and a 1,065-calorie dinner, no matter what?
Terrible advise.
Oh good lord.
You've got to be kidding, right? How in the world is netting ~300 calories daily a good thing? She should be netting at least 1200 to prevent malnutrition and a host of other illnesses and disorders. How is her body supposed to survive on so little nutrition? She's netting far less than a toddler would. Crazy. You do realize that the body needs fuel to function, right?
So what are you saying, it's 10 PM, she's not hungry, she's 400 calories below where she should be, but she eat 400 calories anyway?
Being 400 below is way better than being 900 below - which is what she is saying she's doing.
If she were measuring her food correctly and calculating kickboxing calories correctly (which, I don't know how much she is burning, and neither do you) and she was happy at 400 under, I would bet my lottery winning ticket that she wouldn't be feeling great on that for very long.n
Have I gone to bed leaving 400 cals on the books? Sure. Would I do it every day for three weeks? No.
There are too many variables unaccounted in this whole scenario.
Vassar, you just aren't understanding the way this site calculates calories. Read around - read the sticky threads at the beginning of the forum - the "How to."
2 -
itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.0 -
then you may be eating more than you think. measuring cups aren't very accurate for solid food; a food scale is much more accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpHykP6e_Uk
btw, often a slice of bread can be way over the serving size on the package or even be 2 servings.1 -
itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.
What does that mean you eat "clean" foods? Are you under the impression that negates the need to accurately track calories, that you will automatically lose weight because you're eating "clean", whatever that means to you?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.
What does that mean you eat "clean" foods? Are you under the impression that negates the need to accurately track calories, that you will automatically lose weight because you're eating "clean", whatever that means to you?
OMG people! Relax! I don't eat processed food or canned food. I have not eaten meat since 1985. If I eat an extra 10 calories who cares? If I read that a cup of carrots is 15 calories, I add 20! I maintain a philosophy of "If you biye it, you write it".
You are all missing the original post. I was bummed about losing 1 lb this week. Let it go!! I was looking for support, not arguments. In all honesty, I have never partaken in a "chatroom" before and never will again.
From here on out you are arguing with each other.
I have been on many treadmills and have had the same reads, I have spoken with many instructors with the same answers. Why do you all feel the need to argue and challenge someone who asked a simple question on a site that is supposed to support one another?!
For crissakes people, read each other's posts before reiterating.2 -
Eating clean does not matter for weight loss. I mean, I used to eat clean vegetarian, was over 260lbs and never lost a pound because I wasn't accurately figuring out intake. Eating clean, vegan, paleo, "dirty" it doesn't matter. If you're guestimating your intake (yes, cups and spoons are guestimating due to their inaccurate nature), you don't know-how much you're eating and drinking, period. Use a food scale for a week, then increase your calories. If you are losing 3lbs every week and you aren't 400lbs+, then you are under eating.itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.0 -
amyrebeccah wrote: »From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.
Anyone giving you a cookie-cutter calorie burn regardless of your body size, gender, age, etc, and heart rate is not doing you a service. Frankly, I have my doubts about your treadmill's calorie burn as well.
No one's saying you're not working hard and getting a good burn. But those calorie burns are overstated.
And yes, I've also done kickboxing. Drenched in sweat. Panting and thinking I'll puke or die. Still, no way did I burn anywhere near what you're talking about.amyrebeccah wrote: »From what any kickboxing, boxing coach has ever told me, as well as literature etc. that's what it states. I didn't make it up, it's what I've been told. I've burned 400 calories doing speedwalking on a treadmill in an hour. This is way more intense.
Anyone giving you a cookie-cutter calorie burn regardless of your body size, gender, age, etc, and heart rate is not doing you a service. Frankly, I have my doubts about your treadmill's calorie burn as well.
No one's saying you're not working hard and getting a good burn. But those calorie burns are overstated.
And yes, I've also done kickboxing. Drenched in sweat. Panting and thinking I'll puke or die. Still, no way did I burn anywhere near what you're talking about.
Ok, as I've stated, these are numbers provided to me by different sources. Thanks.
Even so, unless you are obese and pretty tall, those sources are overestimating. MFP is notorious for proving cardio numbers that in my experience are usually about 200 calories over. For me, a 5 ft 4 woman who's weight averages between 140 and 145, MFP tells me I would burn 664 per hour. This tells me, I need to immediately shave off a few hundred calories.
That said, only steady state cardio should be recorded and I don't think kickboxing qualifies as that because you have to stop and rest. Would it be more like high intensity interval training. I'm not sure about this part.
How did you get the speekwalking burn number? My guess is off the treadmill, which is also highly overestimated.
0 -
itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.
Clean foods have nothing to do with weight loss, and measuring cups are horribly inaccurate measuring devices.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?itsbasschick wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »Are you using a food scale and weighing everything? No measuring cups, etc.?? Either way it sounds like you have lost a lot already and are on a good track. My only point is unless you use a scale you can get some really large swings in your intake.
No, I don't use a scale or anything.
then how do you know how many calories you're eating per day? do you only eat pre-packaged foods where the package is exactly one serving?
I eat "clean" foods and use measuring cups. Nothing frozen or prepared.
What does that mean you eat "clean" foods? Are you under the impression that negates the need to accurately track calories, that you will automatically lose weight because you're eating "clean", whatever that means to you?
OMG people! Relax! I don't eat processed food or canned food. I have not eaten meat since 1985. If I eat an extra 10 calories who cares? If I read that a cup of carrots is 15 calories, I add 20! I maintain a philosophy of "If you biye it, you write it".
You are all missing the original post. I was bummed about losing 1 lb this week. Let it go!! I was looking for support, not arguments. In all honesty, I have never partaken in a "chatroom" before and never will again.
From here on out you are arguing with each other.
I have been on many treadmills and have had the same reads, I have spoken with many instructors with the same answers. Why do you all feel the need to argue and challenge someone who asked a simple question on a site that is supposed to support one another?!
For crissakes people, read each other's posts before reiterating.
Your original post was asking about why you weren't losing more. People have repeatedly explained that weight loss comes down to an energy balance, your CI must be less than your CO. You are using likely inflated numbers for your CO and you are using inaccurate tools for measuring your CI. There is your answer. Explaining the facts and pointing out that it isn't necessary to "eat clean" in order to lose weight IS being supportive.1 -
Dear posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for closing this topic. The original poster has received a significant amount of feedback and the conversations can continue via personal messaging or within a group.
Thank you for your understanding and help in keeping MyFitnessPal a supportive, friendly community.
Respectfully,
Nova
MFP Community Staff1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions