is eating 1900 cal a day and burning 1000 in the gym healthy
Replies
-
I need to burn 1000 calories!!! What are you doing?
I am obese and can actually AFFORD this high amount. Thank you.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
So your question would be like how fast can you lose weight that would not take a bunch of LBM with it?
0 -
I spend 5-6 days a week at the gym, most days I burn about 800 calories. But, there are two days when I do a Zumba class followed by either Body Pump or Ripped (High Intensity Interval Training) class and I can easily burn 1,000 calories between those two.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I recently got a heart rate monitor. What I learned: MFP numbers are not as off for most activity as people say IF you select the appropriate intensity level. The machines at the gym are way off.
I vaguely remember some posts a few months back where we were bouncing around the possibility that MFP adjusted their calories. We thought it was a gross vs. net burn thing from what I recall...
I don't recall that specific discussion, but that's interesting. I do think part of the perceived inaccuracy is that most of the burns (HRM and MFP) are gross, not net, which means that they tend to be reasonably accurate for shorter sessions and likely overestimate more the more your activity is long and lower intensity.
This is why I tend to accept the burn from a 6 mile or shorter run as a decent estimate (I round down a bit, or did when I was logging exercise), but would cut a 12 mile run more (especially for a long slow training run), and cut my 3-4 hour "riding around to see the sights" type bike rides even more.
Biking in particular is hard to measure also, as so many things matter--my HRM actually indicated that my bike commuting burns were typically understated, which I think is due to wind resistance plus me riding a huge heavy bike. (I noticed this as when I was riding hills on a different bike I didn't feel as much additional exertion as one would think.) I'm not sure I trust a HRM for biking anyway, however.
I think the main takeaway is exercise totals are really hard to judge and the only way to really know is control calories and see what your losses are.
THIS! I agree with you re: cycling. I rode on Saturday 4+ hours, much of it against 19 mph winds, 2500 ft climbing, and my hrm said I burned 1300 calories, which seemed very low and 2 days later, my body agrees.0 -
mandalynne wrote: »I spend 5-6 days a week at the gym, most days I burn about 800 calories. But, there are two days when I do a Zumba class followed by either Body Pump or Ripped (High Intensity Interval Training) class and I can easily burn 1,000 calories between those two.
How long does it take you to burn 1,000 calories while doing Zumba and another class?0 -
It can be done, but as noted, most people don't burn this.
My gym workouts take about 60-75 minutes (30 minutes anchored with a major compound lift, a minute rest between sets, 12 minutes of speed jump rope (super-set with one of my exercises), capped with a 15 minute HIIT cardio finisher (treadmill sprints currently).
My total burn is between 800-1,000 normally, half of which easily comes from the jump rope and HIIT at the end.
OP - you probably need to eat more, especially if you want to put on some muscle.
0 -
Let's just assume OP really is burning 1000 calories and eating 1900 calories. Just at face value.
1900-1000=900
So he's NETTING 900 calories.
Does 900 calories sound like a healthy intake for a grown adult male? No. No it does not.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mandalynne wrote: »I spend 5-6 days a week at the gym, most days I burn about 800 calories. But, there are two days when I do a Zumba class followed by either Body Pump or Ripped (High Intensity Interval Training) class and I can easily burn 1,000 calories between those two.
How long does it take you to burn 1,000 calories while doing Zumba and another class?
2 Hours - and I track it using my Microsoft Band Heart Rate monitor. It's usually about 1,100 calories for the 2 classes. Zumba alone will burn 600-700 calories in an hour.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
With exercise (again burn numbers coming from Fitbit Charge HR), I've been consistently below the MFP recommended net 1200 cal/day. The days that the columns appear blank are the days when I've ended up with a negative net caloric intake. I feel fine and have lost 22 lbs in 56 days; I'm 5'3" and currently 169 lbs. Should I be worried or changing something? Or as long as the majority of days I'm netting a positive, that's OK?
I guess that's the question. I did it. Feel dandy. Doctor loves the lowered weight. Not sure what the problem is except that some folks think "net calories" are relevant while others, myself included, don't.
The medical community does think it matters. It leads to lost lean body mass ... damage to organs ... loss of periods in women ... hair loss ... brittle nails ... loss of bone density ...
So honestly, can you find a SINGLE peer reviewed study that suggests any of that will happen when eating 2000 healthy calories a day?
YES.
Here's what happens at Ranger School, several times a year for the past half century or so.
Super fit dudes come in, they eat 2200 calories a day, strictly and completely controlled. They generate massive daily exercise burns. A couple of months later, the 50% that don't drop out from exhaustion have no body fat left and have stripped anywhere from 15-25 pounds of lean body mass.
They go in incredibly fit and come out weaker and sicker than they went in, and it typically takes from 3 months to 12 months to fully recover. Some never really do.
Bottom line: those of you claiming you're doing the impossible and not having symptoms - you aren't doing what you think you're doing. This isn't a guessing game, this is extremely well understood and extensively documented - large caloric deficits and hard exercise WILL (not might - WILL) wreak havoc on your lean body mass, from muscles on in to organs.
If you're not having symptoms, you're either not burning near as much as you think, or you're eating a lot more than you believe.
And that's the reality - large caloric deficits CAN be done safely, but not when coupled with high calorie burns and intense exercise.
Can I ask what those symptoms are ??
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
Yea, I'm not sure on how much is too much. I had 80lbs to lose and wasn't willing to lose the standard 2lbs per week. Instead, I lost 80lbs in just under 28 weeks. I did not care about anything except the number on the scale. Skinny fat? whatever, at least "skinny" was in the title and I was fine with it. That is...until I got there. I will say it didn't take long to gain most of my lean mass that I assume I lost back. I am just going off of visuals and how I felt so it's far from scientific.0 -
When I first started working out, I was eating about 1600 calories a day. Then I would go into the gym and burn 600-1,000 calories in a working, not realizing that I was only netting about 600-800 calories a day. I was losing weight, but my body fat % was not going down. After working with a trainer, I learned my mistake and now eat my RBM of 1900 calories a day + every calorie burned in the gym. Making most days 2100 - 2500 calories eaten. I'm still losing weight, about 1 lb. a week and my body fat % is now moving down with it.0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
So your question would be like how fast can you lose weight that would not take a bunch of LBM with it?
Yeah, or what's the actual risk to LBM and how does it change with rate of loss and current amount of fat, I guess.0 -
mandalynne wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mandalynne wrote: »I spend 5-6 days a week at the gym, most days I burn about 800 calories. But, there are two days when I do a Zumba class followed by either Body Pump or Ripped (High Intensity Interval Training) class and I can easily burn 1,000 calories between those two.
How long does it take you to burn 1,000 calories while doing Zumba and another class?
2 Hours - and I track it using my Microsoft Band Heart Rate monitor. It's usually about 1,100 calories for the 2 classes. Zumba alone will burn 600-700 calories in an hour.
HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
0 -
If I've learned nothing else from this thread, it's that I'm amazed at how many people have the time to spend 3 hours/day in a gym!0
-
HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
Why wouldn't it be accurate when it's straight high intensity training? I don't see how it would be any different then using it while running or any other sport.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »If I've learned nothing else from this thread, it's that I'm amazed at how many people have the time to spend 3 hours/day in a gym!
This. I always wonder that about people who say, "oh it's easy, I do the elliptical for 2 hours and then I lift weights for an hour".0 -
This content has been removed.
-
NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »toniantono2592 wrote: »Why 1000 calories burn in gym seems so strange to all of you?
I burn 1000-1500 calories per day in cycling according my polar rc3
It's not strange. It just takes a long time to achieve it. Most people don't have that kind of time to spend working out.
For example, I'm 5'2 and 20 lbs over weight. It takes me over 3 hours of low grade hiking to hit 900 calories burned, and that's on a good day.
The average person doesn't have 3 hours to dedicate to exercise... every single day.
I can burn 1000 calories a day with the amount of walking around i have to do, to and from work and generally around. In fact, i burn that five days a week! It's not impossible
that would be your everyday burn not 1000 from exercise.
Nope, that is from exercise I can assure you-I wear a fitbit and it is pretty accurate. I really do do A LOT of walking around!
That is your lifestyle. That's your day to day living which factors in as NEAT in your TDEE equation. It will increase your TDEEA because your NEAT is higher than normal but it is not exercise. A carpenter or landscaper will burn more calories daily than a data entry clerk but neither one logs that time as exercise.
But I don't HAVE to walk everywhere. I could get a bus, or lifts from colleagues, but I choose not to because I tell myself I want the exercise. So, I still count it as exercise, because those days that I do accept a lift back from a meeting or home from work, it does make a noticeable difference to the amount of calories I burn.
On work days I can burn 3000 calories per day, all from just being on my feet. On none work days I usually burn 2000-500 calories, I don't log the work calories as exercise though, just the actual exercise I do on none work days. If all I do is walking I don't log anything just go off my adjustments.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »If I've learned nothing else from this thread, it's that I'm amazed at how many people have the time to spend 3 hours/day in a gym!
This. I always wonder that about people who say, "oh it's easy, I do the elliptical for 2 hours and then I lift weights for an hour".
I know right?!
The elliptical for 2 hours...oh lord just shoot me. Now that the weather is consistently nice I'm so glad I'm able to do my cardio outside rather than having to hamster wheel indoors.
Right? After 20 minutes on one of those things I'm about ready to set my hair on fire.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
So your question would be like how fast can you lose weight that would not take a bunch of LBM with it?
PSMF is the answer to that question. It's a brutal protocol to follow, but if the goal is rapid fat loss, that's about as good as it's going to get in terms of LBM preservation. The Lyle McDonald (short) book is a pretty decent read, for those inclined that way.
0 -
mandalynne wrote: »HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
Why wouldn't it be accurate when it's straight high intensity training?
Because heart rate doesn't correlate with calorie expenditure outside of very limited conditions.I don't see how it would be any different then using it while running or any other sport.
There are 8 billion posts on MFP explaining why in excruciating detail - search bar will reveal more than you ever wanted to know.0 -
mandalynne wrote: »HRMs aren't really accurate for training such as Zumba, Intervals, or Body Pump classes.
Why wouldn't it be accurate when it's straight high intensity training? I don't see how it would be any different then using it while running or any other sport.
Zumba isn't straight high intensity training ... neither are intervals or most classes. HRMs are designed and programmed to estimate calories from steady state cardio activities where the HR is used as a proxy for effort level when plugged into a formula. Rapid changes where true exertion and HR don't match result in errors .... activities without the testing to develop formulas result in errors ... using them for anaerobic activities when they are designed only for aerobic activities results in errors.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I am a male under 6 feet. I currently weigh about 280 pounds. I did a work out on the cross trainer on Saturday for one hour and burned 880 calories. I used my Polar M400 and Polar HRM. So...this is possible if the poster is heavier. I would agree that netting 900 calories would not be healthy. I ate back about 70% of the calories burned.Burning 1000 at the gym is difficult for someone under 300lbs to imagine. Trust me, it can be done. Whether or not it's healthy? Well that's for a physician to determine. I can burn 1000 in less than an hour at the gym.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
0 -
Wow, late for the party again.
No OP, netting 900 calories is not healthy.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I lost weight the completely wrong way and ate like 1500 calories while burning 700-1000 nearly every day. Worked fine assuming my organs aren't damaged...lol. I did lose a lot of lean mass though.
I'm glad that you and Mr. Knight have brought this up.
In the thread about how even 100 lb women should be losing 2 lbs/week (or whatever it was called, I admit to editorializing), people kept asserting that as much as 1.5% of body weight was great and actually easier for athletes, since higher TDEE. I asked (and was ignored) what about the effect on LBM--presumably losing weight at a lower starting weight isn't that beneficial if you lose lots of extra LBM that you wouldn't lose at a slower rate. (Also, presumably it interferes with athletic performance, even if you are super tough and not a glutton and all that.)
I had thought that was a real effect (and it's somewhat supported by my own experience in that I lost more LBM than I liked when losing about 1-1.5 lb/week in the healthy range, even if while still quite a ways from my goal and while strength training). I lowered my goal based on that, but if I could lose faster with no negative results, obviously I'd be interested.
To be honest, I'm in a diet break now anyway, but I do find this interesting. At what point does loss of LBM become a concern?
If people have citations or opinions one way or another I'd love to be informed.
So your question would be like how fast can you lose weight that would not take a bunch of LBM with it?
PSMF is the answer to that question. It's a brutal protocol to follow, but if the goal is rapid fat loss, that's about as good as it's going to get in terms of LBM preservation. The Lyle McDonald (short) book is a pretty decent read, for those inclined that way.
I'm not asking how best to do it, but what the effect is on LBM of different rates of loss/different deficits, with the understanding that this may vary depending on your fat percentage.
For example, in the thread where people were insisting 1.5% of total weight (for a 120 lb woman that means 1.8 lb/week) was totally fine and doable there was no consideration of (a) the effect on LBM, and (b) the effect on LBM IF she were also exercising intensely. Indeed, when someone pointed out that -1.8 for that sedentary woman would require something like 600-700 calories per day as her total calories (which is insane, IMO), this was brushed away with the assertion that if she were tough she'd be exercising a lot and have a TDEE of, say, 2200. So it would only require a daily goal of 1300+intense exercise.
My questions were: wouldn't that (a) have a negative effect on LBM, and (b) be unsustainable, at least to the extent she was trying to make fitness advances with the exercise? Those questions were ignored.
Maybe I'm wrong here--although your Ranger example suggests perhaps not--but I'm curious why those blithely assuming no problem have concluded that. On what sources are they relying?
I'm always curious about possible tweaks, so I did quickly check out the PSMF, but one of the first things I saw on McDonald's site is that you can't do cardio with it, which would be a problem for me anyway, even if it didn't sound miserable. (So it's not just my lack of toughness that makes me unsuitable.)0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.
But he isn't in negative net calories on here unless he puts in the calories he burns through BMR as exercise.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers ...
1900 consumed - 1000 exercise burn = 900 calories. From that 900 calories we must now subtract your resting metabolic rate which is going to put you at negative net calories for the day. If that is in fact what you are doing, it is unhealthy.
I'm confused. Isn't being in negative net calories what we're aiming for, a calorie deficit?
Your deficit is already built into your calorie goal. Your goal isn't to be negative net calories, that would me detrimental to your health.
But he isn't in negative net calories on here unless he puts in the calories he burns through BMR as exercise.
yeah i didn't follow that subtracting rmr part either...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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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