Under eating

tinkerbellang83

Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »

I would have guessed that 700 calories for 70 minutes of anything sounds a bit much - unless you were literally at heart busting level constantly.

Depending on stats, not necessarily but yes definitely in the case of a 133 average height female.

Pipsqueak1965

I don't think i would burn that much if I was running away from zombies! Uphill! Carrying a bag of rocks!

tinkerbellang83

Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »

I don't think i would burn that much if I was running away from zombies! Uphill! Carrying a bag of rocks!

I'm 250lbs and 5'8" so I reckon doing stroke position in a currach* against the tide/wind for 70 mins would probably be reasonably close to that (and has been in the past).

* ETA image

AnnPT77

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »

I would have guessed that 700 calories for 70 minutes of anything sounds a bit much - unless you were literally at heart busting level constantly.

Depending on stats, not necessarily but yes definitely in the case of a 133 average height female.

I'm about that size (5'5", mid-130s), reasonably well-conditioned but definitely way sub-elite (also kind of old ). I'm the other kind of rower, skinny boats like in the olympics (mine is slower ); I do rowing machine workouts in Winter. I've raced both on-water and indoor. Rowing machine is generally considered a fairly decent calorie-burner.

Based on recent logs from indoor rowing, I can still hit a pace that, using the Concept 2 data and adjustments (generally well-regarded), would equate to around 700 calories in 70 minutes (about a 2:27 per 500m pace, 110 watts), including the bodyweight adjustment to 133 pounds specifically. I believe that's gross calories (includes RMR) rather than net.

I believe I could hold that pace for 70 continuous minutes if you made me, though I usually do 10 minutes on, 2 minutes off, with some water-drinking and gentle rowing in the 2 minutes. (That pace was from a random 3 x 10 minutes on, 2 minutes off workout. It was 50% zone 4, 30% zone 3, rest of the time zone 2/1, in a 5-zone HR scheme. If I'd gone longer or more continuously, HR would likely have drifted up into Z5.)

So, yes, possible. Not heart-busting, with reasonable long-term conditioning. Probably toward the higher end, I would guess, of what a normal recreational athlete could typically be sustaining for 70 continuous minutes (even one younger than me) on a day-in day-out basis, but not crazy high.

I don't know how to compare elliptical as a modality to rowing, which I'm pretty familiar with. Weight lifting, for sure not 700 calories in 70 minutes. More like 200 for 70 minutes, maybe.

lemurcat2

For running I think the general comparison is about 700 cals for running 7 miles in 70 minutes if you are 150. (The Runners World calculator does give a higher estimate, but that's the rule of thumb I learned (and perhaps the difference is backing out cals you would have burned anyway.) For running when around 125 or 130, I've always rounded down from 100 cals per mile.

I think elliptical cals tend to be overstated by the machines/MFP, and MFP's has the added error factor of measuring it by how hard you perceive yourself to be working, which I would only go by without downgrading if I were quite experienced at the activity and in good shape (which OP very well could be, of course). That said, if experienced at elliptical and working hard, having it burn about as much as you could do running in that time is fair, so if OP thinks it was a bit harder than running 7 miles in that time for her, it could be about right.

Psychgrrl

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Psychgrrl wrote: »

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

Are the Aramark meals accurate?

I work with (not for) Aramark on Campus and I will say they have very strict recipes and portion sizes, instructions and serving utensils. Calorie counts, macros, carbon footprint, water footprint are posted publicly.

Sure, there can be over/unders, but they’re a profit driven company and I’d guess they have less variance than the average restaurant.

I use their entries and they match what’s posted on their menu boards. Lost my weight, have maintained the loss.

Yeah I have worked with them previously and other contract caterers, but quite often when I first started using MFP their entries would be close to the top when searching for a generic entry rather than using my own recipe/restaurant info and I can tell you now from experience, my recipes were a lot higher calorie than Aramark's.

Ahhh, got it. I only used Aramark entries for Aramark food when I'm eating on campus.

rodnichols69

lemongirlbc wrote: »

What is your goal? You are a healthy weight now, are you trying to lose more weight? How long are your workouts? Fitness trackers are notorious for way over-estimating calorie burns. You aren't far off my size, and I wouldn't burn 700 calories if I was balls to the wall running for an hour - more like 3-400 going my hardest, on top of whatever I burn just being alive. Although I'm probably a few years older than you, which can make a difference. At your stats, 1900 sounds likely to be close to maintenance amount, so if you are trying to lose at a reasonable rate your calories look reasonable for the last few days, other than the one where you skipped lunch.

Heck, I weigh 200 and I have a hard time eating 1900 calories a day.

TanyaHooton

I like the elliptical a lot, but I have a hard time believing that I burn like 350 calories in 35 minutes or whatever those machines tell you. As far as numbers, I try to ensure I hit a specific pace (10 or 11 minute mile, for example) but I use this site to calculate my calories: https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-on-elliptical/ And even then, I still only eat two-thirds to three-fourths back just to account for minor discrepancies in logging.