Question regarding calorie deficit
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.2 -
amygarcia0212 wrote: »My Apple Watch separates my active calories from my total calories during each workout. Still not 100% sure why lol. It also doesn't monitor my heart rate at all times either. It takes it I think every 10 min.
I did a test of my own today during my workout. I wore my Apple Watch with the HRM connected to it AND I wore my old Fitbit HR. My Apple Watch said I burned 225 calories during a 38 min walk at 3mph at a incline of 4 with my heart rate at 135 which is around 70% of my maximum heart rate. The Fitbit said I burned 295 calories. Fitbit said my heart rate was 130 yet I burned more calories. Steps wise they were both right around each other.
Just wanted to point out that your Fitbit and Apple Watch are giving you the same calories burned number. The Apple Watch breaks it down into 'active calories' which are burned in addition to what you would burn just sitting around (RMR) and total which is active+RMR. Fitbit just gives you total.
Apple Watch total = Fitbit = 295
Makes sense. So I guess my Apple Watch is pretty spot on with a Fitbit. So if I'm getting two devices that are giving me roughly the same calories burned while working out would you say that my burn isn't to far off from what their saying?
I'm a 'flatlander' and prefer to walk outside, but it seems the sweet-spot for me when eating back calories is about 80cals/mile [5'5", 140lb, years of CICO tracking].
Then I stumbled on this article recently
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
It sort of confirmed that was a reasonable conclusion; FYI - it puts you at ~100cal/mile, which is comparable to the numbers you're seeing.
Bottom Line - give it a few weeks, watch your trends and adjust accordingly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You said you had MFP set up for 1.5 lb loss/week, but your doctors numbers (the 500 calorie deficit) are for 1 lb. Also, with MFP, you do eat calories back. Worrying about the specific number doesn't matter much -- I'd estimate a daily number like deficit of 1 lb from MFP + 300/day for exercise -- it would probably be something like 1600 or 1700 gross, no need to worry about exercise calories (assuming you keep doing exercise). Then go by results which I think is what your doctor is saying about finding the number that works for you.
If you are losing too fast, eating more is a good idea, and you seem to be eating quite low which can be stressful.
Mine is currently set at 1.5 loss a week at sedentary and it gives me 1390 calories a day.
So for 1 lb/week at sedentary you'd get 1640. If you aren't currently eating your 1390 net I'd try that, though (with 50% of exercise calories -- that sounds like a great approach).I normally try to eat up to 1200 but I wasn't including my exercise calories. When I realized I'm losing a little to quickly I bumped up my calorie intake and was going to eat back about 50% of my exercise calories and see how that goes. But some days I just don't have an appetite thanks to my Crohns. That's the reason I gained weight in the first place. Being on restrictions by my heart doc and a new Crohns medication. The Crohns meds themselves are known to cause weight gain.
What are you losing and for how long? Are there higher cal foods you can include when you need that don't bother you?
I also agree with the person who said that focusing on weekly calories might work well for you.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.
Okay thank you for explaining how you were looking at this, but you're muddying the waters here because arguing over what someone's TRUE net is depends on what method they're using.
The net depends on whether you're using the TDEE or NEAT method to account for exercise and deficit.3 -
So eat back half the calories burned? I try to eat up to my calorie goal with no exercise because I feel like mfp over estimates burned calories0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.
Okay thank you for explaining how you were looking at this, but you're muddying the waters here because arguing over what someone's TRUE net is depends on what method they're using.
The net depends on whether you're using the TDEE or NEAT method to account for exercise and deficit.
If someone hadn't tried arguing against it it would have helped clear things up rather than muddy the waters. The problem is that people start talking about how a woman shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories and the next thing you know they are saying that her net calories shouldn't be below 1200. But the 1200 calories rule isn't based on MFP but on studies that use net in the traditional sense.0 -
amygarcia0212 wrote: »My Apple Watch separates my active calories from my total calories during each workout. Still not 100% sure why lol. It also doesn't monitor my heart rate at all times either. It takes it I think every 10 min.
I did a test of my own today during my workout. I wore my Apple Watch with the HRM connected to it AND I wore my old Fitbit HR. My Apple Watch said I burned 225 calories during a 38 min walk at 3mph at a incline of 4 with my heart rate at 135 which is around 70% of my maximum heart rate. The Fitbit said I burned 295 calories. Fitbit said my heart rate was 130 yet I burned more calories. Steps wise they were both right around each other.
Just wanted to point out that your Fitbit and Apple Watch are giving you the same calories burned number. The Apple Watch breaks it down into 'active calories' which are burned in addition to what you would burn just sitting around (RMR) and total which is active+RMR. Fitbit just gives you total.
Apple Watch total = Fitbit = 295
Makes sense. So I guess my Apple Watch is pretty spot on with a Fitbit. So if I'm getting two devices that are giving me roughly the same calories burned while working out would you say that my burn isn't to far off from what their saying?
Probably. I think both these devices measure your heart rate and use that along with other data to estimate your calorie burn. The fact that you are getting the same numbers probably just means that they are using the same equation based on your data.
I don't know whether your cardiac issues might impact on how those calculations work compared to people who don't have these problems... I'm not saying this is the case, but if it was me, I'd ask my heart doc.
Really though, none of these numbers matter too much. You have identified that you are losing weight at a faster rather than planned and that is probably not a good thing, especially if your body is healing itself. Your decision to eat a few hundred more cals a day sounds like a very good idea, regardless of the actual numbers pointing you in that direction. Once you do this for a few weeks or a month you can take another look at your progress and your health (and of course your medical advice) and tweak things again if needed.
1 -
400 calories for an hour is too high, but is not too high for an incline, depending on the incline. The best way to go about this is to set MFP to lose 1 pound a week, eat back the 400 calories and after a few weeks see if you averaged a pound a week. Simple as that. If you average a smaller loss, the HRM is over-estimating your calories (or your sedentary is even lower than the MFP sedentary, which happens), if you average about what you expect then you are good to go, if you average a higher loss, then your HRM is underestimating or you are not as sedentary as you think. You basically modify your calories based on your results, no guess work needed.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »400 calories for an hour is too high, but is not too high for an incline, depending on the incline. The best way to go about this is to set MFP to lose 1 pound a week, eat back the 400 calories and after a few weeks see if you averaged a pound a week. Simple as that. If you average a smaller loss, the HRM is over-estimating your calories (or your sedentary is even lower than the MFP sedentary, which happens), if you average about what you expect then you are good to go, if you average a higher loss, then your HRM is underestimating or you are not as sedentary as you think. You basically modify your calories based on your results, no guess work needed.
Usually at a incline of 6, but sometimes higher. Heart rate within 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate.
I've been losing to quickly actually so I have bumped my calories up some and started eating back 50% of my exercise calories
Heart doctor has told me my heart issue doesn't impact how many calories I burn while working out.
1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »400 calories for an hour is too high, but is not too high for an incline, depending on the incline. The best way to go about this is to set MFP to lose 1 pound a week, eat back the 400 calories and after a few weeks see if you averaged a pound a week. Simple as that. If you average a smaller loss, the HRM is over-estimating your calories (or your sedentary is even lower than the MFP sedentary, which happens), if you average about what you expect then you are good to go, if you average a higher loss, then your HRM is underestimating or you are not as sedentary as you think. You basically modify your calories based on your results, no guess work needed.
Usually at a incline of 6, but sometimes higher. Heart rate within 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate.
I've been losing to quickly actually so I have bumped my calories up some and started eating back 50% of my exercise calories
Heart doctor has told me my heart issue doesn't impact how many calories I burn while working out.
Then you are doing well! Many people don't realize how many calories each degree of incline adds so 400 is not all that unbelievable. The first 6 degrees of incline nearly double the burn. Keep fine tuning the calories you eat until you reach a point where you are losing 1 pound a week.0 -
[quote
Usually at a incline of 6, but sometimes higher. Heart rate within 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate.
I've been losing to quickly actually so I have bumped my calories up some and started eating back 50% of my exercise calories
Heart doctor has told me my heart issue doesn't impact how many calories I burn while working out.
[/quote]
If we take out the calorie burn issue that so many people are mentioning, you ARE losing and quickly so you are right to eat back up to 50% of your exercise calories.
(edited to add, I didn't do the quote thingy right! doh!)
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »400 calories for an hour is too high, but is not too high for an incline, depending on the incline. The best way to go about this is to set MFP to lose 1 pound a week, eat back the 400 calories and after a few weeks see if you averaged a pound a week. Simple as that. If you average a smaller loss, the HRM is over-estimating your calories (or your sedentary is even lower than the MFP sedentary, which happens), if you average about what you expect then you are good to go, if you average a higher loss, then your HRM is underestimating or you are not as sedentary as you think. You basically modify your calories based on your results, no guess work needed.
Usually at a incline of 6, but sometimes higher. Heart rate within 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate.
I've been losing to quickly actually so I have bumped my calories up some and started eating back 50% of my exercise calories
Heart doctor has told me my heart issue doesn't impact how many calories I burn while working out.
Then you are doing well! Many people don't realize how many calories each degree of incline adds so 400 is not all that unbelievable. The first 6 degrees of incline nearly double the burn. Keep fine tuning the calories you eat until you reach a point where you are losing 1 pound a week.
Yeah I plan on doing this for a couple weeks and see how it does. I'm fine with a 1.5 pounds loss a week but anything more than 2 isn't ok. I'll get it all figured out. My doctor put me in contact with a certified personal trainer and I talked to her over the weekend. She said because I'm walking at 3 to 3.5mph at a incline of 6 or more that it's very possible I am burning around 350 to 400 in the 75 minutes that I'm walking (counting warm up and cool down).
But to be on the safe side I'm only going to intake 50% of the calories my Apple Watch says I burned. She also said that seems reasonable and if I keep losing to much to up it to 75% of the calories and then 100% I'f I'm still losing to quickly. If that fails then I need to up my calorie goal for the day. I know it's all about tweaking with it as everyone is different.1 -
That seems like a really good plan.0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »[quote
Usually at a incline of 6, but sometimes higher. Heart rate within 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate.
I've been losing to quickly actually so I have bumped my calories up some and started eating back 50% of my exercise calories
Heart doctor has told me my heart issue doesn't impact how many calories I burn while working out.
If we take out the calorie burn issue that so many people are mentioning, you ARE losing and quickly so you are right to eat back up to 50% of your exercise calories.
(edited to add, I didn't do the quote thingy right! doh!)
[/quote]
If I still lose to quickly I was advised to bump it up to 75% and if still losing to quickly then 100%. Of all that fails then to bump up my calorie goal for the day. But I don't think it will come to that. I'm going to give this a couple weeks and see how it goes and so adjustments from there.
0 -
So after adjusting my calorie intake last week I went up to 1390 instead of 1200 and started eating back my exercise calories and I'm now losing at 2 pounds a week instead of 3.5. I'm going to give it some more time. Still losing more than what I have MFP set to but at least I'm not losing as much a week.2
-
I know you're very busy, but maybe you could find a nearby Medically Oriented Gym with fitness experts who have a medical interest and who will be able to advise you, alongside your doctor. Losing weight, heart rate, all that paired with a medical concern is very important to monitor correctly. I'm sure they would sit down with you and discuss your numbers without requiring a membership first- then put that conversation to paper and send to your doctor and nutritionist.0
-
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »I know you're very busy, but maybe you could find a nearby Medically Oriented Gym with fitness experts who have a medical interest and who will be able to advise you, alongside your doctor. Losing weight, heart rate, all that paired with a medical concern is very important to monitor correctly. I'm sure they would sit down with you and discuss your numbers without requiring a membership first- then put that conversation to paper and send to your doctor and nutritionist.
My heart doctor has already put me in touch with a certified personal trainer who deals with a lot of heart patients and is working with me.
1 -
So after adjusting my calorie intake last week I went up to 1390 instead of 1200 and started eating back my exercise calories and I'm now losing at 2 pounds a week instead of 3.5. I'm going to give it some more time. Still losing more than what I have MFP set to but at least I'm not losing as much a week.
This sounds good.0 -
Don't get caught up in arguing about what you burn. The cardio is excellent and the added burn help with deficit. However, your main place to cut calories is in your calorie intake, and seem that was really the question on what your target caloric intake should be.
What is weight, height, age?
0 -
So after adjusting my calorie intake last week I went up to 1390 instead of 1200 and started eating back my exercise calories and I'm now losing at 2 pounds a week instead of 3.5. I'm going to give it some more time. Still losing more than what I have MFP set to but at least I'm not losing as much a week.
Giving it more time is the right thing to do. I've no idea if the 400 is high or low, and I don't know if your heart condition impacts or not. As well, I think I recall that you are on meds that may impact your heart rate. Either way, do what you are currently doing for at least a month before making changes. But to be clear, are you eating ~1390 plus the 400 your exercising? So about 1700 - 1800 a day on average? Just checking.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »So after adjusting my calorie intake last week I went up to 1390 instead of 1200 and started eating back my exercise calories and I'm now losing at 2 pounds a week instead of 3.5. I'm going to give it some more time. Still losing more than what I have MFP set to but at least I'm not losing as much a week.
Giving it more time is the right thing to do. I've no idea if the 400 is high or low, and I don't know if your heart condition impacts or not. As well, I think I recall that you are on meds that may impact your heart rate. Either way, do what you are currently doing for at least a month before making changes. But to be clear, are you eating ~1390 plus the 400 your exercising? So about 1700 - 1800 a day on average? Just checking.
I'm not on any heart medication only Crohns meds which doesn't mess with my heart. I'm eating about 75% of my calories I've burned back.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »So after adjusting my calorie intake last week I went up to 1390 instead of 1200 and started eating back my exercise calories and I'm now losing at 2 pounds a week instead of 3.5. I'm going to give it some more time. Still losing more than what I have MFP set to but at least I'm not losing as much a week.
Giving it more time is the right thing to do. I've no idea if the 400 is high or low, and I don't know if your heart condition impacts or not. As well, I think I recall that you are on meds that may impact your heart rate. Either way, do what you are currently doing for at least a month before making changes. But to be clear, are you eating ~1390 plus the 400 your exercising? So about 1700 - 1800 a day on average? Just checking.
I'm not on any heart medication only Crohns meds which doesn't mess with my heart. I'm eating about 75% of my calories I've burned back.
sounds like a plan OP ...let us know how it goes and good luck0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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