Eating exercise calories or setting realistic calorie intake?
Options
Replies
-
I don't eat all my calories back but I will save them for takeaway nights - so on a weekly net I'm still under & I've had a takeaway night & a non-calorie controlled meal each week since I started and I'm still losing0
-
I eat all of my calories back and have my weight loss set for 1/2 pound a week and am losing a pound a week. I'm a big fan of eating as much as possible while still losing weight.
You sound like me. I am sure I am underestimating my burn but I set my goal to lose 1 lb. a week so I can have wiggle room. In the last 16 months I have lost an average of 1.4 lb a week. I eat back an average of 50% of my calories.
I have my activity level set to lightly active too, even though I work a desk job and am not too active other than normal household-type activity. I've switched back and forth between the MFP way and basing my calories on TDEE and have a good idea of my actual maintenance calories so when I compare that number to what MFP gives me I am not too surprised by my loss rate right now. I think that I am seeing the benefits of careful food logging, eating well (meaning a good number of calories), a fair amount of exercise, and taking maintenance breaks along the way.
0 -
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
0 -
I eat all of my calories back and have my weight loss set for 1/2 pound a week and am losing a pound a week. I'm a big fan of eating as much as possible while still losing weight.
You sound like me. I am sure I am underestimating my burn but I set my goal to lose 1 lb. a week so I can have wiggle room. In the last 16 months I have lost an average of 1.4 lb a week. I eat back an average of 50% of my calories.
I have my activity level set to lightly active too, even though I work a desk job and am not too active other than normal household-type activity. I've switched back and forth between the MFP way and basing my calories on TDEE and have a good idea of my actual maintenance calories so when I compare that number to what MFP gives me I am not too surprised by my loss rate right now. I think that I am seeing the benefits of careful food logging, eating well (meaning a good number of calories), a fair amount of exercise, and taking maintenance breaks along the way.
Except the maintenance breaks, we seem to be working MFP the same way (and both seeing results we are happy with)
0 -
I eat all of my calories back and have my weight loss set for 1/2 pound a week and am losing a pound a week. I'm a big fan of eating as much as possible while still losing weight.
You sound like me. I am sure I am underestimating my burn but I set my goal to lose 1 lb. a week so I can have wiggle room. In the last 16 months I have lost an average of 1.4 lb a week. I eat back an average of 50% of my calories.
I have my activity level set to lightly active too, even though I work a desk job and am not too active other than normal household-type activity. I've switched back and forth between the MFP way and basing my calories on TDEE and have a good idea of my actual maintenance calories so when I compare that number to what MFP gives me I am not too surprised by my loss rate right now. I think that I am seeing the benefits of careful food logging, eating well (meaning a good number of calories), a fair amount of exercise, and taking maintenance breaks along the way.
Except the maintenance breaks, we seem to be working MFP the same way (and both seeing results we are happy with)
Good work!
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »
Hello pot, meet kettleatypicalsmith wrote: »Keep arguing with yourself. It's good for calorie reduction.
You are way too young for me. But when I get to my goal weight, I might become a cougar.
*giggle*
you're on a roll today 0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.0 -
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
0 -
Last night, I ate back about 1/4 of my exercise calories...it wasn't really a conscious thought, just what dinner plus my after workout shake ended up being with what I had left for the day.
There seems to be multiple ways of doing this, with folks in all camps. I am interested in the TDEE method just because on non-workout days when I don't really have the luxury of extra calories, I do find myself hungry and often go to bed that way.0 -
VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Last night, I ate back about 1/4 of my exercise calories...it wasn't really a conscious thought, just what dinner plus my after workout shake ended up being with what I had left for the day.
There seems to be multiple ways of doing this, with folks in all camps. I am interested in the TDEE method just because on non-workout days when I don't really have the luxury of extra calories, I do find myself hungry and often go to bed that way.
Yeah, that is one of the biggest advantages to TDEE. I am working towards switching because I get way too many calories on workout days, not enough on rest days, and my walking only days are just right. I like the idea of leveling it all out.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
true but I personally wouldn't want to lose 18-20%....for myself...25% and over would be horrible...but as I said we started at different points so that's probably okay for you...not great but wouldn't be as damaging as it would be for me.
0 -
VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Last night, I ate back about 1/4 of my exercise calories...it wasn't really a conscious thought, just what dinner plus my after workout shake ended up being with what I had left for the day.
There seems to be multiple ways of doing this, with folks in all camps. I am interested in the TDEE method just because on non-workout days when I don't really have the luxury of extra calories, I do find myself hungry and often go to bed that way.
I agree...TDEE if you are consistent with exercise is much easier and less "stressful" imho.
Life in itself is less complicated that way esp with me as I am not as hungry on workout days as I am on my rest days...take today for example...I did my Deadlift workout yesterday and I am currently famished...I could chew someone's arm off...but yesterday eh...even after the workout it wasn't a factor...
0 -
I guess I'm completely lost as to what "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%" means, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
true but I personally wouldn't want to lose 18-20%....for myself...25% and over would be horrible...but as I said we started at different points so that's probably okay for you...not great but wouldn't be as damaging as it would be for me.
Also, from what I've read, a 5:1 ratio (16.6667% muscle) would be a world class result. Are you saying your weight loss was less than 18% muscle?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I guess I'm completely lost as to what "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%" means, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
true but I personally wouldn't want to lose 18-20%....for myself...25% and over would be horrible...but as I said we started at different points so that's probably okay for you...not great but wouldn't be as damaging as it would be for me.
Also, from what I've read, a 5:1 ratio (16.6667% muscle) would be a world class result. Are you saying your weight loss was less than 18% muscle?
You're not the only one completely lost.0 -
I can't plough all through the posts so I will try to respond to the original question. If you have put in your profile your level of exercise MFP will give you a daily calorie allowance based on that profile. if you then go and add your exercise in effect you are adding it twice. To lose 1 lb per week it is recognised that you need to reduce your BMR calories by 500 a day. However you would not be advised to go below 1200 per day unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Just an observation 1435 BMR appears to be low.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I guess I'm completely lost as to what "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%" means, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
true but I personally wouldn't want to lose 18-20%....for myself...25% and over would be horrible...but as I said we started at different points so that's probably okay for you...not great but wouldn't be as damaging as it would be for me.
Also, from what I've read, a 5:1 ratio (16.6667% muscle) would be a world class result. Are you saying your weight loss was less than 18% muscle?
based on what I read a 9:1 ratio is better and realistic.
If you are eating enough, getting in enough protein, lifting from the start someone who started as heavy as you could have/should have actually gained LBM but you didn't due to your extreme cut.
I suspect my muscle loss this time (since I did it right) was minimal (gotta get a dexa scan done soon) as from the 3rd month in I started lifting and got in at least 110 grams of protein a day....and it's obvious from my current weight and clothing size.
There are a few times a person can gain muscle during a cut...new to lifting (newb gains) and if they are obese...you have lost 100lbs so you used to fit in the last category.
0 -
Do you have a link to a 9:1 ratio being realistic?DeguelloTex wrote: »
I guess I'm completely lost as to what "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%" means, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You said "for me a large portion would be anything over 25%". 18-21% is not over 25%.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think I've lost between 18 and 21% muscle, depending on whose estimates of my current body fat percentage I use. At 20.5% -- the average -- I've lost 19.2% muscle and 80.8% not muscle.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Depends on how you want to define "large portion," but I don't think that's the case.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I haven't eaten back exercise calories in the year I've been losing weight. My TDEE is, apparently, 3136 and I am eating 1780 (averaged over the week). So "so long" can mean "more than a year from now."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "eventually" could mean "years from now, even presuming no adjustments are made in the meantime."atypicalsmith wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »VelveteenBunnyFooFoo wrote: »Age: 52, Height: 5'8", Weight: 173. I have a desk job, but I work out (cardio and weights) three times a week and attend two 50 minute cardio classes per week. I'm also active on the weekends--I try to get a hike in when the weather permits. I started dieting about 3-1/2 weeks ago--I'm down nearly 6 pounds, and I just started back to the gym a week ago last Friday.
Congrats! I don't eat back my calories - as soon as I do, I start gaining.
Then chances are you are eating more than you think and/or your exercise calories are way over stated.
Either way, I am steadily losing.
Great but not eating exercise calories at least some of them is like driving a car and never putting gas in it...eventually it's going to just stop.
no not years from now....you can only go so long exercising before you feel the effects of not getting in enough calories...
I am speaking from experience...before I came here I did the 17 day diet...1200 calories a day max and when I tried to do an hour of exercise...I was dizzy, exhausted and just couldn't keep up the way I had when eating enough...
Even now if i don't get in enough food on a weekend my exercise suffers Monday and Tuesday...it's quite noticeable for me anyway...
I am also speaking from experience. I've lost over 100 pounds in less than half the time of the weight loss tiers repeatedly "suggested" here. This is because I eat at a higher deficit and because I don't eat back exercise calories.
which also means there is a good chance that a large portion of your weight loss is coming from muscle. the larger the deficit the more likely a higher amount of muscle will be lost. that said if you have 100+ lbs to lose you can aim for more than 2 lbs/week and be fine, but the less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing a lot of lean muscle, as I am guessing you want to lose fat, not just weight.
for me a large portion would be anything over 25%...but with the amount you had to lose you probably could sustain it for a bit longer than I or Erickirb could...but the more you lose the lower the deficit should be...
Keeping in mind too that my TDEE in the warmer months is close to 2500-2600 and if I don't eat at last 2200 I can't exercise the way I want.
As well what sort of exercise are you doing? Heavy lifting? walking? running? long hard bike rides...
@1200 calories I could walk just fine as long as I didn't push it too hard...now that I eat enough I can push it very hard and feel fab afterwards instead of drained, exhausted and dizzy and sick.
I probably have 20-25 pounds to go to get enough under 15% body fat to start a reasonable bulk.
I am lifting weights three times a week. I plan to go to four days a week at some point. I had been walking six miles a day, but I've bumped that up to about nine miles a day the last couple of weeks to see the impact on my TDEE.
I've been studiously avoiding running, but I jogged a little this morning to beat traffic at a stupid intersection and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I'm a little bit torn, because I want my main focus to be hypertrophy and I get the impression that the lower impact -- in multiple meanings -- of walking would be more conducive to that focus, as long as I have the longer time it takes.
Yah for me that would be too much to lose for you it might not be considering where we both started.
The fact you are lifting helped a lot I am sure.
I've avoided running as well but that was due to my smoking...now that I quit I will attempt it this summer along with my lifting as I know I can lose eating 2200 if I am doing cardio along with lifting...but maintain on 2k with just lifting alone...*cries*
I like food so the extra cardio is a good thing.
true but I personally wouldn't want to lose 18-20%....for myself...25% and over would be horrible...but as I said we started at different points so that's probably okay for you...not great but wouldn't be as damaging as it would be for me.
Also, from what I've read, a 5:1 ratio (16.6667% muscle) would be a world class result. Are you saying your weight loss was less than 18% muscle?
based on what I read a 9:1 ratio is better and realistic.
If you are eating enough, getting in enough protein, lifting from the start someone who started as heavy as you could have/should have actually gained LBM but you didn't due to your extreme cut.
I suspect my muscle loss this time (since I did it right) was minimal (gotta get a dexa scan done soon) as from the 3rd month in I started lifting and got in at least 110 grams of protein a day....and it's obvious from my current weight and clothing size.
There are a few times a person can gain muscle during a cut...new to lifting (newb gains) and if they are obese...you have lost 100lbs so you used to fit in the last category.
Google is full of ratios from 5:1 and worse. There are plenty of people happy with 4:1, which is in the ballpark of what I've done so far. I have literally never seen anyone even claim to have achieved 9:1. That would be some interesting reading.
I started with 201 pounds of lean mass and 134 of fat. I now have, approximately, 187 pounds of lean mass and 49 pounds of fat. Are you asserting that my "extreme cut" was a problem for me?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions