Extremely slow progress! What is going on?!
Rocio12
Posts: 15 Member
I am logging my VEGAN food on mfp. I eat anywhere between 1800 to 2000 calories. I do well at hitting my target macros. I also wear an Apple Watch that tracks my activity. I’ve been using my health app in my phone to see my resting energy calories and also my active energy calories that I’ve burned. I total those two and usually end with a calorie deficit of 700 to sometimes 1000. Is this why my progress is so slow? I should also add that I exercise everyday.
Any advise is appreciated
Any advise is appreciated
0
Replies
-
What is your height and weight?
How long have you been at this deficit and not losing weight?
What kind of exercise are you doing to have an almost 3000 cal TDEE, and how long have you been at that exercise/activity level?6 -
Are eating back your exercise calories, or are you netting 800-1,000 calories some days?0
-
I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.1
-
I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.
How much weight have you lost over the 5 weeks?0 -
I’ve stayed at 1831
-
Are you sure those calories are correct? That seems very high. Don’t include intentional exercise in your activity. What is your activity set at?1
-
Yes. I alwAys use a food scale2
-
Should I be eating more?0
-
19000
-
I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.
Your sedentary TDEE would be just under 1800 cals. I doubt 30 minutes on your bike would give you 700+ calories. I'm not familiar with the Apple watch, but I think at least part of the problem is your exercise calories are exaggerated and you're only in a small deficit at best at 2000 cals.
I would try dropping your calories a little and make sure your logging is accurate and consistent - double check the database entries you're choosing have the correct calories, make sure you are weighing your portions properly, and that you're logging everything ever day.20 -
A second question would be how did you arrive at the calorie needs you are using? Did you go through the MFP guided setup, or are you using a number from another source? If you did use the MFP setup, what activity level did you choose?
If using MFP's guideline, understand that is the NEAT method which includes your normal routine daily activities but NOT purposeful exercise. So you are to set your activity level to what your typical non-exercise activity is (don't count the yoga, bike, strength training). Are you typically on your feet during the day? Have a desk job? MFP sets your calorie goal based upon your day to day activity and expects you to eat your calories back.
Many other calculators online, however, use the TDEE method, which is meant to incorporate all activity into a single number, so you set your activity level and then do NOT count back exercise.
So if you are using the number MFP gave you, revisit your goals - which activity level did you choose? What loss rate are you shooting for? If you got your calorie goal from another source, it may be that its giving you a TDEE number and by counting back your exercise, you are actually eating too much.3 -
Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.7
-
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Yeah, I'd think so as well. It's a stationary bike where you can adjust the difficulty I think.
----
I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.
---
Sure you can make it a lot harder, but 30 minutes of a spinning bike will likely not burn 300 calories. The strength training, if it's proper strength training and not some kind of cardio strength intervals will be very low, and 20 minutes yoga is likely very low as well.
My guess is that that the TO severely overestimated calorie burns, probably by at least 500 calories per day.6 -
I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.
With regrets, I'm in the camp of those who think your calorie goal is an over-estimate, and/or your exercise calories are overestimated. I'm not trying to be mean or harsh or braggy here, but I will be frank about why I think that: It's based on personal experience.
I started out at exactly your weight, 183, though I'm a little taller at 5'5", and lost down to my current weight, about 130. Almost 5 years of careful tracking tells me that I'm an improbably good li'l ol' calorie burner, beyond what most women experience. I burn around 25-30% more calories daily than MFP (or my own good brand/model fitness tracker, BTW) estimates. (If I knew why, I'd tell you.
)
The thing is, even with all of that, 1900 net would only be a tiny deficit for me - around a hundred calories, maybe just a touch more. A 100 calorie deficit would mean over a month to lose a pound of fat. It would've been a little bigger deficit at 183, by an estimated roughly 300 calories. But let me underscore: For some lucky reason, I'm documented to be on the high-burning end of the normal bell curve for my size, where by definition most people are not. You might be on the high end, too, but it's unfortunately not probable.
Also, I've taken spin classes for a long time, and I've been a short-endurance athlete for a long time (even while obese), like over 15 years, so at this point I can/do push intensity in a spin class. A 45-minute intense spin class, at 183 pounds, was good for maybe 425 calories, on my highest (most intense) days, in my estimates.
If you're relatively new to this exercise, or you have a max heart rate that differs from the usual age-based estimates (which is not unusual), a heart rate monitor is likely to overestimate calories for many cardiovascular activities. A very fit person's heart beats fewer times per minute to deliver the same amount of blood and oxygen, compared to a much less fit person, whose heart needs to beat more often because the blood/oxygen volume per beat is less. (It's a training effect.) It's oxygen consumption that tracks more accurately with calorie burn, not the heart rate per se. Heart rate is a proxy, and it can mislead.
Strength training burns neglible calories, and any heart-rate-based device is likely to dramatically overestimate them (it's still worth doing, but mostly not for the outright calorie burn of the activity). A realistic (METS-based) estimate for strength training for 20 minutes at 183 pounds would be 83 calories. Twenty minutes of basic hatha yoga (same estimating method) would be 69 (other, more intense yoga might be more). Depending on fitness level and the yoga positions involved, a heart-rate-based device stands a good chance of overestimating those, too, unfortunately. Various forms of physical strain and intra-body pressure will increase heart rate, without increasing calorie expenditure.
To burn 1000 calories via exercise, at 183 pounds, I'd have to go for a full hour on the rowing machine at a pace that's around 145 calories per hour beyond maximum I've ever been able to sustain in a 2k race (so something I've sustained less than 9 minutes, couldn't possibly go longer; it was around 855 calories per hour, based on well-respected power metering, weight adjusted, on that machine). This is my sport, and I'm not terrible/slow at it, on an age group basis. I've medaled in races. Now, rowing is not the very most calorie-intensive exercise, but it's fairly high on the list of them.
Bottom line: One thousand exercise calories is really a lot.
The point of all of this is not to be Braggy McBraggerson, it's to justify why, based on personal experience, I think your goal may be too high (depends on how active your daily life is, outside of exercise), and that your Apple watch is almost certainly overestimating exercise calories, if that 1000 calories is just exercise (not a combination of exercise and daily life activity).
I lost most of 50 pounds at 1400-1600 net calories, so 1600-2000 gross, most days, FWIW. Not saying that would be right for you, but I'm thinking you should rethink/adjust your numbers somewhat. I think you've found your approximate maintenance calories at your current weight.
Here's some background (oldies but still true) about why I'm saying what i am about heart rate monitors and exercise estimates:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
ETA: I'm not sure why vegan was capitalized? Speaking as a long term (45 year) vegetarian, dietary styles have little to do with calorie requirements. I wish.
You have some good data, now. You can make this work, with the right adjustments.
Wishing you much success! :drinker:19 -
good work! not too slow in my opinion
1 -
Slow progress is better than no progress!3
-
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
4 -
More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hourspiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph. - I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.
ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).3 -
moonangel12 wrote: »
More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hourspiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph. - I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.
ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).
But how do you know your garmin estimates correctly? Have you set your maximum heartrate for cycling, is there any estimate of the power involved? Just because a technical gadget says you burn so many calories doesn't mean you really burn so much. Now if you were to track your calories absolutely meticulously and had a good idea of your average NEAT, measured over a period without sport, and then only added regular cycling then you'd get a good idea if it's correct or not. Or a power meter on your bike.1 -
The point I'm trying to make is that both 300cals (83watt average) for an hour and 450cals (125watts average) for an hour are perfectly believable as the range that people ride at / are capable of is so wide.
What doesn't jive is such a low power output / calorie burn and 22mph - that would involve a simply fantastically long downhill descent and I'd love to know where I could ride downhill for an hour.
My suspicion is that (not unusually) some people don't realise that "speed" displayed on a stationary bike isn't a true metric or comparison to actual speed.
If the OP wants to share her power output and duration I'd be happy to work out the calories.3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.4 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.
BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....
Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.
3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.1 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.
I have no opinion on the calorie burn potential, specifically for heavy vs. light (except to agree with @sijomial that on a stationary bike, body weight is at most a minor factor). It's going to be more about strength and CV fitness.
But "easier"? As in subjectively easier? That, I have an opinion about, having done stationary (and regular) biking at the range of weights between 183 and 116, all of that at similar strength and fitness levels. It's subjectively easier when lighter, no question.
Sure, there's more weight to mash the pedal, with gravity. I don't see any advantage on the pull, which would IMO be more a strength issue (and it may actually be trivial harder on the pull because there's quite a lot of leg mass to move through space that isn't adding anything useful to the pull). Perhaps you're trying to say that the push on one side makes the pull on the other side easier . . . but why would I pull less than I can, just because I could?spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.
BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....
Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.
Yes, agreed. My point was more that I felt like the "22 mph" thing was losing focus on the OP, and what she was actually doing (. . . and I didn't make that point especially clearly let alone succinctly ).
I'm quite prepared to be impressed if Peleton does sound calorie estimating based on watts, and says 500+ calories for half an hour is an accurate number, gross or net. (I'm quite certain yoga/strength isn't 200+ for 20 minutes.)
And I do understand that bodyweight is largely irrelevant for stationary bike, so citing equivalent BW in my PP is admittedly more "I've been there" than "there matters".
I could geek out badly here about estimating methods, but I'll restrain myself, in the interest of keeping the focus mainly on OP's scenario.
Calorie estimating generally is a pretty approximate process, from the calculator-based BMR estimate, to the food logging, to guesses on daily life activity, to exercise. Fortunately, some things tend to be over, others under; and personal methods consistency across all of those tends to make longer-term scale weight results a quite reliable guide to adjusting one's intake despite the level of error inherently involved. OP has some scale feedback. 0 -
Arguing about exact calorie burns aside, it looks like, based on real world results, the OP is either overestimating calories out or underestimating calories in. If logging is accurate and all foods are weighed, then the exercise calories are probably too high. Either way, the only solution to the problem is to cut calories until weight loss happens at the expected rate, since adding more exercise would be a recipe for burnout.12
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions