what do you think of my plan...

larovers

I wouldn't eat back all of my calories, what would be the point of working out? Besides, maybe, the obvious heart benefits.

However, sounds like you got the data covered, so if you see a pattern at some point that it isn't working, alter your calorie intake, say by 100 calorie increments.

Also, I'd add some body measurements, eg, waist, etc, since you may be gaining muscle with those workouts but your clothes will be fitting better.

Also, I was using the polar ft60, and I think it was a bit generous on the calorie estimations, as well as the elliptical, just another reason not to eat back all cals.

I thought the polar watch (I think I have the F7) is the most accurate HRM out there. It never seems to overestimate anything I am doing...actually quite the opposite

Just thought I'd add this:

I adjust my calorie intake every 10lbs lost.

Also don't forget to adjust your settings on your HRM as you lose weight.

Good idea! Thanks!

MerBear1985

Just one piece of advice, add a couple hundred calories per day to your BMR. Your BMR is how many calories you would burn to keep your organs functioning if you were in a coma! I assume you are not in a coma everyday and even though your job is sedentary you still burn some calories. TDEE-20% may seem like a lot of calories, but you need them to function and give you energy for your workouts. You should NET somewhere between BMR and TDEE.

jamiek917

[/quote]

If your concern is that you want to be as accurate as possible, you should know there are two ways to calculate TDEE.

One is by setting your activity level accurately. For instance, I work out about 5 hours per week. That makes me moderately active. I can find my moderately active TDEE, subtract 20%, eat that number of calories, and not worry about eating back exercise calories.

OR

I can calculate my TDEE as sedentary and subtract 20%, add in my calories burned every day, and then eat sedentary TDEE-20%, plus all burned calories. Either way, you end up averaging the same number of calories eaten. The method you choose is up to you.

Working out is healthy, don't decide not to work out, but you want to make sure that you don't burn out, too. Working out daily is more than most people can handle without starting to skip for whatever reason and slowly falling off the wagon. Choose something easy and sustainable so that you will stick with it for as long as possible.

Finally, don't be scared of calories. The more you have to lose, the more you can safely eat and still lose weight, while feeling satisfied and happy. Don't deprive yourself, enjoy the fact that you can lose weight and still eat plenty.
[/quote]

^^ agreed. i eat slightly under my TDEE-20%, (im supposed to eat 2000 ish on days i work out and 1700ish on days i dont, according to TDEE-20%). i strive for 1600-1800, but its fine if i go a little over.

if you make weight loss into a complicated regiment, u wont stick to it.

Capt_Apollo

I wouldn't eat back all of my calories, what would be the point of working out? Besides, maybe, the obvious heart benefits.

i don't think you understand how this works.

when you come to MFP to lose weight, the system gives you a calorie deficit based only on how much you weigh and how much you'd like to lose. even if you enter that you plan on working out 6 days a week and burn 6000 calories weekly, this will not effect your daily caloric intake.

so by exercising, you are creating a bigger calorie deficit. most people would be well advised to eat some if not all of their burned calories to help recover their body.

ArroganceInStep

OP, something to point out: HRMs are notoriously bad at accurately assessing calorie burns for things other than steady state cardio. They generally estimate more than was actually burned for things like yoga and resistance training. If you're interested, you can read more here (this isn't me, but this guy is much brighter than I am and is where I got a fair amount of my knowledge regarding HRMs from): http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

Now what does this mean for you? As Concretegirl pointed out, shooting to net your BMR is pretty darn low and not advisable. However, if you're overestimating calorie burns it might just work out in the long run since that padding plus any circumstances where you underestimate calorie intake could just push you into a safe range anyway. I'm not saying it definitely will, but it might. I bring this up because it's important to recognize why a strategy may or may not be working for you, so that if someone down the road asks how you were able to get in shape, you won't be telling them to eat at their BMR.

robertgerstein

I think you should graze throughout the day. This way, your system will digest small portions at a time. Have 5 small meals instead of 3 medium-large meals. This will also help your sugar-levels and hormone-levels so you should be constant (no up and down spikes) throughout the day. I hope this helps.

larovers

Thanks for your advice everyone. I do plan on eating 3 meals and 2 snacks daily, drinking tons of water too.
Most heart rate monitors are extremely inaccurate . I agree. I used to have a timex one and it grossly overestimates my calories. Polar is the most accurate one on the market and sometimes I feel like it underestimated my calorie burn. I have been very happy with it.

johnknappcc

Polar is the most accurate one on the market and sometimes I feel like it underestimated my calorie burn. I have been very happy with it.

No it's not, especially not for women due to the algorithm it uses to calculate calories burned. You'll see soon enough, I do think it makes an excellent heart monitor though.

johnknappcc

CROUTER, S. E., C. ALBRIGHT, and D. R. BASSETT, JR. Accuracy of Polar S410 Heart Rate Monitor to Estimate Energy Cost of Exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 1433-1439, 2004.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of the Polar S410 for estimating gross energy expenditure (EE) during exercise when using both predicted and measured V̇O2max and HRmax versus indirect calorimetry (IC).

Methods: Ten males and 10 females initially had their V̇O2max and HRmax predicted by the S410, and then performed a maximal treadmill test to determine their actual values. The participants then performed three submaximal exercise tests at RPE of 3, 5, and 7 on a treadmill, cycle, and rowing ergometer for a total of nine submaximal bouts. For all submaximal testing, the participant had two S410 heart rate monitors simultaneously collecting data: one heart rate monitor (PHRM) utilized their predicted V̇O2max and HRmax, and one heart rate monitor (AHRM) used their actual values. Simultaneously, EE was measured by IC.

Results: In males, there were no differences in EE among the mean values for the AHRM, PHRM, and IC for any exercise mode (P > 0.05). In females, the PHRM significantly overestimated mean EE on the treadmill (by 2.4 kcal·min-1), cycle (by 2.9 kcal·min-1), and rower (by 1.9 kcal·min-1) (all P < 0.05). The AHRM for females significantly improved the estimation of mean EE for all exercise modes, but it still overestimated mean EE on the treadmill (by 0.6 kcal·min-1) and cycle (by 1.2 kcal·min-1) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: When the predicted values of V̇O2max and HRmax are used, the Polar S410 HRM provides a rough estimate of EE during running, rowing, and cycling. Using the actual values for V̇O2max and HRmax reduced the individual error scores for both genders, but in females the mean EE was still overestimated by 12%.

larovers

CROUTER, S. E., C. ALBRIGHT, and D. R. BASSETT, JR. Accuracy of Polar S410 Heart Rate Monitor to Estimate Energy Cost of Exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 1433-1439, 2004.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of the Polar S410 for estimating gross energy expenditure (EE) during exercise when using both predicted and measured V̇O2max and HRmax versus indirect calorimetry (IC).

Methods: Ten males and 10 females initially had their V̇O2max and HRmax predicted by the S410, and then performed a maximal treadmill test to determine their actual values. The participants then performed three submaximal exercise tests at RPE of 3, 5, and 7 on a treadmill, cycle, and rowing ergometer for a total of nine submaximal bouts. For all submaximal testing, the participant had two S410 heart rate monitors simultaneously collecting data: one heart rate monitor (PHRM) utilized their predicted V̇O2max and HRmax, and one heart rate monitor (AHRM) used their actual values. Simultaneously, EE was measured by IC.

Results: In males, there were no differences in EE among the mean values for the AHRM, PHRM, and IC for any exercise mode (P > 0.05). In females, the PHRM significantly overestimated mean EE on the treadmill (by 2.4 kcal·min-1), cycle (by 2.9 kcal·min-1), and rower (by 1.9 kcal·min-1) (all P < 0.05). The AHRM for females significantly improved the estimation of mean EE for all exercise modes, but it still overestimated mean EE on the treadmill (by 0.6 kcal·min-1) and cycle (by 1.2 kcal·min-1) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: When the predicted values of V̇O2max and HRmax are used, the Polar S410 HRM provides a rough estimate of EE during running, rowing, and cycling. Using the actual values for V̇O2max and HRmax reduced the individual error scores for both genders, but in females the mean EE was still overestimated by 12%.

Oh wow really? I had no idea! I went to a fitness spa a few weeks ago and they said that Polar was the most accurate one there was (within a 10% error). Why would it matter about somebody female or male with the polar...it asks for the gender when you set it up. Strange. I also so amazing ratings for it on amazon, where I bought it....can anybody else give their opinion on this? I had no idea it was not accurate.
I have to Polar FT7

johnknappcc

Oh wow really? I had no idea! I went to a fitness spa a few weeks ago and they said that Polar was the most accurate one there was (within a 10% error). Why would it matter about somebody female or male with the polar...it asks for the gender when you set it up. Strange. I also so amazing ratings for it on amazon, where I bought it....can anybody else give their opinion on this? I had no idea it was not accurate.
I have to Polar FT7

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think you are on the right track, just don't take the calorie burn from your HRM as gospel. I started with a Polar FT60 (which is a step above the FT7). One of the big features it has is the ability to "test" your VO2Max, or for you to be able to input your own VO2Max. I never did the custom VO2Max because it requires you to basically lay down, wearing the HRM first thing in the morning as it takes a baseline of your heart rate and figures out your "theoretical" VO2Max.

However, the other option, would be to go to the gym, pay 100 bucks, and be hooked up to a storm trooper mask and run on a treadmill for an hour. This is the New Leaf system (most Lifetime's and better gyms have them) and it will determine your accurate VO2Max, and give you target HR zones. I could then program this data into the FT60, you can't do that with the FT7. So, essentially, with the FT60 you could at least improve the accuracy, because the OwnCal algorithm estimates calorie burn based on your weight, gender, VO2Max, etc.

Here is where I said the Polar FT7 is a good HRM. Polar's are practically medically accurate on measuring your heart rate. I loved my Polar, but that being said, it wasn't a good calorie burn estimator. And, I know this by experience. Early on when I started my diet at the beginning of the year I had a very aggressive weight loss target, ie., a huge deficit. I'd go work out like crazy, burn say 700 calories at the gym, come home and eat 700 calories or so, and if I did that I wouldn't hit my target weight loss. I tested this consistently, I'm a software engineer, I'm a data guy, and my analysis was coming out that my workouts were probably overestimating burn levels (as well as MFP's burn levels).

Which takes me back to my first point. Don't eat back ALL your calories. Here is what will probably happen if you do:

Say you set your goal at 1500 calories (based on your BMR and whatever algorithm your using to calculate it), for the sake of argument say it's pretty accurate. Then you workout and burn 500 calories. Now, you go home, eat 500 calories (say you have a food scale and it's accurate). So you've consumed 2000 calories for the day, but maybe you only really burned 250 calories, and flash forward to the end of the week. Now you've consumed an extra 1750 calories. You probably haven't lost, and maybe you didn't gain, but then do this over for a month, and get disappointed, and throw in the towel. Keep in mind, you're working your butt off at the gym, it's frustrating and I've been there.

So here is what I would do: get a different HRM, my current one is a Garmin 910XT, and it's like 3x's as much money as my Polar was, but it uses the FirstBeat algorithm which definitely seems more accurate from my calculations, or . . .

Use your Polar, log the calories burned as it says, and DON'T eat back all your exercise calories. Eat back half. Do this for a few weeks. If you are losing too quickly, then simply increase your calorie consumption by say 100-250 calories per day until you hit a weight loss rate your comfortable with. It's less frustrating to be losing too quickly (and to simply have to up your cals) then to work hard for a month with no results or possible gains.

So, I know people are going to say, "what about starvation mode?, You're going to stop your metabolism!". Well, over the course of a couple of weeks you won't slow down your metabolism by more than around 10%, and you're dieting so that will happen anyway, and there are studies which prove this. That is, you'll have time to adjust the numbers, and play around with it. What you will find, is as you get stronger and workout more, you will be gradually increasing your calories to enable the continued weight loss (I've done this three times already).

Just for an example . . . My last bike ride was 85 minutes at 18mph average, the Garmin estimated 924 calories. MFP said nearly 1250, and my polar would have said around 1200 as well. From past experience and being a cyclist for a long time, I think the Garmin is much more accurate.

Anyway, hope that helps. Everything from the BMR calculation to the Polar calculation is based on averages. You might fall into average, or maybe not, but you can tune your numbers by looking at the data, you could chart it all in an Excel document. There are even templates for that. It's good that you are interested in tracking, and some people will say you are making this too complicated. But, really, you are just avoiding another post a month from now along the lines of "Help, I'm not losing, thoughts?" or "Help, I'm losing too quickly . . .". This way you'll have data, and you can "tune" your numbers as you go. By the time you hit maintenance, you'll probably have a very solid estimate of your actual BMR/TDEE etc, and you'll be able to maintain more easily.

larovers

mmm. thanks for the long explanation. But everyone I have talked to, and I do mean everyone said Polar is the most accurate one...I am so confused but you seem to know what your talking about so I will not argue.