It is not all about calories. Calories don't explain this.
Options
NYCNika
Posts: 611 Member
The calorie deficit I'm running can in no way account for my results.
I eat about 1450 NET calories per day, sometimes I go over by a little. Over the last 10 weeks I've been loosing on average 2lb a week.
I run probably 5 times a week, generally 3 miles per run minimum. But I ALWAYS eat back exercise calories.
So going by 3,500 calorie deficit needed per 1 lb of weightloss, I should be loosing 0.6 lb a week, but that is not the case.
DH read that aerobic exercise lasting more than 30 minutes starts burning fat, and that it keeps metabolism up for a number of hours after the exercise (kind of like a reactor that is slow to start up and than slow to cool down). And while I am a bit skeptical of anything that has to do with knowledge of metabolism, this approach seems to be healthier and less stressful for the body from the "common sense" perspective -- meaning, whether it is true or not, I can't see it doing much harm.
I also don't know of any other explanation for my progress, given my calorie consumption.
I eat about 1450 NET calories per day, sometimes I go over by a little. Over the last 10 weeks I've been loosing on average 2lb a week.
I run probably 5 times a week, generally 3 miles per run minimum. But I ALWAYS eat back exercise calories.
So going by 3,500 calorie deficit needed per 1 lb of weightloss, I should be loosing 0.6 lb a week, but that is not the case.
DH read that aerobic exercise lasting more than 30 minutes starts burning fat, and that it keeps metabolism up for a number of hours after the exercise (kind of like a reactor that is slow to start up and than slow to cool down). And while I am a bit skeptical of anything that has to do with knowledge of metabolism, this approach seems to be healthier and less stressful for the body from the "common sense" perspective -- meaning, whether it is true or not, I can't see it doing much harm.
I also don't know of any other explanation for my progress, given my calorie consumption.
0
Replies
-
My guess? Your TDEE is higher than you think it is, and therefore you're eating at a deficit greater than -3500/week.0
-
^^^ This. It's not an exact science.0
-
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.0
-
My guess? Your TDEE is higher than you think it is, and therefore you're eating at a deficit greater than -3500/week.
Yup...pretty much. You probably selected sedentary as your activity level...that's what most people do. Most people aren't truly sedentary though, even if they have a desk job. On MFP's activity level I'm actually somewhere between sedentary and light active...using the TDEE method I'm in between light active and moderately active. It's all estimation...the science of it is calorie in/out, but determining your requisite calories is trial and error.0 -
I agree with the above posters. are u sure your tdee is an accurate count? Because in the end, it is still calories in vs out0
-
My guess? Your TDEE is higher than you think it is, and therefore you're eating at a deficit greater than -3500/week.
^^ this. exactly this.
Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.0 -
Doing cardio will create an "after burn" effect that last even after you finish exercising below if a video that explains it better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFeb4CgBiE8 0 -
I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?0
-
Cardio increases your metabolism for the entire day, especially if you sprint intervals.0
-
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.
Hm, I don't include activity because I always eat back exercise calories. I assume the activity level is for knowing how much more calories you need, and since I eat my back, I should not count it or it will muddy the picture.
That "running kills muscle" thing seems crazy to me. You mean that as a sedentary me, who could not run 1 minute without keeling over, had 20lb of muscle to loose, and the "now" me who runs 5k or more 5 times a week has gotten there by losing all the muscle?Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.
Yes, after that crazy stretch, all of a sudden the weight started to come off like crazy. It slows down and speeds up in cycles, but I'm talking about a 10 week average in this post.I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.0 -
Exact science? Well, the first problem is all of the data is based on guessing.0
-
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.
Hm, I don't include activity because I always eat back exercise calories. I assume the activity level is for knowing how much more calories you need, and since I eat my back, I should not count it or it will muddy the picture.
That "running kills muscle" thing seems crazy to me. You mean that as a sedentary me, who could not run 1 minute without keeling over, had 20lb of muscle to loose, and the "now" me who runs 5k or more 5 times a week has gotten there by losing all the muscle?Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.
Yes, after that crazy stretch, all of a sudden the weight started to come off like crazy. It slows down and speeds up in cycles, but I'm talking about a 10 week average in this post.I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.
Without getting BMR/RMR measured, there is no way to know. The calculators give you an estimate based on averages. I've seen posts on here where people got tested and had an RMR/BMR 1000 calories higher than the calculators told them they did.
If you have been logging for 10 weeks, add up all the calories you've eaten plus 20lbs x 3500 calories per pound and then divide that all by the number of days logged = average TDEE.
The bottom line is that it is all about calories. If it were not about the calories, what would it be about?0 -
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.
Are you using the MFP method or TDEE method? Personally, I'd just up my calories a bit if I was losing faster than I wanted to. If I was losing 2 Lbs per week but only wanted to lose 1 Lb per week, I'd just up my calories by 200-250...I'd do it over the course of a couple weeks though...up by 100 or so and then another 100 or so after that. I'm currently trying to find my maintenance level right now and am at 2,300 calories...I'll probably go up to 2,400 next week and so on and so forth until I'm maintaining.0 -
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.
Hm, I don't include activity because I always eat back exercise calories. I assume the activity level is for knowing how much more calories you need, and since I eat my back, I should not count it or it will muddy the picture.
That "running kills muscle" thing seems crazy to me. You mean that as a sedentary me, who could not run 1 minute without keeling over, had 20lb of muscle to loose, and the "now" me who runs 5k or more 5 times a week has gotten there by losing all the muscle?Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.
Yes, after that crazy stretch, all of a sudden the weight started to come off like crazy. It slows down and speeds up in cycles, but I'm talking about a 10 week average in this post.I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.
The MFP activity level is for your job/daily activity levels, not your exercise.
someone who works at a computer at home would have lower calories than the same office worker that walked to work, who would have lower calories than a waitress on their feet all day.
Even the waitress set at highly active would still eat back their exercise calories.0 -
bump0
-
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.
Hm, I don't include activity because I always eat back exercise calories. I assume the activity level is for knowing how much more calories you need, and since I eat my back, I should not count it or it will muddy the picture.
That "running kills muscle" thing seems crazy to me. You mean that as a sedentary me, who could not run 1 minute without keeling over, had 20lb of muscle to loose, and the "now" me who runs 5k or more 5 times a week has gotten there by losing all the muscle?Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.
Yes, after that crazy stretch, all of a sudden the weight started to come off like crazy. It slows down and speeds up in cycles, but I'm talking about a 10 week average in this post.I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.
Without getting BMR/RMR measured, there is no way to know. The calculators give you an estimate based on averages. I've seen posts on here where people got tested and had an RMR/BMR 1000 calories higher than the calculators told them they did.
If you have been logging for 10 weeks, add up all the calories you've eaten plus 20lbs x 3500 calories per pound and then divide that all by the number of days logged = average TDEE.
The bottom line is that it is all about calories. If it were not about the calories, what would it be about?
It's easy. It's 2450.
1450 x 7 + 3500 *2= weekly Total / 7 = TDEE.0 -
Without getting BMR/RMR measured, there is no way to know. The calculators give you an estimate based on averages. I've seen posts on here where people got tested and had an RMR/BMR 1000 calories higher than the calculators told them they did.
If you have been logging for 10 weeks, add up all the calories you've eaten plus 20lbs x 3500 calories per pound and then divide that all by the number of days logged = average TDEE.
The bottom line is that it is all about calories. If it were not about the calories, what would it be about?
It's easy. It's 2450.
1450 x 7 + 3500 *2= weekly Total / 7 = TDEE.
:laugh: I was assuming the calories aren't always spot on (mine are over or under depending on the day/week/month) but yes.
ETA: She also said she NETs 1450 which means that she is actually eating more than that so TDEE would be higher than 2450.0 -
My guess if you are that cardio fit, your calorie burn estimate is off for eating back.
You will have a lower HR for burning the same calories when you are fit. if you have cheaper HRM like Polar FT4 or FT7 that has no VO2max stat on them, so you are burning more than you are given credit for.
If you have any recent run sessions that were flat so you can compare, check out the Gross burn here with your avg pace and weight.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
I'll bet burning more than you think.
And no - you don't get much afterburn from endurance cardio at all, while it may take 30 min to slip into the final carb/fat burn ratio for the intensity you are at, doesn't mean you are burning more later, it also starts causing protein burn past 60 min.
You could easily be losing muscle mass with just cardio.
Because muscle when converted to glycogen only provides 600 calories of energy per lb, so much easier to burn off a lb of muscle than lb of fat. With less muscle means less glucose stores, so that means less water.
Yep, very easy to lose more than the math would suggest. Doesn't mean you are losing muscle you use, rather the least used muscle first. And not totally muscle either, of course some fat.0 -
I agree with the above posters - what is your TDEE? Eat at a reasonable deficit based on your activity level (I heavy lift 3xweek at 90 minutes each time and set mine to moderately active - about 1800 calories burned a week). Most of us girls pick a lower activity level because we are afraid of gaining, but it is counterproductive to eat too little.
Hm, I don't include activity because I always eat back exercise calories. I assume the activity level is for knowing how much more calories you need, and since I eat my back, I should not count it or it will muddy the picture.
That "running kills muscle" thing seems crazy to me. You mean that as a sedentary me, who could not run 1 minute without keeling over, had 20lb of muscle to loose, and the "now" me who runs 5k or more 5 times a week has gotten there by losing all the muscle?Also, if all you are doing is running and not weight lifting, a portion of your rapid weight loss can also be muscle (especially if you arent eating enough carbohydrates pre-run to fuel your muscle glycogen stores). Cardio doesn't burn as much muscle as people make it out to, but it still burns SOME muscle if you aren't incorporating weight training and are at a large enough caloric deficit.
Yes, after that crazy stretch, all of a sudden the weight started to come off like crazy. It slows down and speeds up in cycles, but I'm talking about a 10 week average in this post.I remember a couple weeks back you were upset because you thought you stalled. Now you're losing 2lb/week. Out of curiosity, what do you think made the difference?
What do you guys think my accurate TDEE is? I"m 5'3, 144lb, 34 years old. My only exercise is running.
Without getting BMR/RMR measured, there is no way to know. The calculators give you an estimate based on averages. I've seen posts on here where people got tested and had an RMR/BMR 1000 calories higher than the calculators told them they did.
If you have been logging for 10 weeks, add up all the calories you've eaten plus 20lbs x 3500 calories per pound and then divide that all by the number of days logged = average TDEE.
The bottom line is that it is all about calories. If it were not about the calories, what would it be about?
It's easy. It's 2450.
1450 x 7 + 3500 *2= weekly Total / 7 = TDEE.
That's assuming the loss is 100% fat, which is unlikely.
"That assumption is that 100% fat is being lost when a deficit is created. Now, if you diet correctly (e.g. the way I describe in my books), this is a pretty good assumption but it’s not universally true. Often people also lose muscle and connective tissue on a diet.
And the issue is that muscle and connective tissue doesn’t provide as much energy to the body as a pound of fat. Rather than 3,500 calories to break down a pound of fat, a pound of muscle provides about 600 calories to the body when it’s broken down for energy.
Let me put this in mathematical terms, to show you how the identical 3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.
Condition - - - ----
Energy Yield Total Weight Lost
100% Fat
3500 cal/lb 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - 2050 cal/lb 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle
600 cal/lb
5.8 pounds
See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."
From - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html0 -
This might be a first on the forums. Someone is actually complaining that they are losing too quickly? Normally we get the complaints from people who are eating right and exercising and not losing weight. Perhaps we need to direct all those questions to this OP, as they apparently have found the secret to losing 2 pounds per week!
Seriously tho, like everyone else has said, TDEEs can vary between people. If you are consistently losing 2 pounds a week, then your TDEE is probably around 1000 cals over your average daily intake at this point. If you want to slow it down, then up your cals a bit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions