Fitbits with HR monitoring & Metabolic Compensation
m_e_g_g
Posts: 5 Member
I looked for a thread that might address this, but haven't found one, so forgive me if the answer is already out there. Long-time lurker, 1st time poster.
So I understand that Fitbit is designed to measure caloric expenditure, starting with BMR. Per Fitbit's site: "Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is responsible for at least half the calories lost in a day. BMR is the rate at which the body burns calories during the normal functioning of the body like brain activity and breathing. BMR is measured according to weight, gender, height and age. Fitbit takes into account BMR when it is calculating lost calories. The calorie burn estimate that Fitbit provides takes into account your BMR, the activity recorded by your tracker, and any activities you log manually."
And for understanding of metabolic compensation, I like this article: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/ Basically it says that the law of metabolic compensation dictates that when you eat less and exercise more to burn calories, your body compensates by making you more hungry while at the same time decreasing the amount of calories you burn at rest.
Questions -
I may be making a false causal jump on the second question, IDK. I'm about a month and a half into diligently monitoring my CICO on MFP (1000 average cal deficit/day) supplemented with at least 5 days of bootcamp (3x/week) and running, and I feel like I've hit a wall in the last 2 weeks. In looking for answers I'm wondering if there is something to this metabolic compensation and I'm just trying to determine if I can rely on my caloric expenditure on my Fitbit Dashboard as being accurate.
So I understand that Fitbit is designed to measure caloric expenditure, starting with BMR. Per Fitbit's site: "Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is responsible for at least half the calories lost in a day. BMR is the rate at which the body burns calories during the normal functioning of the body like brain activity and breathing. BMR is measured according to weight, gender, height and age. Fitbit takes into account BMR when it is calculating lost calories. The calorie burn estimate that Fitbit provides takes into account your BMR, the activity recorded by your tracker, and any activities you log manually."
And for understanding of metabolic compensation, I like this article: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/ Basically it says that the law of metabolic compensation dictates that when you eat less and exercise more to burn calories, your body compensates by making you more hungry while at the same time decreasing the amount of calories you burn at rest.
Questions -
- Does the continual HR monitoring throughout the day play a role in the daily caloric expenditure measurement?
- If so, if your metabolism is slowing due to metabolic compensation, would it automatically be reflected in your daily caloric expenditure measurement?
I may be making a false causal jump on the second question, IDK. I'm about a month and a half into diligently monitoring my CICO on MFP (1000 average cal deficit/day) supplemented with at least 5 days of bootcamp (3x/week) and running, and I feel like I've hit a wall in the last 2 weeks. In looking for answers I'm wondering if there is something to this metabolic compensation and I'm just trying to determine if I can rely on my caloric expenditure on my Fitbit Dashboard as being accurate.
0
Replies
-
I've got a bit of experience with this, though not from the exact perspective that you're taking.
I believe the answer to your first question is generally yes, and the answer to your second question is generally no.
Fitbit does take your heart rate into consideration as a part of your total calorie burn when it thinks you're exercising, similar to any other heart rate monitor that you might use during steady state cardio work. However, since you're wearing the Fitbit continuously, this can include even a brisk walk to your car where you get your heart rate going a bit. It does not generally do anything with your resting and non-exercise heart rate other than track it and report it to you.
However, Fitbit has no way of knowing anything about your BMR/RMR on a personal level (which is something that I've had to deal with a lot, though that's another story and a different issue). Though your heart rate can be one of many indicators of how your metabolism is functioning, Fitbit cannot and is not going to try to interpret any changes in your resting heart rate as a sign of your metabolism changing - in fact, a decreased heart rate over time is often a sign of increased fitness rather than a depressed metabolism. Your BMR/RMR will always be calculated via a standard formula using the current stats you have entered into the Fitbit site (gender, age, weight, height), such that as your weight decreases (and your age increases) Fitbit will gradually reduce the BMR it uses as your baseline, but it will not take your heart rate or any other factor into account. Further, your exercise zones will always be determined by your age, rather than Fitbit having any way to incorporate your actual resting or max heart rate in any way.
All of that being said...2 points. First, 6 weeks of a reduced calorie and exercise plan/2 weeks of a stall is an awfully short time to start assuming things like metabolic adaption. There's some science behind that, I believe, but if those sorts of things are going to happen, they're going to happen after months and months of decreased intake and they're going to happen in much smaller and more gradual amounts than you would be able to notice as an instantaneous stall. In your case, I would ensure that my food logging is accurate (weighing and measuring everything, etc.) and give it a bit of time. Brief stalls in weight loss and weight fluctuations are totally normal and to be expected even the most ideal circumstances.
Second, no, Fitbit's dashboard caloric burns are not necessarily going to be accurate for everyone. They are based on estimates and averages, and while they are very good estimates and they are very close for most people (the averages must be calculated somehow!), there are naturally going to be a small number of individuals who don't fall into that range - outliers on both the "too high" and "too low" side, since no two people are exactly alike and there's a lot of variation with stuff like this. If you feel like Fitbit is giving you an inaccurate number, I encourage you to compare your food intake to Fitbit's estimate of your calories burned to your change in weight over time (starting with a bare minimum of 8-12 weeks of data and then updating periodically), and you can see if you truly are losing the amount of weight that you "should" based on your average daily deficit. If you aren't, and you're confident your food logging is accurate, you can make some assumptions about your actual TDEE and adjust your intake accordingly.
Good luck!3 -
As variable as women are in response to dieting - adaptation can take place much sooner and much more extreme for some than others.
Almost always the degree or % of deficit has a bearing - along with genetics and what a body has experienced before as stress, and what other life stresses you got going on.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
One of the first ways a body adapts to lowered calories is not in the metabolism - that's one of the last actually - as those are basic functions for life, and body has no desire to slow those down.
Next higher up functions will slow down before those - like growing hair and nails as fast, skin replacement, generating heat to stay warm (though metabolism is heat basically).
But even before that is the easiest thing to adapt and cause - you to move around less.
You could force yourself to exercise 500 calories in the morning, and with a big deficit, the body compensates by getting you to move around say 400 calories less for rest of the day, compared to no exercise or no diet.
So the exercise only created a net increase of 100 calories to the day.
Couple that to some people are mighty active already, so what the exercise is replacing for time isn't that much more anyway. And then body slows down too because of a big diet.
Ditto's to everything Barbie shared above on how Fitbit works.
About the best you could do to really individualize the Fitbit is get a good bodyfat % test - or several measurement methods that are within 5% - calculate a BMR on that (which is potentially more accurate than standard methods without it), and then adjust the height on Fitbit to cause it to use that same BMR.
That's what I do. I'm currently like 6 ft 7 in on Fitbit. Manually corrected stride length of course so the daily burn is still calculated with best accuracy.
Also - you got over 80 lbs to lose for that 1000 cal deficit to be reasonable?
Are you actually meeting your eating goal with adjustment even with that potentially extreme deficit, or are you making it bigger thinking that's better and faster?
Stress from that can cause retained water, the bad kind.
Also - all your exercise is high carb burn - body responds by storing more carbs in muscles, with attached water - the good kind.
Despite a diet lowering those stores below potential normally (first week big water weight loss), in this case it's offset from increase by exercise.
Also increased blood volume because of aerobic activity and training all the muscle, good water increase.
I think you have several reason why you have gained water weight, and inches will likely show a decrease at the same time.
Some will claim you are building muscle to offset fat loss - sadly it's about impossible to gain muscle that fast.
But elevated cortisol from stressed out body can cause water retained up to 20 lbs slowly.
Think how long of a plateau you could go through adding some of that weekly.
3 -
Wow! Thank you for the extremely thoughtful and informative responses! I think a little bit of what both of you have touched on may be contributing factors. I was careful not to use the work "plateau," (I've read the forums), but something seemed different.
A little about me... I'm was hovering consistently between 200 and 206 in early March, for the first time solidly hitting the 200s without being pregnant. So I signed up for a neighborhood bootcamp that meets 3 days a week at 6:30 am. Shortly thereafter I started really journaling what I was eating. Having read the forums on MFP, I measure and weigh my food for accuracy (when at home), and do my best to estimate when at work/out to eat. Then by April, my body's sleep cycle adapted to the 6:00 am wake-up and I added another 3 days of running, easing back into it with the Running for Weightloss app (intervals of walking/running/sprinting). I was encouraged by a steady decline on the scale until two weeks ago I hit 187, and then bounced between 187 and 189.2 points. First, 6 weeks of a reduced calorie and exercise plan/2 weeks of a stall is an awfully short time to start assuming things like metabolic adaption. There's some science behind that, I believe, but if those sorts of things are going to happen, they're going to happen after months and months of decreased intake and they're going to happen in much smaller and more gradual amounts than you would be able to notice as an instantaneous stall. In your case, I would ensure that my food logging is accurate (weighing and measuring everything, etc.) and give it a bit of time. Brief stalls in weight loss and weight fluctuations are totally normal and to be expected even the most ideal circumstances.!
BarbieAS - Thank you for this. I think your comment about accuracy could be a primary factor. I looked back at the last two weeks and noticed that we've eaten out or take-out for dinner way too often. When I eat at home, I can be fairly confident in my calorie count. But I don't have the same confidence in my estimates of food someone else is making, especially restaurants. There are likely hidden calories that I'm missing. So even though I've been journaling, my accuracy the past couple weeks is most likely not as good as it has been when we've primarily eaten at home.Also - you got over 80 lbs to lose for that 1000 cal deficit to be reasonable?
Are you actually meeting your eating goal with adjustment even with that potentially extreme deficit, or are you making it bigger thinking that's better and faster?
Stress from that can cause retained water, the bad kind.
Heybales - Stress! Thank you, I think this could be key. But first, I think I easily have about 60 lbs to lose, from where I started at 205. 145 would be a healthy weight for my 5'6" frame and I would feel greatly accomplished if I could get there by the time I turn 38 next March. So far the changes I've made haven't felt extreme. I'm not hungry all the time (since about the third week or so), I haven't gotten shin splints from trying to run too far too fast (which has happened in the past), and I'm not sick or so exhausted that I find it hard to get up in the morning. So I'm an accountant and live by Excel and like to play with numbers. I have seven weeks of data now. I typically eat between 1200 and 1600 calories, with the average being 1412. My average daily calorie burn is 2536 (using Fitbit data). I'm averaging a deficit of just over 1100 calories per day, (give or take 20% for estimating error). So while the deficit may sound extreme, I'm not feeling deprived.
But stress! I've been under A LOT of added stress the last couple weeks. I had the added stress of writing my final paper to finish up my Master's degree, which was due last Sunday. And at the same time I had a presentation to prepare for at work that involved public speaking (eek!), which I presented yesterday. And my husband and I were evaluating whether or not he should take a new job.
Already, my paper turned in (graduation's this Saturday!), my presentation complete, job decision made...I feel much better. We've been eating at home this week. I'm starting to see some downward movement on the scale again. I think getting back to basics with journaling and the reduced stress could be key, and your advice was helpful in recognizing what may have been different.
Also, the Fitbit specific advice is great too. It is helpful to understand what it is measuring and what it isn't. I think I'll look into getting a more accurate BMR for myself.0 -
Almost always the degree or % of deficit has a bearing - along with genetics and what a body has experienced before as stress, and what other life stresses you got going on.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
This is helpful in understanding the components of TDEE and the results for the CR and EX group were encouraging. I wonder what the results would look like if there was a larger CR along with EX.
So I did a TDEE calculator online (using the body fat % as calculated by my Aria scale) and it would put my TDEE at 2286. I'm trying to understand what to do with this number. MFP would say, eat 1286 calories to average 2 lbs/week (which I understand is oversimplified advice). I average calorie intake of 1412 (874 TDEE deficit) and calorie expenditure of 2536 (250 extra calories/day). So I'm restricting my calorie intake by 39% and increasing my expenditure by 11%. Is this significant?
I need to read more about TDEE.
0 -
I would suggest you use heybales' spreadsheet to calculate your TDEE. It has helped many of us get on the right track and pretty much stay there.
Just TDEE Please spreadsheet - better than 5 level TDEE charts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing
Again, many thanks to heybales for coming up with this wonderful tool
. 0 -
Almost always the degree or % of deficit has a bearing - along with genetics and what a body has experienced before as stress, and what other life stresses you got going on.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
This is helpful in understanding the components of TDEE and the results for the CR and EX group were encouraging. I wonder what the results would look like if there was a larger CR along with EX.
So I did a TDEE calculator online (using the body fat % as calculated by my Aria scale) and it would put my TDEE at 2286. I'm trying to understand what to do with this number. MFP would say, eat 1286 calories to average 2 lbs/week (which I understand is oversimplified advice). I average calorie intake of 1412 (874 TDEE deficit) and calorie expenditure of 2536 (250 extra calories/day). So I'm restricting my calorie intake by 39% and increasing my expenditure by 11%. Is this significant?
I need to read more about TDEE.
Larger CR, whether with exercise or not - is usually the normal studies, and they are short enough that the adaptations don't start happening.
Or like this study - they measure the TDEE and keep reducing the eating goal - automatically keeping the weight loss steady rate.
What you do with a decent TDEE estimate is start top down with deficit, rather than bottom up from some bare bones value.
50% deficit almost, if that's what you are getting at - think body is happy getting 50% of what it burns. That study was that great a deficit on the folks that caused a reduction in TDEE of 500 calories.
And that's above and beyond the reduced calorie burn from lost muscle mass and moving less.
If you think you could go into maintenance requiring to eat 500 less than you could otherwise - or exercise lots more to compensate - then continue. But rarely will exercise make the improvements it could - besides the adherence issue.
Might look at the study of the Biggest Loser folks that experienced exactly what is going on here. I think it was on Night Line or ABC news or something last night. You may not be at that level, just means you'll get to the same point slower.
Any diet is really just extended starving. The idea is to only do it so much so that the body isn't stressed out and adapts too much.
Your figures given almost sound like you may be using a Fitbit?
Edit - forgot we are in the Fitbit forum - of course you do! probably....
In which case - merely confirming some things are correct for it getting decent accuracy on TDEE.
Steps seen accurate for daily time, HR accurately seen for exercise (for those with HR).
Distance seen is accurate for average daily pace for daily time calories.0 -
Wow! Thank you for the extremely thoughtful and informative responses! I think a little bit of what both of you have touched on may be contributing factors. I was careful not to use the work "plateau," (I've read the forums), but something seemed different.
A little about me... I'm was hovering consistently between 200 and 206 in early March, for the first time solidly hitting the 200s without being pregnant. So I signed up for a neighborhood bootcamp that meets 3 days a week at 6:30 am. Shortly thereafter I started really journaling what I was eating. Having read the forums on MFP, I measure and weigh my food for accuracy (when at home), and do my best to estimate when at work/out to eat. Then by April, my body's sleep cycle adapted to the 6:00 am wake-up and I added another 3 days of running, easing back into it with the Running for Weightloss app (intervals of walking/running/sprinting). I was encouraged by a steady decline on the scale until two weeks ago I hit 187, and then bounced between 187 and 189.2 points. First, 6 weeks of a reduced calorie and exercise plan/2 weeks of a stall is an awfully short time to start assuming things like metabolic adaption. There's some science behind that, I believe, but if those sorts of things are going to happen, they're going to happen after months and months of decreased intake and they're going to happen in much smaller and more gradual amounts than you would be able to notice as an instantaneous stall. In your case, I would ensure that my food logging is accurate (weighing and measuring everything, etc.) and give it a bit of time. Brief stalls in weight loss and weight fluctuations are totally normal and to be expected even the most ideal circumstances.!
BarbieAS - Thank you for this. I think your comment about accuracy could be a primary factor. I looked back at the last two weeks and noticed that we've eaten out or take-out for dinner way too often. When I eat at home, I can be fairly confident in my calorie count. But I don't have the same confidence in my estimates of food someone else is making, especially restaurants. There are likely hidden calories that I'm missing. So even though I've been journaling, my accuracy the past couple weeks is most likely not as good as it has been when we've primarily eaten at home.Also - you got over 80 lbs to lose for that 1000 cal deficit to be reasonable?
Are you actually meeting your eating goal with adjustment even with that potentially extreme deficit, or are you making it bigger thinking that's better and faster?
Stress from that can cause retained water, the bad kind.
Heybales - Stress! Thank you, I think this could be key. But first, I think I easily have about 60 lbs to lose, from where I started at 205. 145 would be a healthy weight for my 5'6" frame and I would feel greatly accomplished if I could get there by the time I turn 38 next March. So far the changes I've made haven't felt extreme. I'm not hungry all the time (since about the third week or so), I haven't gotten shin splints from trying to run too far too fast (which has happened in the past), and I'm not sick or so exhausted that I find it hard to get up in the morning. So I'm an accountant and live by Excel and like to play with numbers. I have seven weeks of data now. I typically eat between 1200 and 1600 calories, with the average being 1412. My average daily calorie burn is 2536 (using Fitbit data). I'm averaging a deficit of just over 1100 calories per day, (give or take 20% for estimating error). So while the deficit may sound extreme, I'm not feeling deprived.
But stress! I've been under A LOT of added stress the last couple weeks. I had the added stress of writing my final paper to finish up my Master's degree, which was due last Sunday. And at the same time I had a presentation to prepare for at work that involved public speaking (eek!), which I presented yesterday. And my husband and I were evaluating whether or not he should take a new job.
Already, my paper turned in (graduation's this Saturday!), my presentation complete, job decision made...I feel much better. We've been eating at home this week. I'm starting to see some downward movement on the scale again. I think getting back to basics with journaling and the reduced stress could be key, and your advice was helpful in recognizing what may have been different.
Also, the Fitbit specific advice is great too. It is helpful to understand what it is measuring and what it isn't. I think I'll look into getting a more accurate BMR for myself.
So if there is extra stress in life, control what you can - which for sure you control the amount of diet you are taking.
You are barely on the verge of 1000 not being realistic - with extra stress - it already may be unreasonable.
Your not feeling hungry isn't a good indicator either. You feeling full and your body being fully fed are 2 different things.
Just as hunger signals going the other direction (making you overeat) must be understood by having knowledge of what it could be, lack of hunger signals making you undereat too much must be understood with knowledge too.
I like to compare it to vitamin/mineral deficiency - which rarely if ever is noticed until the effects start showing up - and by then some could be serious and take a long time to get out of.
So also caloric deficiency beyond what the body is willing to put up with - it'll adapt before you see the side effects indicating it's happening.
So glad to see the stress is gone.
And if you have some exercise that is really intense - that's where the change is seen. Easy stuff won't usually show up the lack of recovery because you aren't doing enough to need it. But intense stuff, like weight lifting to almost failure. When people can compare non-diet to diet time - they almost always see either a difficulty keeping the same weight on the bar - or they must introduce another rest day between lifts to aid recovery.
Shoot - some report losing the weight on the body but not gaining it on the bar for like squats/deadlifts - indicating loss of muscle mass.
So just recommend keeping it realistic - see how the weeks of less stress help, and be ready to drop to that 750 cal deficit as you drop below 60 lbs to lose.0 -
Holy moly, this is whole new dimension for thinking about weightloss. Before this week I had no idea of even metabolic adaptation and now I feel like I've gone down the rabbit hole. I'm on a FB page hosted by Sarah Gilbert, one of the contestants from last season's BL and asked her about this. She says she can consume only 800 calories a day just to maintain! That is insane!
This is kind of hard to wrap my brain around. I'm torn. My rational mind is saying that optimum health is a life goal and maintaining a healthy metabolism now must be a priority for my future me. But I don't want to be overweight anymore and everything I've thought I've understood up until this point has been CICO; the larger the deficit, the faster you lose. And I thought it such a huge accomplishment that my willpower to avoid excess calories was finally winning. I finally felt like I was on a path to success, because my efforts this time have gotten me further then I've ever gone before.
Thank you retirehappy for sharing heybales' TDEE spreadsheet. I've added it to my excel workbook. It says my TDEE is 2302 (vs. 2286 from online tracker). Eating at 20% deficit would be 1841 calories to lose 0.9lbs of fat loss a week. Honestly, my instinct is to cringe at eating 1841 because I fear I won't get anywhere. What would I eat to get those extra calories? But in this light, the 1220 calories MFP has as my daily goal (before my Fitbit exercise calories are added in) does seem extreme. I need to really think about how to approach this. When it comes to food, I'm afraid to open up the flood gates.
Thanks heybales, I think I will let things settle and ease it back to a 750 calorie deficit and then take it from there. I really appreciate your advice!So just recommend keeping it realistic - see how the weeks of less stress help, and be ready to drop to that 750 cal deficit as you drop below 60 lbs to lose.
0 -
Well, the CICO is actually valid.
It's what does the body do to adapt when you make the difference more than it wants.
Genetics plays a part, amount of muscle to fat mass or current leanness you might say, other life stresses, amount of time dieting, how abused body is from efforts, ect.
The recent study following the BL folks from past show, really show what the body is willing to do when you do it really extreme.
Because think of the gal at 800 cal - or exercising tons to get to eat more. What happens if sick or injured or vacation?
In Nightline segment, one gal said if she knew then what she knows now - wouldn't do it.
But that study shows that even though they got extreme effects from extreme method - given more time, they probably could recover - but they need to stop eating under TDEE. I'm sure they still freak out over water weight changes like majority of people do, and think that means they can't eat more. Thereby curtailing their own possible recovery out of the hole they dug.
But you are right, bigger deficit, faster the loss.
But it's also a matter of what is the weight that is lost?
Bigger deficit includes muscle mass - you'll want that later.
Shoot, body builders when prepping for show are super careful about that - they know that despite plenty of protein and still working out - they can and have lost muscle mass. Because at their level of leanness, reasonable deficit to prevent it is much smaller than someone with plenty of fat stores.
Power lifters too, who don't have to lose weight except for getting in certain weight class - know if not careful they'll lose muscle and impact their strength, so careful planning in both cases.
But even though with more fat to lose and not doing near the lifting they are doing - others can be in the same boat though it takes longer. Losing muscle like that may be minor on resting daily calorie burn - but it sure doesn't help continued weight loss, or maintenance, when you include activity with it.
But the loss of muscle is just an indicator of how much stress the body must be under for that to happen, so the other aspects of adapting are already going on.
But you are also right that carrying extra weight can be bad for overall health right now - so speed to get some off is actually more important than possible negatives otherwise.
And depending on amount to lose in total, there are things to be done to keep it reasonable overall, and minimize impact. Like perhaps getting a big chunk off faster, then taking a break to reset the body's hormones.
So while that spreadsheet I think can hone in on better TDEE estimate, the Fitbit has the best chance actually.
And since women do better with % off than block calories off - using the average weekly TDEE method is better than moving daily goal - if your workouts can allow for such planning.
What Fitbit do you have?
What are your workouts?
Have you ever confirmed step counts seem accurate during daily activities?
Have you ever confirmed distance at average daily pace seems accurate?
If HR device - have you confirmed it's accurate on reading HR during the workouts, especially higher HR?
0 -
heybales - Sorry I'm just getting back to this. This feed took me down the rabbit hole, so to speak. I started reading about metabolic health which lead me to IIFYM. I dabbled with the concepts of IIFYM for a couple of weeks, gradually increasing my calorie intake, before committing to it last week. Using your spreadsheet (shared by retirehappy), I calculated my cut calories to be 1790. I then calculated my target macros to be 139(p) 74(f) 142(c). For a little while there was no change on the scale, but my BF% was still going down and clothes were fitting better. Now the scale is starting to go down again and I feel stronger in bootcamp (also upped my weights). Thanks again for all the great info you shared with me!What Fitbit do you have?
What are your workouts?
Have you ever confirmed step counts seem accurate during daily activities?
Have you ever confirmed distance at average daily pace seems accurate?
If HR device - have you confirmed it's accurate on reading HR during the workouts, especially higher HR?
Fitbit - Charge HR
Workouts - 45min outdoor bootcamp 3x/week, run 3-4 miles 3x/week; (thinking about joining my company's gym so that I can start lifting more weights)
Confirm step count - Years ago, not with this device.
Confirm distance - No
Confirm HR reading - No
0 -
So you have a few potential inaccuracies that could effect trusting the Fitbit.
The more sedentary non-exercise life is - the more important the exercise calorie burn is validated. Because it's a bigger % of daily burn.
But if very active and workouts are very specific targeting - then not so bad, small % of daily burn.
Boot camp calorie burn using HR-based formula would be iffy, depends on if closer to aerobic or lifting workout for you personally.
Good job getting to experience benefit of fueling body properly - and it sounds like letting go of some stress. I'll bet you still have a water weight whoosh drop coming at some point. Probably a week you miss a workout or two.0
