Once again

Options
hmhill17
hmhill17 Posts: 283 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm at the end of the day with almost 500 net calories lying about. I skipped one of my snacks today, and another was smaller than usual. Part of it was work getting in the way and part of it was just not being hungry. Should I force myself to eat those "spare"calories?

If we're counting actual calories, I've actually gone over my goal every day, but I do at least an hour of cardio a day.

Replies

  • SteveinChicago
    SteveinChicago Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    If you're not hungry I'd bank them for later when you really want something. Your call, though.
  • hmhill17
    hmhill17 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    So what you're saying is since I'm almost 1500 calories ahead so far this week, I can go buy that 20 ounce bone in ribeye with loaded baked potato this weekend.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,984 Member
    Options
    hmhill17 wrote: »
    So what you're saying is since I'm almost 1500 calories ahead so far this week, I can go buy that 20 ounce bone in ribeye with loaded baked potato this weekend.

    Absolutely! A lot of people purposely "bank" calories throughout the week so they can save them for the weekend. That is assuming, of course, that your estimated calorie burn from your exercise is accurate. If all of your "extra" calories are from exercise, then you have to be a little more careful if you are eating 100 percent of them back.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    Options
    hmhill17 wrote: »
    So what you're saying is since I'm almost 1500 calories ahead so far this week, I can go buy that 20 ounce bone in ribeye with loaded baked potato this weekend.

    There is literally no better use of stored up calories than a bone-in ribeye. The only question is whether to hand roll some butter, garlic, and parsley and top the steak with it. That'll cost another couple hundred cals to do it right.

  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    Options
    What type of cardio are you doing that you are burning more than 500 calories in an hour? What is your weight? Sometimes exercise burns can be inflated.
  • hmhill17
    hmhill17 Posts: 283 Member
    edited September 2019
    Options
    lgfrie wrote: »
    There is literally no better use of stored up calories than a bone-in ribeye. The only question is whether to hand roll some butter, garlic, and parsley and top the steak with it. That'll cost another couple hundred cals to do it right.

    I'm a salt and pepper only kind of guy. Then a 90 minute sous vide at 128 with a hard sear over super hot charcoal.
    MikePTY wrote: »
    What type of cardio are you doing that you are burning more than 500 calories in an hour? What is your weight? Sometimes exercise burns can be inflated.

    Mostly walking and elliptical. Currently 228. My walking speed is just shy of 4mph so I use 3.5 in MFP. I compared several calculators (MFP, multiple running apps, various websites) and the MFP number was the lowest. For the elliptical, I don't use the number on the machine or in MFP because it seems super high. I've been using the general aerobic number, but I may start using the walking number which would put me down to 400 calories for an hour of walking at 3.5 mph.[

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    A common formula for estimating walking calories uses the physics of moving mass over distance multiplied by a typical efficiency ratio (0.3).

    So for you walking 4 miles that would be approx 228 X 4 X 0.3 = 274 net cals

    The net cals is important as many estimations give you gross cals (double counting the calories you would have burned anyway in that time). Using gross cals gives a fairly big deviation for low rate of burn but long duration exercise.

    Obviously hills or difficult terrain would be a higher burn than flat ground / easy terrain.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »

    So for you walking 4 miles that would be approx 228 X 4 X 0.3 = 274 net cals

    This is super depressing. I weigh half that and I give myself a lot more credit than your formula. :s
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    edited September 2019
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    A common formula for estimating walking calories uses the physics of moving mass over distance multiplied by a typical efficiency ratio (0.3).

    So for you walking 4 miles that would be approx 228 X 4 X 0.3 = 274 net cals

    The net cals is important as many estimations give you gross cals (double counting the calories you would have burned anyway in that time). Using gross cals gives a fairly big deviation for low rate of burn but long duration exercise.

    Obviously hills or difficult terrain would be a higher burn than flat ground / easy terrain.

    I think that formula estimates walking calories pretty low.

    Long, long before there was an MFP or an Internet, there was me with my little analog pedometer from Yamax, hooked onto my belt as I walked hither and thither. At various weight levels I did careful TDEE and net exercise assessments in Excel, or, I almost hate to say it, Lotus 1-2-3 and, yeah, I guess Visicalc might've been part of that too. Anyway, it so happens that for a pretty large chunk of my life I was around the OP's weight, 236 to be specific. Long and short of it, I calculated my net calories from walking several times, based on food in, exercise out, and scale readings over 1-month periods, doing my usual 3.2 mph walks, and it always worked out to around 115 calories per mile.

    Obviously that 115 would change quite a bit if someone's weight were far lower or higher than 236 lbs but I think that is the general order of magnitude for net calories from walking, not the 63 per mile from the above formula. Ergo, if someone wanted to use a formula like that, I'd say what it really needs is a coefficient of 0.5 or 0.55 rather than 0.3.

Categories