I hardly burn any calories!

Options
13»

Replies

  • rfarinha
    rfarinha Posts: 388 Member
    Options
    Those of you who are telling her not to worry about her calorie output are not helping her. You can not just worry about how much you take in. How much you take in is dependent on how much you burn! I got a BodyMedia arm band to help me determine this exact thing.

    According to MFP, my daily intake was 1200, and the "guestimation" of calories burned while on the elliptical, Zumba class, or Spin Class, were just that... Guesses! So if it was over-estimated, then I would be eating too much, and if it was being under-estimated, then I would be eating too little. With the BodyMedia armband, it tells me how many calories I use in a particular day, which is a moving target depending on if I workout that day, or if I am having a Lazy Sunday. And because of this tool, I am able to adjust my intake on a daily basis in order to always maintain a calorie deficit, without it being too large or too small.

    Good luck to you!
  • obsidianwings
    obsidianwings Posts: 1,237 Member
    Options
    I have the same issue as I am small to, we just burn less than bigger people. It is a little disheartening to be given such a low number when others can get bigger numbers for less, but you are obviously doing something right if you are small :)
  • shaycat
    shaycat Posts: 980
    Options

    ^ What she said.

    Don't over-complicate things. Figure out your maintenance intake. Set a 10-20% deficit. Eat 1g/protein, 30-50g fat, the rest is carbs. You'll lose weight without the hassle of counting exercise calories.

    To figure out maintenance, go here. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

    if I follow this plan, I would only be consuming 1119 calories a day...that's correct?

    It looks to me like that site is recommending that maintenance is your weight x 14-16, depending on your thermal dynamics and activity level. So, for a 120 lb. person, maintenance would be anywhere from 1680-1920 cals. To lose weight, you would reduce that by 10-20%.

    Just as a side note in defense of HRMs... HRMs are a better tool to determine if you're working hard enough rather than one to tell you exactly how many calories to eat. My weight loss took a sharp turn for the better when I was able to get a handle on keeping my heartrate high enough to actually burn substantial calories.

    Right! So my question is should I go towards the low end 1680? or the high end? I was maintaining pretty well at maybe a little less then 2000 cals a day. So I set it to 1700 to lose a bit more. However if my maintenance is closer to 1680, then I will slowly be gaining. I was eating close to 2000 and one day woke up and though my pants were getting tighter.
    I would love a body bug, but there is no way I can afford one.
  • natini
    natini Posts: 347 Member
    Options
    You have been given a ton of advice. I love my Polar FT4. It is much more accurate than the machines. I burn about 100 calories for every mile. Now if you dont want to worry about the HRM like other people said, go to www.fat2fitradio.com. Go to the BMR calculator. They show you a great grid for sedentary all the way up to active. Pick the level you are and eat at their recommended calories and dont worry about what you are burning.
  • jenj1313
    jenj1313 Posts: 898 Member
    Options
    I've got the same issue. I log my HRM calories and eat more than half of them back, but my calorie burn seems low and I'm always bummed when I see others put up huge numbers for less time / intensity of exercise. But... since the weight isn't falling off or anything, I figure the numbers must be pretty accurate.
  • russellma
    russellma Posts: 284 Member
    Options

    Right! So my question is should I go towards the low end 1680? or the high end? I was maintaining pretty well at maybe a little less then 2000 cals a day. So I set it to 1700 to lose a bit more. However if my maintenance is closer to 1680, then I will slowly be gaining. I was eating close to 2000 and one day woke up and though my pants were getting tighter.
    I would love a body bug, but there is no way I can afford one.

    Hmm.... well, how long did it take to gain any weight? If 3500 extra calories equals a pound, then 100 too many would take about a month to gain 1 lb.

    Maybe you should shoot for the middle around 1800 calories and see if that keeps you where you want to stay?

    I haven't mastered this myself. I'm eating near the bottom, but still losing some, so I'm working my way up.

    Edit: Oh, duh. It helps if you read the question right! So, you're wanting to know how many calories to eat to KEEP losing. (I got confused by the word maintaining...LOL) If you were able to maintain at the upper end, then you should lose by reducing that by 10% (1728 cals) to 20% (1536 cals).

    I would guess that anywhere in that range is safe for your metabolism but should still result in weight loss, but I'm no expert on that, either. It seems that I've heard that the lower your calories, the higher percentage of muscle that's burned, as opposed to just fat. And another thing to think about is how much you're willing to give up. That extra 200 calories might be your evening snack! :wink:
  • shaycat
    shaycat Posts: 980
    Options
    You have been given a ton of advice. I love my Polar FT4. It is much more accurate than the machines. I burn about 100 calories for every mile. Now if you dont want to worry about the HRM like other people said, go to www.fat2fitradio.com. Go to the BMR calculator. They show you a great grid for sedentary all the way up to active. Pick the level you are and eat at their recommended calories and dont worry about what you are burning.

    Yes this is what I am doing now. It is still a bummer not to be burning a lot of calories though
  • natini
    natini Posts: 347 Member
    Options
    I agree it is a bummer. I must admit that I like to see my burned calories after a workout. Maybe you need to change up your exercise??? Good luck!
  • shaycat
    shaycat Posts: 980
    Options
    and of coarse I figure if I burn more i will hit my goal sooner, but I need to stop thinking like that. Slow and steady and I will one day get to where I want to be.
  • beckajw
    beckajw Posts: 1,738 Member
    Options
    This sounds right to me. I only burn about that much too. It's because you don't weigh very much.
  • Brandicaloriecountess
    Brandicaloriecountess Posts: 2,126 Member
    Options
    and of coarse I figure if I burn more i will hit my goal sooner, but I need to stop thinking like that. Slow and steady and I will one day get to where I want to be.

    YES, plus you will lose fat, not muscle by taking your time.
  • GiniAldam74
    GiniAldam74 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    i have this problem and have asked advice on this as in a zumba full on class sometimes i dont even burn 300 cals in an hour and a spin class only about 350.
    but the problem is i dont eat alot not because im starving myself but because I just dont eat unless im hungry and prob only about 1300 calories a day, i am now at ideal weight but workout x 6 a week probabaly burn around 5000 calories a week and its because i just dont have 'excess' calories to burn as my body uses most of them to support bodily functions.
    i am trying not to pay much attention to calories burnt infact the hrm band and watch has made me more concious, just eat healthy and clean during the week, lower your carbs and up the protein and have some treats at the weekend and excercise as you are. All will come good :wink:

Categories