I have to burn 1,000 calories a day?

Options
Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
«13

Replies

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    ^^ what they said.
  • dwilliamca
    dwilliamca Posts: 325 Member
    Options
    Like others have said, start out concentrating on your calorie deficit by watching the foods you eat and logging everything. Keep within that magic number and you will start dropping the pounds Sounds like you chose 2 lbs/week, which means you will be eating 1000 calories less per day than you need to maintain your current weight. With 100 lbs to lose, 2 lbs a week is fine as long as you can keep within that deficit without binging, otherwise consider changing to l lb/week. Exercise is the second thing you should think about, but don't overdo it and burn out. Adding some walking every day gives you more calories to eat back...it should not add to your weight loss. Doing cardio at home is another great choice, but again start out slow (like 3x per week) and build up your stamina. Later add in some light weights and go from there. Best of luck to you on your new, healthy journey.
  • lucerorojo
    lucerorojo Posts: 790 Member
    Options
    You can do these by cutting back on your calories in your meals. I started with 100 lbs to lose at the end of June. I've lost 30 so far and it was much easier than I thought. I do work out but I had a 1000 calorie deficit per day that was fine up until I reached about 28 lb. Weight loss. When I started tracking my food on mfp I realized I was eating 3000-4000 per day sometimes. To cut back 1000 calories was doable for my body with a lot of fat stored and still a decent amount of calories even with the deficit.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    ashlee_tx wrote: »
    Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
    I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.

    You need a deficit of 1000 calories a day, that doesn't mean you need to burn 1000 calories a day in exercise. Just being alive doing nothing your body is likely burning between 1200-2000+ calories a day depending on your size and that is before any exercise. If you are 100 pounds over weight you are probably at the higher end of that range. Most people lose weight eating something like 1500 calories a day without doing any exercise. To establish a deficit you need to determine what your TDEE is (how many calories you use up in a day including your basal metabolic rate (BMR) and then eat an amount less than that to establish your deficit.

    You can get an estimate of your TDEE by filling out this calculator. http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

    That should tell you your TDEE. If you want to lose 2 pounds a week it'll be 1000 calories less than your TDEE that you will want to consume.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    ashlee_tx wrote: »
    Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
    I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.

    Put your stats into MFP and it will give you a calorie goal. Log your food and hit your goal. Your body burns calories even at rest so as others have said, no you don't need to exercise off 1,000 cals per day, thank goodness :). Start off small with exercise, and as you go you will get stronger and able to do more. Good luck!
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    ashlee_tx wrote: »
    Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
    I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.

    People who do zero exercise can lose weight just by cutting back on portions. You can get to your deficit from eating less and/or moving more, the choice is yours. Logging and measuring portions will help you keep things in check.

    Weight loss thru exercise alone is tough to "measure." People aren't always as consistent as they would like to think. You would have to eat the same calories while burning more.....but exercise makes some people hungry.

  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    ritzvin wrote: »

    You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.

    I'm guessing either a typo, or possibly the 50% longer time of activity makes a difference.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »

    You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.

    Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.

    Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.

    here is a quote from the website.
    Note About the Calories Chart

    You burn more calories per mile at very low speeds because you are basically stopping and starting with each step and your momentum isn't helping to carry you along. Meanwhile, at very high walking speeds you are using more muscle groups with arm motion and with a racewalking stride. Those extra muscles burn up extra calories with each step. Running may burn more calories per mile as there is an up and down motion lifting your weight off the ground as well as moving it forward."

    The chart of calories burned per mile is based on MET research - metabolic equivalents of various activities.
    "References: AINSWORTH BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O’Brien WL, Bassett DR Jr,
    Schmitz KH, Emplaincourt PO, Jacobs DR Jr, Leon AS. ""Compendium of Physical Activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities."" Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32 (Suppl):S498-S516."

    NOt saying it is totally accurate but there is science behind it.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »

    You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.

    Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.

    Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.

    I just ran some numbers from the Shape Sense calculator, assuming a 6' tall, 50-year old, 200 lb male:

    Calories burned walking 1 mile:
    1 mph: 226 kcal gross, 139 kcal net
    2 mph: 143 kcal gross, 100 kcal net
    3 mph: 120 kcal gross, 91 kcal net
    4 mph: 124 kcal gross, 102 kcal net


    Using another calculator which is set with my personal parameters gives net burns of:
    2 mph: 74 kcal
    3 mph: 68 kcal
    4 mph: 82 kcal

    So both of these agree that 3 mph burns fewer net calories per mile than 2 mph. I have also heard the explanation that efficiency is important. At 2 mph you're moving slowly enough that you lose momentum at each step and need more effort to keep going compared to 3 mph, whereas at 4 mph you need more motion of your arms and body to stay stable. Another way of saying that is that 3 mph is closest to the most energy efficient walking speed.

    Edited: I accidentally a word
  • kakaovanilya
    kakaovanilya Posts: 647 Member
    Options
    I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know

    For a set amount of time spent walking, you definitely burn more calories at higher speeds. That is, if you walk for an hour at 3 mph you've burned 273 kcal, whereas an hour at 2 mph burns 200 kcal.