If you're very active and do alot of exercise...

Options
2»

Replies

  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    endurance triathlete - I take in between 2000-2300 (not including intraworkout calories on long training days); and I'm 5'3", 149 - working with a RD on my nutrition and will likely tweak as training starts ramping up (its off-season right now)
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    20-25k steps a day here, sometimes more. I'd still lose 1/2 lb a week on 2200-2400 (but I'm often too hungry and end up eating more!).

    I started being WAY more active though once I got a fitbit and realized how much activity makes a difference... I lost on 1700 with maybe 10k steps a day. I however realized that my calorie burn on the stationary bike is laughable, so it's retired for now.. not worth the stress on my legs to burn a pitiful 80 calories in 30 minutes (I really don't get this, but I guess it makes sense as you're only moving your legs and not your whole body).
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    20-25k steps a day here, sometimes more. I'd still lose 1/2 lb a week on 2200-2400 (but I'm often too hungry and end up eating more!).

    I started being WAY more active though once I got a fitbit and realized how much activity makes a difference... I lost on 1700 with maybe 10k steps a day. I however realized that my calorie burn on the stationary bike is laughable, so it's retired for now.. not worth the stress on my legs to burn a pitiful 80 calories in 30 minutes (I really don't get this, but I guess it makes sense as you're only moving your legs and not your whole body).

    FITBIT's aren't necessarily good for non-running/walking exercise to validate calorie burn - as a cyclist, you likely burned more than that (rough estimate would say 200cal using a 10-12mph guess)...heck i'll walk 30min on a treadmill and my FITBIT will tell me I've walked less than 100 steps
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    domeofstars wrote: »
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    domeofstars wrote: »
    ...and are trying to lose weight, how many calories are you eating?

    Anywhere from 4000-8000 a day depending on my routine when very active.


    That is a tremendous amount of calories for anyone to eat....you're really eating that many and LOSING weight? What exercise are you doing exactly?

    Im 6'3 220 lb with 12% bf and a athlete so I lose on the 4000ish side without really exercising per sae just my normal activity level which is more the most I hazard.

    When I'm topping off in the 8000 area it's usually running, catching a baseball game, swimming thrown in or weight lifting. It's not hard to eat that much really...a pizza, triple cheese burger with fries, or ice cream helps keep the cals up.


  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    20-25k steps a day here, sometimes more. I'd still lose 1/2 lb a week on 2200-2400 (but I'm often too hungry and end up eating more!).

    I started being WAY more active though once I got a fitbit and realized how much activity makes a difference... I lost on 1700 with maybe 10k steps a day. I however realized that my calorie burn on the stationary bike is laughable, so it's retired for now.. not worth the stress on my legs to burn a pitiful 80 calories in 30 minutes (I really don't get this, but I guess it makes sense as you're only moving your legs and not your whole body).

    FITBIT's aren't necessarily good for non-running/walking exercise to validate calorie burn - as a cyclist, you likely burned more than that (rough estimate would say 200cal using a 10-12mph guess)...heck i'll walk 30min on a treadmill and my FITBIT will tell me I've walked less than 100 steps

    Yeah even the Charge 2 is incredibly frustrating when it comes to spinning calories. My HRM used to tell me 220 calories an hour, and Fitbit gives me 160 for the same time... hardly worth my time either way, when I can go for a walk outside and burn 300 calories in the same time (there are hills too). I go at 14-16mph and it's really hard on my legs too!

    It works relatively well on the treadmill though, but yeah it typically says I did 2.6 miles an hour instead of the 3.2 I set the treadmill at. So I end up with a 340 calories burn an hour, which is less than outside, even though I'm always at a 5-6% incline. Just odd, but better than nothing.
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    domeofstars wrote: »
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    domeofstars wrote: »
    ...and are trying to lose weight, how many calories are you eating?

    Anywhere from 4000-8000 a day depending on my routine when very active.


    That is a tremendous amount of calories for anyone to eat....you're really eating that many and LOSING weight? What exercise are you doing exactly?

    Im 6'3 220 lb with 12% bf and a athlete so I lose on the 4000ish side without really exercising per sae just my normal activity level which is more the most I hazard.

    When I'm topping off in the 8000 area it's usually running, catching a baseball game, swimming thrown in or weight lifting. It's not hard to eat that much really...a pizza, triple cheese burger with fries, or ice cream helps keep the cals up.


    Haha. Yeah. I have a friend who probably burns 3500 calories on a lazy day, and he's not even fat.
  • domeofstars
    domeofstars Posts: 480 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    AFGP11 wrote: »
    I have no idea how anyone survives on 1200 calories a day and I think most people who do that are losing muscle right along with fat. Slow and steady works best for me.

    Yes this is exactly what I'm thinking. Its such a drastically low calorie range....

    Francl27 wrote: »
    I however realized that my calorie burn on the stationary bike is laughable, so it's retired for now.. not worth the stress on my legs to burn a pitiful 80 calories in 30 minutes (I really don't get this, but I guess it makes sense as you're only moving your legs and not your whole body).

    I find the opposite. Using my stationary bike burns twice as many calories as walking at a moderate pace. I've also noticed a dramatic difference in my weight loss when I use my bike instead of walking. It seems to rev up my metabolism and increases my weight loss. Maybe your bike wasn't a good one?
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    domeofstars wrote: »
    AFGP11 wrote: »
    I have no idea how anyone survives on 1200 calories a day and I think most people who do that are losing muscle right along with fat. Slow and steady works best for me.

    Yes this is exactly what I'm thinking. Its such a drastically low calorie range....

    Francl27 wrote: »
    I however realized that my calorie burn on the stationary bike is laughable, so it's retired for now.. not worth the stress on my legs to burn a pitiful 80 calories in 30 minutes (I really don't get this, but I guess it makes sense as you're only moving your legs and not your whole body).

    I find the opposite. Using my stationary bike burns twice as many calories as walking at a moderate pace. I've also noticed a dramatic difference in my weight loss when I use my bike instead of walking. It seems to rev up my metabolism and increases my weight loss. Maybe your bike wasn't a good one?

    If you're just pootling along then you're not burning many calories, if you vary speed and resistance then you can get a pretty decent burn.

Categories