1,000 Calorie Challenge!
Replies
-
10 miles is the goal I strive for everyday. I'm walking right now and trying to read and type this!
It's just everything I've been reading on here lately pretty much says don't bother counting walking calories. Then others say definitely add your walking calories!
And then there's the numbers, and the percentages and the miles per hours mixed with the length of stride and on and on it goes! It doesn't help that I do not have a head for numbers..
So I think I'll stick with what I said above and just eat my normal calories and completely ignore the adjustments.
Thankyou all for your help, I truly appreciate the time you've taken
I've been researching this for days and right now I'm just emotionally and physically drained. And obviously feeling sorry for myself to boot0 -
Here's the thing ... IF the OP thinks she is burning 1000 calories per hour (not likely, but let's go with that for a moment), then really, the challenge she is proposing is to exercise for 1 hour per day.
No. The OP said "day", not "hour".
Some time ago I was in a challenge where I burned 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and it really helped to boost my weight loss. I'm starting the same challenge again tomorrow, if anyone would like to join me.:) All you have to do is burn 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and I will be posting in this forum every day to see how everyone is doing. I can't wait to start this challenge, and if you would like to join me just comment with, "I'm in!" Thanks everyone! Hope to see you there!
Yes, we all assume she meant burn 1000 calories per day through exercise.
No, it is not that hard to do provided you have time to put the hours in to accomplish it (going to take 90 minutes to 2+ hours on the bike for me each day depending on how hard I pedal, but that's my normal routine this time of year building for the biking season).
And yes, one can recover from the "day's effort" to do it again the next day. To meet the challenge, I'll just have to lower the effort and lengthen the duration.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »10 miles is the goal I strive for everyday. I'm walking right now and trying to read and type this!
It's just everything I've been reading on here lately pretty much says don't bother counting walking calories. Then others say definitely add your walking calories!
I definitely count walking calories ... on "walks". I don't count steps I might take around the house or office, those are included in my sedentary setting.
But for example, yesterday and today I walked from my university to my job office in the afternoon ... 3 km at a fairly brisk pace. And I definitely counted it. It's not a whole lot of calories, but enough so that I could have a low-cal yogurt in the evening after dinner.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »kamakazeekim wrote: »KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
It is dang near impossible for the average person to burn 1000 through exercise in one day.
That's a bit of stretch. I wouldn't say it's "dang near impossible". Just not as easy as some people like to believe.
Yep. Even for the shorter, lighter folk like me, something around a half-marathon distance run will do it. If you're heavier, you don't need as much distance, but it's not all that much less.
It's just that there are very few people pulling that off in an hour. In a day, sure. There's a decent number of people on this site who run halfs and above. But seven days a week? You're in rarefied air again with that crowd.
I'm no stranger to pushing myself to the limits of my physical and mental ability when it comes to exercise. I used to ride a single speed mountain bike in one of the hilliest areas in Central Ontario. When riding a single speed, you literally have to sprint up every hill, or you're going to stall and have to walk the rest of the way.
I would ride for 2-4 hours each time I went out and not once I was able to burn 1000 calories in an hour.
If I couldn't burn that many calories, turning myself inside out while on my rides, pushing my HR to 90+% of my max regularly, I can't believe that anyone else can.
Someone may have answered this already, but if I could run a half with an average split pace of 5 min miles, I'd burn right at 1000 cals. It's been done, but not by many.
The world record marathon pace was faster by just 15 secs per mile to give people an idea. Of course, this is half the distance so I'd expect there to be more than a handful of people who can manage it. Maybe three handfuls
0 -
myfelinepal wrote: »I get your point, but comparing women of today to women in an era of post-war food rationing is a straw man argument.
Okay, women and men of the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, 1930's, (we'll skip the 40's if that was strawman), 1950's, 1960's, 1970's. You know, back before Americans would drive their car from their house to the mailbox at the end of the driveway or down the street to get their mail. Yup, I see that every day in my neighborhood! Back when people would clean their own houses, do their own work in the yard, wash their own car, paint their own houses, walk for transportation. You know, put a little elbow grease into life where the idea of having to "burn 1000 calories" via exercise to fight off what a sedentary lifestyle combined with excess has done requires us to "set aside the time".
So the point being, it is funny to read the responses of people's jaws dropping thinking that burning 1000 calories through exercise is an impossible task for 7 straight days in our modern day lifestyle filled with the comforts of leisure.
0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »myfelinepal wrote: »I get your point, but comparing women of today to women in an era of post-war food rationing is a straw man argument.
Okay, women and men of the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, 1930's, (we'll skip the 40's if that was strawman), 1950's, 1960's, 1970's. You know, back before Americans would drive their car from their house to the mailbox at the end of the driveway or down the street to get their mail. Yup, I see that every day in my neighborhood! Back when people would clean their own houses, do their own work in the yard, wash their own car, paint their own houses, walk for transportation. You know, put a little elbow grease into life where the idea of having to "burn 1000 calories" via exercise to fight off what a sedentary lifestyle combined with excess has done requires us to "set aside the time".
So the point being, it is funny to read the responses of people's jaws dropping thinking that burning 1000 calories through exercise is an impossible task for 7 straight days in our modern day lifestyle filled with the comforts of leisure.
I think where many of us object is that you are talking about a more active lifestyle - stuff you do as a matter of course - while we consider exercise to be something you do deliberately outside of your normal life.
My grandma using a washing board back when she didn't have a washing machine would not be exercise, for example. She would have been considered lightly active to my (and my grandfather's) sedentary lifestyle.
No one is surprised that an active lifestyle can burn 1000 cals more over the course of a day than a sedentary lifestyle.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »Here's the thing ... IF the OP thinks she is burning 1000 calories per hour (not likely, but let's go with that for a moment), then really, the challenge she is proposing is to exercise for 1 hour per day.
No. The OP said "day", not "hour".
Some time ago I was in a challenge where I burned 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and it really helped to boost my weight loss. I'm starting the same challenge again tomorrow, if anyone would like to join me.:) All you have to do is burn 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and I will be posting in this forum every day to see how everyone is doing. I can't wait to start this challenge, and if you would like to join me just comment with, "I'm in!" Thanks everyone! Hope to see you there!
Yes, we all assume she meant burn 1000 calories per day through exercise.
No, it is not that hard to do provided you have time to put the hours in to accomplish it (going to take 90 minutes to 2+ hours on the bike for me each day depending on how hard I pedal, but that's my normal routine this time of year building for the biking season).
And yes, one can recover from the "day's effort" to do it again the next day. To meet the challenge, I'll just have to lower the effort and lengthen the duration.
It's not the first post that is the problem. It's the later one where she details how she burns all of it in an hour.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »Here's the thing ... IF the OP thinks she is burning 1000 calories per hour (not likely, but let's go with that for a moment), then really, the challenge she is proposing is to exercise for 1 hour per day.
No. The OP said "day", not "hour".
Some time ago I was in a challenge where I burned 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and it really helped to boost my weight loss. I'm starting the same challenge again tomorrow, if anyone would like to join me.:) All you have to do is burn 1,000 calories a day for 7 days and I will be posting in this forum every day to see how everyone is doing. I can't wait to start this challenge, and if you would like to join me just comment with, "I'm in!" Thanks everyone! Hope to see you there!
Yes, we all assume she meant burn 1000 calories per day through exercise.
No, it is not that hard to do provided you have time to put the hours in to accomplish it (going to take 90 minutes to 2+ hours on the bike for me each day depending on how hard I pedal, but that's my normal routine this time of year building for the biking season).
And yes, one can recover from the "day's effort" to do it again the next day. To meet the challenge, I'll just have to lower the effort and lengthen the duration.
It's not the first post that is the problem. It's the later one where she details how she burns all of it in an hour.
Right ... 1000 calories a day, as mentioned in the first post, is no problem. I'm sure we all burn that in a day's worth of exercise now and then. And there have been many times when I've burned 1000 calories a day over a 7-day or longer period.
It was this post where the problems started ... where it was suddenly 1000 calories per hour.KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
0 -
Right ... 1000 calories a day, as mentioned in the first post, is no problem. I'm sure we all burn that in a day's worth of exercise now and then. And there have been many times when I've burned 1000 calories a day over a 7-day or longer period.
It was this post where the problems started ... where it was suddenly 1000 calories per hour.KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
Ah, got it. Missed that post of the OP's.
Again, 1000 in an hour is doable. It's not repeatable for 7 days in a row without severe training stress and no recovery would take a huge toll on one.
I do about 2 of those a week. But with recovery days between.
Here's one of my typical hour out and back Zone 4 interval sessions...
1000Calories
I could probably muster 3, maybe 4 of those within a 7 day period at this point in my training. I've never tried 7 in a row, but wouldn't want to for many obvious reasons. So, if the OP's challenge didn't have the hour time cap - piece of cake. I'm probably still "in" to knock out long rides this week (was due anyway with my base building), but apologize for not seeing the OP's hour comment. My bad...
0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »
Right ... 1000 calories a day, as mentioned in the first post, is no problem. I'm sure we all burn that in a day's worth of exercise now and then. And there have been many times when I've burned 1000 calories a day over a 7-day or longer period.
It was this post where the problems started ... where it was suddenly 1000 calories per hour.KKJackson91 wrote: »@Mr_Knight Actually, I can burn 1000 calories easy in one workout. It only takes about an hour of running and walking intervals. I'll be posting here every day to check in. I also log my calorie burns with an HRM.
Ah, got it. Missed that post of the OP's.
Again, 1000 in an hour is doable. It's not repeatable for 7 days in a row without severe training stress and no recovery would take a huge toll on one.
I do about 2 of those a week. But with recovery days between.
Here's one of my typical hour out and back Zone 4 interval sessions...1000Calories
I could probably muster 3, maybe 4 of those within a 7 day period at this point in my training. I've never tried 7 in a row, but wouldn't want to for many obvious reasons. So, if the OP's challenge didn't have the hour time cap - piece of cake. I'm probably still "in" to knock out long rides this week (was due anyway with my base building), but apologize for not seeing the OP's hour comment. My bad...
I'm a randonneur ... as a cyclist, you might be familiar with that term, or the term audax? When I've been in the depths of training for some of the longer randonneuring/audax events, I've burned 7000 calories in a week. I've probably done that in one event.
But I haven't done the really long events in a few years, and I'm just building up to that again. 1000 calories a day would require me to cycle about 2.5 hours every day. Easy on the weekends ... not so easy during the week what with the rest of life getting in the way, and darkness falling at about 6 pm now, and winter setting in.
That said, I did an 80 km ride on Saturday and burned close to 2000 calories and I'm hoping to do that or more again this coming Saturday. Plus quite a bit of walking and maybe a short ride or two if I can squeeze them in, and I might come close over an 8-day period.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.christinev297 wrote: »I've been researching this for days and right now I'm just emotionally and physically drained. And obviously feeling sorry for myself to boot
It can be a bit overwhelming, especially as you try to make sense of more and more data. Sometimes it helps to take it back to the most basic of basics -- Are you losing weight? Yes. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? Yes. Good, keep doing what you're doing.
- Are you losing weight? Yes. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? No. Eat a little more.
- Are you losing weight? No. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? Yes. Eat a little less.
- Are you losing weight? No. Do you feel reasonably good with decent energy? No. Something is amiss. See a doc and/or re-evaluate what you're actually doing.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
meh.Pro? I am flattered, but not quite . Just an amateur who loves triathlon and bike racing
I don't believe you need to be paid- or sponsered to be a pro.
If you invest your life into it- and spend all your time and energy and resources (or most of it) then I think that makes you a pro. I know dancers who dedicate their lives to working on a whole nother level- and don't get paid.
getting paid/sponsored =/= pro.
Isn't that exactly what professional means? You can be an amateur and still be an expert. US Olympic athletes were just this for decades until recently. They would dedicate their lives to their sport but they were not pros. Amateur is not a pejorative.
I don't think so. I know plenty of pro's who shouldn't be... but coming from a very subjective 'sport' or field (as a dancer) professional doesn't mean you're getting paid- plenty of people get paid to do things aren't professionals.
One of the girls I study with- she's the assistant director/manager- she doesn't' get paid- she teachers- but only because she has a wealth of information- but she doesn't' go to paid gigs- and she isn't teaching regularly.
She's still a professional in EVER sense of the word. So yeah- if you're getting paid you're "a professional" but to me even if you aren't top tier- or even not getting paid but it's your life's calling- that's a prof.
Perhaps given that I'm looking from a subject field verses a completely objective one it's a little different- so I would say I have a slightly different colored glass lens through which I few things- our market is flooded with "pro's" who shouldn't be.
Triathlon isn't really a subjective sport. There are very specific requirements for becoming a "professional" triathlete.
(all due respect to Glevinso, I really have no idea where he may fall within the rankings, just discussing the topic, not his performance).
For what it's worth I am usually in the top 10% at my local races with fields around 1000. I can usually podium in my age group, if not win it outright.
I am, however, not nearly fast enough to earn a official USA Triathlon Pro License. I would need to drop a good 15 minutes off my Olympic distance time to get in the running for that kind of speed. Although this year I am starting to see my times come way down so who knows, maybe this is the year I break 2 hours at the Oly...0 -
-
This was a fun morning read!
Off to burn 3400 calories walking my dog in from the backyard to the front!
0 -
Count me in!0
-
Here's the thing ... IF the OP thinks she is burning 1000 calories per hour (not likely, but let's go with that for a moment), then really, the challenge she is proposing is to exercise for 1 hour per day.
We already have challenges similar to that here. The 24-hours of exercise in the month of April is one of them ... several of us do well over 24 hours already. Easily 30 hours (1 hour/day).
Not really the challenge looked more like people were being asked to see if they wnated to participate in burning 1000 calories a day through exercise. You could walk, cycle, gym or whatever, there wasnt a time limit other than you did it during the day. Perfectly doable if you apply and pace yourself. It wasnt meant to be for anyone who doesnt have the time or determination to do it, which is why its called a challenge.
I burned over 1000 yesterday because I put in the duration and intensity required. Will do it again today.
0 -
I'm ALL in.
Saturday, April 11 - 1845 calories (2:02:48 on the singlespeed hot laps stateside)
Sunday, April 12 - BUST (dang Air France flight was delayed in Detroit making me 3 1/2 hours late to Paris. By the time I caught another flight and got back to Germany, it was too dark to ride. Plenty of calories burned in frustration, but no way Sunday qualified - so reset for Monday.)
Monday, April 13 - 1289 calories (2:17:22 easy Zone 1/2 road bike ride)
Tuesday, April 14 - 1500 calories (2:05:41 Zone 2 road bike ride - hit 1000 calories at the 1:26 point)
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
0 -
Epic!So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Your rest weeks are double my regular weeks bahaha
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I guess the most important thing I need to know is....
when my fitbit syncs with mfp and it gives me my calories burned, these numbers are completely incorrect?
Which leads me to my next question of.... why did I bother getting a fitbit and syncing it to mfp when I can't go by the numbers it's giving me??
Sorry, I'm seriously about to lose the plot
The numbers are probably right on the money within 5%.
Those are NOT calories burned from just exercise though.
Look at yesterday's total daily burn on Fitbit. What was it?
Look at MFP's Goals tab - Calorie burn from daily activity. What is it?
And this figure is based on your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Fitbit - MFP = calorie adjustment.
End of story.
The Fitbit side floats around, the MFP side is static until weight drops, therefore BMR drops, therefore estimated daily calories burned drops.
But Fitbit would see this same effect as weight drops, because you'll burn less moving around.
What was said was if you increased your activity level to probably a more honest lightly active - MFP would estimate you'd burn more without exercise.
So Fitbit - MFP that is 150 higher = lower calorie adjustment.
Read through this, 2nd section, it'll help understand the math.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.
I think the best bet for me is to NOT eat any of my "exercise" calories, whatever the F they may be, back.
I'm sitting here in tears right now. I'm just going to keep on doing my 20,000 + steps (10 miles) everyday, and just hope that spending the majority of my waking hours walking is doing something, and what will be will be...
I don't know if this will help...
MFP gives me 1400 calories at lightly active losing 1lb per week.
I don't add any exercise calories to that until I have hit 10,000 steps and then I add 200 calories to my limit.
Then for each additional 5,000 steps I add another 200 calories.
I seldom eat the entire amount back but it gives me a little room if I need it. Also if I want to splurge occasionally I know that I have some left over calories.
I came up with this formula by calculating what my calories were at each different activity level on MFP and then tied them in to the activity levels for the number of steps.
If I do any resistance training I don't add those calories at all. Believe me...my resistance training is not that intense!
0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
I want to be you when I grow up.
On a related note -how do you like training peaks? I keep contemplating using it to track mileage and work outs, as I use an old school notebook and forget to update it at least twice a week...0 -
So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
I want to be you when I grow up.
On a related note -how do you like training peaks? I keep contemplating using it to track mileage and work outs, as I use an old school notebook and forget to update it at least twice a week...
I have a coach, and Training Peaks is how we coordinate and schedule the training. I like it very much. The premium version has a bunch of features that are really useful when doing performance analysis. The free version is also great for tracking. I use a Garmin 920xt to track all of my training, so I never "forget" to update Training Peaks. It just happens automatically as soon as my workout is over. I save the data file on my watch and within a minute or so it is uploaded to Garmin Connect, Strava, Training Peaks and MFP.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »10 miles is the goal I strive for everyday. I'm walking right now and trying to read and type this!
It's just everything I've been reading on here lately pretty much says don't bother counting walking calories. Then others say definitely add your walking calories!
And then there's the numbers, and the percentages and the miles per hours mixed with the length of stride and on and on it goes! It doesn't help that I do not have a head for numbers..
So I think I'll stick with what I said above and just eat my normal calories and completely ignore the adjustments.
Thankyou all for your help, I truly appreciate the time you've taken
I've been researching this for days and right now I'm just emotionally and physically drained. And obviously feeling sorry for myself to boot
Think of it this way.
MFP made an estimate of what you will burn daily, based on nothing more than your BMR and your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Are you Sedentary?
Then they take a deficit off for eating goal, say 500 calories, to cause 1 lb weekly loss.
That may be reasonable and keep your body from getting stressed out - if you keep just a 500 cal deficit. (then again even that may not be reasonable at this point)
Fitbit is making a MUCH better estimate of what you burn daily based on your actual activity.
It is sending that figure to MFP.
MFP is correcting itself to the better estimate, removing the deficit for weight loss, and giving you an adjustment, and adjusting your eating goal.
Eat your goal as given by MFP, which includes the adjustment.
If you don't understand the tools, not sure why you'd think it would be better not to use them as designed.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
Exactly. I just did a rough estimate of my average training load for those weeks listed above and it is around 12:30 per week. The rest weeks were at 10 hours, most of the other weeks between 11:30 and 13:30. This week I am going to 15 hours.
So for the OP's benefit... burning 1000 calories per day on average requires an average of 12ish hours per week of training at a rather intense level. Every. Single. Day. That is not "walking with some jogging for an hour". That is running at sub 8:00 pace for an hour, plus a swim. Or riding a set of hard intervals at SuperLT for an hour and a half. Or running 12 miles at 8:00 pace.
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.0 -
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.
Did you see the Joe Friel article on calling for changing the name from "recovery" to "adaptation"?
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2015/04/supercompensation.html
0 -
No I didn't so thanks for pointing me there. It is rare that I have a complete "day off" where I truly have nothing scheduled. Sometimes I might have only a core strength session to do, but more often than not my recovery/rest days still include a small effort of some kind. Like a 45-60 minute ride at 120 watts. Or a 30 minute run at way slower than I am even comfortable running. Or a 45 minute "technique and drills" session in the pool.0
-
chivalryder wrote: »So this got me curious... I checked my Training Peaks logs.
Year to date calorie burns per week:
Week Ending 1/11: 7849
W/E 1/18: 7693
1/25: 6284
2/1: 8002
2/8: 4715 (rest week)
2/15: 6268
2/22: 6127
3/1: 7089
3/8: 4921 (rest week)
3/15: 7559
3/22: 8058
3/29: 3602 (vacation: ski trip)
4/5: 7620
4/12: 6829
Averages out to 6615 per week, or 945 per day every day for the past 14 weeks.
Take out the vacation week and that average goes to 6847, or 978 per day.
Looking back over the past year by biggest week burn was at the end of june when I knocked out 10227 in one week (OK so there was a Full Ironman race in there that killed 6000 in one day)
Big burns are not hard when you're an endurance athlete!
Exactly. I just did a rough estimate of my average training load for those weeks listed above and it is around 12:30 per week. The rest weeks were at 10 hours, most of the other weeks between 11:30 and 13:30. This week I am going to 15 hours.
So for the OP's benefit... burning 1000 calories per day on average requires an average of 12ish hours per week of training at a rather intense level. Every. Single. Day. That is not "walking with some jogging for an hour". That is running at sub 8:00 pace for an hour, plus a swim. Or riding a set of hard intervals at SuperLT for an hour and a half. Or running 12 miles at 8:00 pace.
Even my rest days usually have an easy "recovery run" or "recovery ride". Yesterday was such a rest day. I rode for an hour easy and killed 440 calories if I remember correctly.
This made me curious. I went back and looked at my burns per month for ultra training - the highest month was 36,206. So about 9000 cals per week (just running - this is Garmin so I don't have my burns for hiking or strength training). So that is about 70-80 miles per week, mixed between hard core trail work and speedwork on the roads.
But I guess this just reiterates the point - its something endurance athletes do all the time. Perhaps not best for a relative noob to jump into high level endurance training for one week for funsies. Also it gives you an idea of the actual intensity you have to be training at to log those kinds of burns. It sure as hell ain't 'walk/run for an hour'.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I guess the most important thing I need to know is....
when my fitbit syncs with mfp and it gives me my calories burned, these numbers are completely incorrect?
Which leads me to my next question of.... why did I bother getting a fitbit and syncing it to mfp when I can't go by the numbers it's giving me??
Sorry, I'm seriously about to lose the plot
The numbers are probably right on the money within 5%.
Those are NOT calories burned from just exercise though.
Look at yesterday's total daily burn on Fitbit. What was it?
Look at MFP's Goals tab - Calorie burn from daily activity. What is it?
And this figure is based on your selection of activity level - Sedentary.
Fitbit - MFP = calorie adjustment.
End of story.
The Fitbit side floats around, the MFP side is static until weight drops, therefore BMR drops, therefore estimated daily calories burned drops.
But Fitbit would see this same effect as weight drops, because you'll burn less moving around.
What was said was if you increased your activity level to probably a more honest lightly active - MFP would estimate you'd burn more without exercise.
So Fitbit - MFP that is 150 higher = lower calorie adjustment.
Read through this, 2nd section, it'll help understand the math.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy
heybales thanks so much for trying to explain. But I just don't understand any of this.
I think the best bet for me is to NOT eat any of my "exercise" calories, whatever the F they may be, back.
I'm sitting here in tears right now. I'm just going to keep on doing my 20,000 + steps (10 miles) everyday, and just hope that spending the majority of my waking hours walking is doing something, and what will be will be...
THe problem here is that walking is an exercise and if you are purposefully walking an extra 10miles a day that is extra calories to eat...maybe not all of them but some of them.
You aren't doing that you are eating 1800 gross calories a day and burning on average 1k (give or take) yes you are losing weight but it's muscle and fat because you aren't fueling your muscles...with the extra calories.
I don't use MFP NEAT method and have an activity tracker...I gross 1800 a day (10% from my winter TDEE about to change it to 2k again as summer is here and I have about 2200-2400 TDEE) and have my levels set at lightly active at my first 10k steps are pre exercise steps...any calories you see on my log is extra from exercise but I don't eat them back as I know my maitenance etc.
That's the kicker...how many steps are you getting without purposeful walking? If it's all from your extra walks eat those calories or at least some of them.
0 -
I'm in. I will start working out twice a day. I'm on my way to the gym now.
Should I just post to this forum, daily?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions