Exercise tips!

badtownstudioshalifax
badtownstudioshalifax Posts: 2 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey everyone. Here’s the fast facts:

I’m 42. Workout 6 days a week. My workouts are intense and I’m burning 800-1000 calories per workout. I used a calculator to figure out how to get to my ideal weight goal fast/healthy. I do strength/cardio in each workout. Eat back my workout calories and try to stay around my calorie intake goal. I’ve lost half my belly at this point by eating healthy, exercise, rest and sleeping. I’m having a hard time losing the spare tire around my waist and lower stomach (you can literally see my top 3 abs then just belly haha). Does anyone have any suggestions? Exercises? Should I only do a percentage of my workout calories? Food suggestions? I’m on the home stretch to getting the body I want but I can’t seem to break through that last hurdle and it’s been months at this point with what looks like no change

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,228 Member
    edited August 2023
    What you can do: Hang in there, keep losing weight. If getting close to goal weight, slow the rate down. Truly fast loss isn't healthy loss, and what counts as fast depends on how much fat is left.

    Are you calorie counting, including using a food scale? If not, that will give you insights if weight loss has seemingly literally stopped (you don't say specifically). Have you adjusted your calorie goal in light of your lower body weight? We could help you more if you say more, if stalled weight loss is part of the problem.

    If you keep losing weight, the belly fat will deplete eventually. It's last off for most of us. Slowing the loss rate helps keep muscle as we have less fat to lose. Make sure "eating healthy" means adequate protein, in a context of overall good nutrition. (Again, you don't say.)

    Also, you mention seeing belly fat below your visible top abs. Be aware that when we lose fat, fat cells can deplete anywhere in the fat mass. They don't necessarily start emptying out from the outer layer first, then proceed neatly inward. That often makes the remaining fat mass squishy, floppy, and - yes - droopy.

    It's like a water balloon that's lost water, but gained no air: Squishy, soft where it was once rounder and firmer. The droopy mass will tend to gravitationally droop to the lower part of the skin-sack when we're standing.

    Skin can shrink, but it can't every really get started until enough fat is gone that it stops conspiring with gravity to keep the skin stretched. That means we can look worse part way to goal than we will at goal, and worse at goal than we will after a few months (or years) in maintenance. (My loose skin kept shrinking at least into year 2 of maintenance, noting that I was older (60) than you are now.)

    There are no exercises that target belly fat. Spot reduction isn't a thing that can happen.

    Sometimes, improving posture can help the appearance of belly fat. There are various possibilities, but rounded shoulders/head forward is a common thing (from using keyboards/screens/phones - sometimes called "nerd neck"). Another is a habit of anterior pelvic tilt, carrying the top of the pelvic bones forward of the lower part, when instead they should be more stacked vertically. Sometimes women do this to emphasize the booty, sometimes men who've had a "beer belly" get kind of swaybacked (anterior pelvic tilt) because of the belly out front, and it becomes a habit. Habitually locking the knees is another possibility.

    Any of those things can tend to push central fat forward and downward, making it more prominent. There are exercises to improve posture, if any of those could be going on for you. Bob and Brad on YouTube are a decent source for physical therapy (but don't take their diet advice - not in their scope of practice, and it shows).

    Just curious: What are you doing, for what duration, at what body size, that burns that many calories? Is it something you expect to continue long term to stay at a healthy weight?

    E.T.A. P.S.: If you're getting discouraged, consider adopting easier tactics. Sometime during weight loss and fitness improvement, it's a good idea to start experimenting to find the practical, relatively easy new habits that will keep us at a healthy weight and reasonable fitness long term, within the context of an overall busy and demanding life. New habits that can run almost on autopilot, without needing constant "motivation" or "willpower" are a useful part of long-term success. (At least that's been my experience: I'm in year 7+ of maintaining, after around 30 previous years of overweight/obesity. So far, so good.)
  • zebasschick
    zebasschick Posts: 1,067 Member
    the body loses where it chooses. this time around, my belly is the last thing to go. last time i was this weight, it was an empty skin bag, but this time it's still got plenty of fat while my chest, upper back, arms and calves have lost lots of fat.
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    800-1000 sounds like a lot for an exercise estimate, and then you're eating it all back. What if you're actually burning a net 500? As in, the additional calories from exercise compared to doing nothing for an hour ot two.

    yeah, every calculator, home or gym treadmill or exercise bike, fitness tracker and app i've used to calculate my exercise calories burned gives results thar are obviously way too high - often double, judging by my results. my old polar heart rate chest strap and watch is the exception, and it seems to be pretty accurate.

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,227 Member
    Try either eating back half or even none of your exercise calories. You’re not burning as many as you think. Those calorie burning gizmos almost always overestimate the calories burned.

    Depending on how much you’ve lost to this point, you need to be lowering calories in order to continue progressing as you get lighter.
  • westrich20940
    westrich20940 Posts: 921 Member
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.
  • badtownstudioshalifax
    badtownstudioshalifax Posts: 2 Member
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    For how long are you exercising?

    Are you sure that calorie burn isn't including your Basal energy expenditure (BEE)/just being alive calories?

    I was baffled as to why MapMyFitness (not synched) calories were so much higher than those in the MFP database until I learned they included just being alive calories. What you want to eat back are just the calories from exercise.

    https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009117762-Why-Aren-t-My-Calories-Displaying-Correctly-

    "...Calories are determined by age, height, weight, gender, the intensity of the workout, distance traveled, and activity type. Heart rate does not currently factor into the equation. Our products calculate total burn, which includes caloric burn for both resting and active phases of activity. This means the calories you would typically burn by merely being alive automatically add to the number of calories you would burn from whichever activity you do."

    ***********

    Another place I've gotten wrong calories was for the elliptical. I knew I was ellipticaling much slower than normal so used the METS from the machine and a METS calculator https://metscalculator.com and learned the MFP entry for "Elliptical Trainer" would give me more than double the calories I actually earn from my unusually slow pace.

    The MFP entries for biking and walking have options for mph so I feel confident in using them.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,228 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    For how long are you exercising?

    Are you sure that calorie burn isn't including your Basal energy expenditure (BEE)/just being alive calories?

    I was baffled as to why MapMyFitness (not synched) calories were so much higher than those in the MFP database until I learned they included just being alive calories. What you want to eat back are just the calories from exercise.

    https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009117762-Why-Aren-t-My-Calories-Displaying-Correctly-

    "...Calories are determined by age, height, weight, gender, the intensity of the workout, distance traveled, and activity type. Heart rate does not currently factor into the equation. Our products calculate total burn, which includes caloric burn for both resting and active phases of activity. This means the calories you would typically burn by merely being alive automatically add to the number of calories you would burn from whichever activity you do."

    ***********

    Another place I've gotten wrong calories was for the elliptical. I knew I was ellipticaling much slower than normal so used the METS from the machine and a METS calculator https://metscalculator.com and learned the MFP entry for "Elliptical Trainer" would give me more than double the calories I actually earn from my unusually slow pace.

    The MFP entries for biking and walking have options for mph so I feel confident in using them.

    I feel skeptical about the biking ones. Energy output for a given speed varies IMO significantly depending on type of bike, terrain, and wind conditions. All of the MFP entries include the BEE and that can matter for longer/slower walks. (Theoretically, one ought to back out the MFP activity factor on top of BEE/RMR, too. I think it's a better idea to use the ExRx estimator with the energy box set on "net".

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    That would be an option for running, too.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,228 Member
    badtownstudioshalifax wrote: »
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.

    Strength training doesn't burn a lot of calories, but if you're using the MFP database estimates for that, that part's probably reasonable. If using a device that uses heart rate to estimate, quite possibly over-estimated. What kind of HIT (or HIIT?)? If it's that fast-paced circuit or calisthenics kind of thing, heart rate based estimates would also probably be high for that. Running is a good calorie burner, generally, though.

    It's possible that you're averaging 400-500 calories per hour over all those modalities depending on your body size.

    It's irrelevant to your question, but I'm wondering whether 2 hours a day, 6 days a week sustainable thing for you permanently, or is this part of a lose weight fast then do . . . something else (?) . . . approach? I'm maybe over-obsessed with staying at a healthy weight, though - seems to be the part where a large fraction of people struggle.

    To the bolded: That was extremely not clear in your OP, which seemed to be more appearance focused.

    Best wishes!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,990 Member
    badtownstudioshalifax wrote: »
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.
    30 minutes of strength training would be about 150 calories. 30 minutes of HIT maybe 250 at most. So well short of 800-1000 calories. Realize that even Olympic athletes work really hard to burn 1000 calories an hour. If you're eating back all your calories from an over estimation, then it's likely why you're not seeing any results.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,841 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    badtownstudioshalifax wrote: »
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.
    30 minutes of strength training would be about 150 calories. 30 minutes of HIT maybe 250 at most. So well short of 800-1000 calories. Realize that even Olympic athletes work really hard to burn 1000 calories an hour. If you're eating back all your calories from an over estimation, then it's likely why you're not seeing any results.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    400 for HIIT and strength training leaves 400-600 for an hour of running, which doesn't sound terribly exaggerated to me, depending on mileage/speed of course.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,228 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    badtownstudioshalifax wrote: »
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.
    30 minutes of strength training would be about 150 calories. 30 minutes of HIT maybe 250 at most. So well short of 800-1000 calories. Realize that even Olympic athletes work really hard to burn 1000 calories an hour. If you're eating back all your calories from an over estimation, then it's likely why you're not seeing any results.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    It was two hours. Half an hour each of strength training and HIT, an hour of running. So average of 400-500 calories per hour, not 800-1000 per hour.
  • westrich20940
    westrich20940 Posts: 921 Member
    badtownstudioshalifax wrote: »
    westrich20940 wrote: »
    I'm just here to ask what exercise you are doing (and for how long) that burns 800-1000 calories. Actually curious bc that seems SO high.

    30 minutes of strength training, 30 minutes of HIT workouts and an hour of running.

    Also, I exercise for my mental health. Not for gains.

    30 min of HIIT + 1hour of running...I can believe that calorie burn then. Thanks for the update.
  • Scotty_51
    Scotty_51 Posts: 15 Member
    edited September 2023
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    For how long are you exercising?

    Are you sure that calorie burn isn't including your Basal energy expenditure (BEE)/just being alive calories?

    I was baffled as to why MapMyFitness (not synched) calories were so much higher than those in the MFP database until I learned they included just being alive calories. What you want to eat back are just the calories from exercise.

    https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009117762-Why-Aren-t-My-Calories-Displaying-Correctly-

    "...Calories are determined by age, height, weight, gender, the intensity of the workout, distance traveled, and activity type. Heart rate does not currently factor into the equation. Our products calculate total burn, which includes caloric burn for both resting and active phases of activity. This means the calories you would typically burn by merely being alive automatically add to the number of calories you would burn from whichever activity you do."

    ***********

    Another place I've gotten wrong calories was for the elliptical. I knew I was ellipticaling much slower than normal so used the METS from the machine and a METS calculator https://metscalculator.com and learned the MFP entry for "Elliptical Trainer" would give me more than double the calories I actually earn from my unusually slow pace.

    The MFP entries for biking and walking have options for mph so I feel confident in using them.

    I feel skeptical about the biking ones. Energy output for a given speed varies IMO significantly depending on type of bike, terrain, and wind conditions. All of the MFP entries include the BEE and that can matter for longer/slower walks. (Theoretically, one ought to back out the MFP activity factor on top of BEE/RMR, too. I think it's a better idea to use the ExRx estimator with the energy box set on "net".

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    That would be an option for running, too.

    It way overestimates the biking.

    I'm hardcore into road cycling and have a power meter on my bike. That tells me exactly how much energy I expended and is one of the few truly accurate ways to measure calories burned.

    I looked up a 50 mile ride, I averaged 17.7 mph solo, so no drafting. It was 2 hours 50 minutes and I did 1,961 Kj of work. A 45 mile solo ride at 15.9 mph, took 2 hours 49 minutes and I did 1,385 kj of work.

    That calculator is telling me 1,034 calories for a 1 hour ride at 16-19 mph, that is almost double of what it really is.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,228 Member
    Scotty_51 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    For how long are you exercising?

    Are you sure that calorie burn isn't including your Basal energy expenditure (BEE)/just being alive calories?

    I was baffled as to why MapMyFitness (not synched) calories were so much higher than those in the MFP database until I learned they included just being alive calories. What you want to eat back are just the calories from exercise.

    https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009117762-Why-Aren-t-My-Calories-Displaying-Correctly-

    "...Calories are determined by age, height, weight, gender, the intensity of the workout, distance traveled, and activity type. Heart rate does not currently factor into the equation. Our products calculate total burn, which includes caloric burn for both resting and active phases of activity. This means the calories you would typically burn by merely being alive automatically add to the number of calories you would burn from whichever activity you do."

    ***********

    Another place I've gotten wrong calories was for the elliptical. I knew I was ellipticaling much slower than normal so used the METS from the machine and a METS calculator https://metscalculator.com and learned the MFP entry for "Elliptical Trainer" would give me more than double the calories I actually earn from my unusually slow pace.

    The MFP entries for biking and walking have options for mph so I feel confident in using them.

    I feel skeptical about the biking ones. Energy output for a given speed varies IMO significantly depending on type of bike, terrain, and wind conditions. All of the MFP entries include the BEE and that can matter for longer/slower walks. (Theoretically, one ought to back out the MFP activity factor on top of BEE/RMR, too. I think it's a better idea to use the ExRx estimator with the energy box set on "net".

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    That would be an option for running, too.

    It way overestimates the biking.

    I'm hardcore into road cycling and have a power meter on my bike. That tells me exactly how much energy I expended and is one of the few truly accurate ways to measure calories burned.

    I looked up a 50 mile ride, I averaged 17.7 mph solo, so no drafting. It was 2 hours 50 minutes and I did 1,961 Kj of work. A 45 mile solo ride at 15.9 mph, took 2 hours 49 minutes and I did 1,385 kj of work.

    That calculator is telling me 1,034 calories for a 1 hour ride at 16-19 mph, that is almost double of what it really is.

    It probably underestimates the biking generically, yes. For your case, obviously yes.

    If you could put your power meter on an old-school 1960s kids'-model fixie that weighed several times what your road bike weighs, that had less efficient tires and a less aerodynamic frame and riding posture, then you rode the same distance at the same 17.7 mph solo all on a steep uphill in a strong headwind, would you get the same kilojoule result?

    That's my point. The biking METS estimate based purely on MPH/KPH is unreasonable on its theoretical basis. It leaves out too many relevant variables. That's what I mean when I say I'm skeptical: The underlying assumptions don't hold up well for that case.

    A power meter is a good solution. I don't ride enough to merit the cost. People who do should get one, if they want better calorie estimates.

Categories