Help?! 1000-1200 cal. A day plus 1 hr exercise and not loosing an ounce....
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
20 minutes of true HIIT, 5 days a week, is not something that is realistic for the vast majority of people. You may be talking about the current fad of calling certain types of workouts HIIT, but there's really no compelling reason to do one of those if you really prefer walking.
There's no one right way to exercise. Some people will find walking much more pleasant and sustainable. I personally would be much more likely to take a walk than to either do a fake "HIIT" workout or an actual HIIT workout.
Exercise that you enjoy (or at least don't dread) is a key component of lifelong fitness.
Yep, I did the Les Mills BodyAttack classes for about six months and I think the only reason I endured it that long is that I had it bad for one of my classmates at the time. 😅. Ultimately it felt like punishment to me and I gave it up. Walking, however, is exercise I have done nearly everyday for years and years, and I love it.
I guess ultimately I am one of those true believers that exercise is for fitness and well-being, and diet is for weight loss. I just don't see the sole purpose of exercise as needing to burn the most calories in the shortest amount of time (and I haven't gained that weight back, either, BTW.)18 -
gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
Fast is not always better. I’ve lost 24 pounds since June 6 by a calorie deficit and “only” waking as my exercise. And I still eat cookies and chips and pizza (gasp). No reason to be miserable while we improve our health, so if more vigorous workouts aren’t enjoyable or appropriate walking is absolutely a good idea.
21 -
gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
If you can do HIT workouts 5X a week, odds are extremely high you are not really doing HIT workouts.28 -
gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
I burn 30-45 cal per mile. This may be accurate for you, but everyones numbers are different.4 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
I burn 30-45 cal per mile. This may be accurate for you, but everyones numbers are different.
I don't think you're negating his point because I was going to say the same thing.
God, I'd love to be able to burn 80 calories a mile.3 -
gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
For peak fitness, that's exactly what all the elite athletes did to get fit: HIIT workouts, every single day.
For weight loss, that's exactly what every successful weight loser/long-time maintainer over in the MFP "Maintaining Weight" forum (or anywhere else) did to lose/maintain weight.
Except that they didn't - either group. (*Some* of the latter group? Sure, maybe. Not most.)
So maybe there are multiple paths to success, and different ones could work better in different situations, or for different people?
Trust me from experience, a person can lose 50+ pounds in less than a year, without ever doing HIIT or having "a big calorie reduction" that causes "falling off the wagon".
As an aside, I get that people have busy lives, but it always makes me feel a little sad (beyond that ultra-busy scenario) when people hate their exercise so much that they want it to be over quickly. I guess exercise purely for calories is sometimes necessary, but still . . . .
😆13 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
I burn 30-45 cal per mile. This may be accurate for you, but everyones numbers are different.
I don't think you're negating his point because I was going to say the same thing.
God, I'd love to be able to burn 80 calories a mile.
If you are over 150 lbs you most likely do burn 80 calories or more in 1 mile of walking at a casual pace. 😊
https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
I burn 30-45 cal per mile. This may be accurate for you, but everyones numbers are different.
I don't think you're negating his point because I was going to say the same thing.
God, I'd love to be able to burn 80 calories a mile.
If you are over 150 lbs you most likely do burn 80 calories or more in 1 mile of walking at a casual pace. 😊
https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
LOL I know. I just miss those days. I often say I want to gain weight so I can burn more calories exercising.6 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Strudders67 wrote: »I only went back a few days in your diary and, thankfully, you're probably eating more than you think.
2 slices white bread. 3 slices white bread.
How much did they weigh? What brand? Two slices of bread, even from the same loaf, won't weigh the same.
You're also selecting a different brand every day - do you really buy different loaves daily?
1tbs peanut butter. 1 tbsp jam. 1tsp brown sugar. 2tbsp salted butter.
How much one person fits in a tbsp may be vastly different to how much you put in. Did you use a level spoonful or a heaped one? What did the database entry use? You don't know how much your pb or jam or butter weighed and you don't know how much was in the serving that you selected from the database. There's a pic somewhere on this forum that illustrates that perfectly with spoons of peanut butter.
2 cups of Special K cereal. 1 cup of pasta. 1 cup of spaghetti. 1 cup of pasta with meaballs. 1 cup cooked rice.
Too vague. As above, what I'd measure as a cup could differ to how much you fill your cup.
Chili no meat - 2.4cups. How did you measure .4 of a cup?
Generic ground beef - 2.5oz Do scales accurately measure .5oz? (certainly mine don't)
Whey double rich chocolate - 30.4g. You must have much more accurate scales than me if you can measure .4 of a gram, so use grams for everything.
Steak frites - the portion says "about 2 pieces". So was it two pieces or not? does three small pieces count as two? What if one's a bit bigger?
I didn't see any mention of cooking oils, but maybe you didn't use any in the last few days.
You could continue as you are but, as I said before, give it 6 weeks then compare your weight then to your weight now and see what rate you've been losing at. That'll tell you how much of a deficit you're really in.
Or, weigh anything solid, preferably in grams. Anything calorie dense should definitely be weighed. When you're accurately logging what you're eating, you'll know how many calories you're actually consuming. But remember thta it's your net calories (what you've eaten - exercise calories) that should be 1200 or above.
yup - this is exactly what I noticed.
OP - your diary is full of "pieces," "cups" and "slices" without any mention of weight. start there - it will be eye opening!
Well - if I pick an entry that has the correct nutritional info that matches the label in my grubby little hand, and even if the entry says cups or spoons or volume measurements..... I have the label in my hand that says grams per serving.
If I weighed it, and I know how much of a serving I ate - it really doesn't matter what the database reports it's being logged correctly.
That's how you end up with 2.4 cups. Because it was weighed and exact servings eaten.
Something that always bugs me with these finds of volume measurements being used from the database - they are likely dead on accurate - and to suggest everyone should go make a new entry merely to have grams on there is exactly how the database has become so stupid with incorrect entries and such.
Now - outside that complaint which others commented on too - great call on confirming what is used.
But to use a database entry that is perfectly correct but happens to show volume (I've even used ones that showed no serving units because it was the first correct entry that came up for nutritional info) is just fine.16 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Strudders67 wrote: »I only went back a few days in your diary and, thankfully, you're probably eating more than you think.
2 slices white bread. 3 slices white bread.
How much did they weigh? What brand? Two slices of bread, even from the same loaf, won't weigh the same.
You're also selecting a different brand every day - do you really buy different loaves daily?
1tbs peanut butter. 1 tbsp jam. 1tsp brown sugar. 2tbsp salted butter.
How much one person fits in a tbsp may be vastly different to how much you put in. Did you use a level spoonful or a heaped one? What did the database entry use? You don't know how much your pb or jam or butter weighed and you don't know how much was in the serving that you selected from the database. There's a pic somewhere on this forum that illustrates that perfectly with spoons of peanut butter.
2 cups of Special K cereal. 1 cup of pasta. 1 cup of spaghetti. 1 cup of pasta with meaballs. 1 cup cooked rice.
Too vague. As above, what I'd measure as a cup could differ to how much you fill your cup.
Chili no meat - 2.4cups. How did you measure .4 of a cup?
Generic ground beef - 2.5oz Do scales accurately measure .5oz? (certainly mine don't)
Whey double rich chocolate - 30.4g. You must have much more accurate scales than me if you can measure .4 of a gram, so use grams for everything.
Steak frites - the portion says "about 2 pieces". So was it two pieces or not? does three small pieces count as two? What if one's a bit bigger?
I didn't see any mention of cooking oils, but maybe you didn't use any in the last few days.
You could continue as you are but, as I said before, give it 6 weeks then compare your weight then to your weight now and see what rate you've been losing at. That'll tell you how much of a deficit you're really in.
Or, weigh anything solid, preferably in grams. Anything calorie dense should definitely be weighed. When you're accurately logging what you're eating, you'll know how many calories you're actually consuming. But remember thta it's your net calories (what you've eaten - exercise calories) that should be 1200 or above.
yup - this is exactly what I noticed.
OP - your diary is full of "pieces," "cups" and "slices" without any mention of weight. start there - it will be eye opening!
Well - if I pick an entry that has the correct nutritional info that matches the label in my grubby little hand, and even if the entry says cups or spoons or volume measurements..... I have the label in my hand that says grams per serving.
If I weighed it, and I know how much of a serving I ate - it really doesn't matter what the database reports it's being logged correctly.
That's how you end up with 2.4 cups. Because it was weighed and exact servings eaten.
Something that always bugs me with these finds of volume measurements being used from the database - they are likely dead on accurate - and to suggest everyone should go make a new entry merely to have grams on there is exactly how the database has become so stupid with incorrect entries and such.
Now - outside that complaint which others commented on too - great call on confirming what is used.
But to use a database entry that is perfectly correct but happens to show volume (I've even used ones that showed no serving units because it was the first correct entry that came up for nutritional info) is just fine.
I agree that there is no need to create a new entry just to put the grams in. If you are weighing and using the correct entries in the database, it doesn’t matter.
I only make a new entry when EVERY SINGLE ONE I find is wrong... I’m like how did 6 different people enter this wrong?? Or maybe the recipe changed slightly and the old entry USED to be correct but isn’t anymore.
OP make sure you weigh accurately and check for correct entries and you’ll know how many calories you are taking in.8 -
It's sad when I even entertain the thought that I won't try this new product (to me but been around awhile) because of the likely difficulty with MFP.
Sometimes I get it anyway, but I have skipped a few and went to an old standby.
And then that nutritional info changed on new and improved product!2 -
AshHeartsJesus wrote: »Another thing to watch is sodium!! If you are eating lots of bread pasta rice fries and not paying attention to the sodium you will bloat very quickly I can eat 500 calories and go over on my sodium and feel like poo 💩
Bloat is due to carbs not salt. Your body needs and holds more water when you eat lots of carbs.0 -
gazpainter wrote: »
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
I do 20min s of HIIT every day. I can assure you that I almost never burn over 250 cals - I'm 66kg/172cm. It all depends on your existing weight and a variety of other factors. My calorie burn this week has been around 160-200.
4 -
gazpainter wrote: »
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
I do 20min s of HIIT every day. I can assure you that I almost never burn over 250 cals - I'm 66kg/172cm. It all depends on your existing weight and a variety of other factors. My calorie burn this week has been around 160-200.
1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »Strudders67 wrote: »I only went back a few days in your diary and, thankfully, you're probably eating more than you think.
2 slices white bread. 3 slices white bread.
How much did they weigh? What brand? Two slices of bread, even from the same loaf, won't weigh the same.
You're also selecting a different brand every day - do you really buy different loaves daily?
1tbs peanut butter. 1 tbsp jam. 1tsp brown sugar. 2tbsp salted butter.
How much one person fits in a tbsp may be vastly different to how much you put in. Did you use a level spoonful or a heaped one? What did the database entry use? You don't know how much your pb or jam or butter weighed and you don't know how much was in the serving that you selected from the database. There's a pic somewhere on this forum that illustrates that perfectly with spoons of peanut butter.
2 cups of Special K cereal. 1 cup of pasta. 1 cup of spaghetti. 1 cup of pasta with meaballs. 1 cup cooked rice.
Too vague. As above, what I'd measure as a cup could differ to how much you fill your cup.
Chili no meat - 2.4cups. How did you measure .4 of a cup?
Generic ground beef - 2.5oz Do scales accurately measure .5oz? (certainly mine don't)
Whey double rich chocolate - 30.4g. You must have much more accurate scales than me if you can measure .4 of a gram, so use grams for everything.
Steak frites - the portion says "about 2 pieces". So was it two pieces or not? does three small pieces count as two? What if one's a bit bigger?
I didn't see any mention of cooking oils, but maybe you didn't use any in the last few days.
You could continue as you are but, as I said before, give it 6 weeks then compare your weight then to your weight now and see what rate you've been losing at. That'll tell you how much of a deficit you're really in.
Or, weigh anything solid, preferably in grams. Anything calorie dense should definitely be weighed. When you're accurately logging what you're eating, you'll know how many calories you're actually consuming. But remember thta it's your net calories (what you've eaten - exercise calories) that should be 1200 or above.
yup - this is exactly what I noticed.
OP - your diary is full of "pieces," "cups" and "slices" without any mention of weight. start there - it will be eye opening!
Well - if I pick an entry that has the correct nutritional info that matches the label in my grubby little hand, and even if the entry says cups or spoons or volume measurements..... I have the label in my hand that says grams per serving.
If I weighed it, and I know how much of a serving I ate - it really doesn't matter what the database reports it's being logged correctly.
That's how you end up with 2.4 cups. Because it was weighed and exact servings eaten.
Something that always bugs me with these finds of volume measurements being used from the database - they are likely dead on accurate - and to suggest everyone should go make a new entry merely to have grams on there is exactly how the database has become so stupid with incorrect entries and such.
Now - outside that complaint which others commented on too - great call on confirming what is used.
But to use a database entry that is perfectly correct but happens to show volume (I've even used ones that showed no serving units because it was the first correct entry that came up for nutritional info) is just fine.
I agree that there is no need to create a new entry just to put the grams in. If you are weighing and using the correct entries in the database, it doesn’t matter.
I only make a new entry when EVERY SINGLE ONE I find is wrong... I’m like how did 6 different people enter this wrong?? Or maybe the recipe changed slightly and the old entry USED to be correct but isn’t anymore.
OP make sure you weigh accurately and check for correct entries and you’ll know how many calories you are taking in.
Recipes change. They’ll “improve” taste or texture and the composition will shift.
As new labeling requirements come into being, manufacturers change serving sizes to “maintain” the nutritional “image” of the food. The two where I’ve seen the biggest impact over the years was the addition of labeling “trans fat” and “added sugar.”
With trans fat, manufacturers were allowed to say the food had “0” grams of trans fat per serving if it had .5 grams or less. So, until manufacturers could alter their recipes, they made their serving sizes smaller. Anyone else but me remember six months or so of really tiny servings of chips.
I saw a similar shift in servings of preserves. Only tiny amounts of added sugar, they declared! But they were teeny, tiny servings.2 -
gazpainter wrote: »Walking 15 to 20 mins total a mile burns around 80 calories
Exercise like hiit for 20 mins burns about 250 to 350.
Its all down to how quickly you want results.
You walk a mile a day 7 days a week, you burn 760 a week on top of daily burn.
Hiit 5 times a week for 20 mins (which is no time at all) will burn 1500.
So less exercise days but same amount of time and double the burn... Double the calories burned... Simple as that...
If you have more than 20lbs to lose... Trust me from experience, walking and diet will take over a year easily... And how long can you stay at a big calorie reduction without falling off the wagon?
For peak fitness, that's exactly what all the elite athletes did to get fit: HIIT workouts, every single day.
For weight loss, that's exactly what every successful weight loser/long-time maintainer over in the MFP "Maintaining Weight" forum (or anywhere else) did to lose/maintain weight.
Except that they didn't - either group. (*Some* of the latter group? Sure, maybe. Not most.)
So maybe there are multiple paths to success, and different ones could work better in different situations, or for different people?
Trust me from experience, a person can lose 50+ pounds in less than a year, without ever doing HIIT or having "a big calorie reduction" that causes "falling off the wagon".
As an aside, I get that people have busy lives, but it always makes me feel a little sad (beyond that ultra-busy scenario) when people hate their exercise so much that they want it to be over quickly. I guess exercise purely for calories is sometimes necessary, but still . . . .
😆
Ya, now that the hot, muggy weather is over I was outside most of the day, being active, loving life. Also had lovely walks in the woods yesterday and the day before. The calorie burn is a nice bonus.5 -
A week is too early to tell when starting a new diet plan and also new exercise plan... As well if you're close to your TOM it'll throw the scale through a loop (sometimes it'll tell me I gained 10lbs just because of that!) ...highly likely it's water retention because your muscles are getting use to exercising.
The amount of calories you're eating is not enough, 1200 at min making sure to eat your exercise calories back or else you'll under eat, which will eventually lead to malnutrition.
I'm 5'3 and eat 1500 for a 1.5lbs weight-loss a week.
Weight-loss is slow and non-linear, just focus on healthy changes and you'll start to see results!6 -
I’m with you. Same situation but the scale hasn’t done more than fluctuate up and down 2 lbs.
Going on six weeks now and no change.3 -
Danielle,
First of all, stop worrying, relax, and enjoy this journey. You're doing great. DO NOT let that scale tell you differently. I have been in your shoes, and even today, 60 lbs down from where I started, I still go through these same episodes of the scale not moving. In reality, the scale is indeed moving, but, it is clouded by one simple phenomenon - water balance. Let me explain.
Everyone has heard about 8 cups of water a day. Some people do as much as 8 pints. In actuality, our biome typically works around 5 pints (10 cups) of fluid that moves in and out of our digestive, circulatory, respiration, skin and other body systems. The English have a saying, "A pints a pound, the world around". This means we have 5 lbs of fluctuation in weight over both the short and long term. Sunday, I returned from a walk, and weighed in at 234.8 lbs. I've been eating well and exercising all week. I weighed in this morning and 238.0 lbs. In reality, I'm losing weight, and at some point I will step on the scale this week, and will hit 232. I'm losing 2-3 lbs a week and have been for the last 20 weeks. I've lost 60 lbs doing exactly what you are doing.
I have 2 pieces of advice for you. First of all, don't go below 1200 calories. You can harm yourself. Stick to your plan and you will do great. Secondly, don't measure your success by that number on the scale. My current yardstick for measuring my success is on my dresser. It's a pair of Levi 505s, a pair of bright orange socks, and a bottle of Polo cologne. Someday, those sexy jeans will fit. Until then, I'll put on the sexy socks and sexy cologne. When those jeans fit, I'll get another pair, just a little smaller, and start over. The scale can kiss my shrinking behind.
Good luck, God Bless you, don't be discouraged, and friend me if you want help and encouragement.
All the best,
Mike3 -
danielle71686 wrote: »I am 34 yo female, currently at 218lb no health problems eat..
I have decided to get healthier... I count every item in fitness pal, I have been doing 16 fast /8Hr eating and have been eating clean, balanced 1000-1200 calories a day in that window and have been drinking between 80-120 oz water a day no sodas ext plus an hour of exercise reaching a good heart rate during and it “says” I’m Burning 250-300 cal during exercise but the scale has not moved an ounce. Every day for a week exactly since I have started this journey no movement at all and I am not sure what to do.....
I did this for years. I gained not lost over the years especially after I hit my 40's. I'm now eating more (around 1655c, and exercising less, (less cardio) but more weight training. ) 5 weeks in, ive lost 0, but have gone down a full size. Wore a a shirt yesterday I couldn't fit into for the last year. You're setting your metabolism very low. Trust me, this will only lead to yoyo dieting and eventual weight gain.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions