Anyone who goes gym 6 days a week and aims for 1000 calorie loss?
Options
Replies
-
If I remember correctly a stone is 14lbs. So for six months you have lost .5lb a week. Nothing wrong with that amount but in my head it doesn't match up with the info.
You eat 1350 calories a day minus the 1000 calories you burn which leaves you with 350 calories for bodily functions and everyday living activities. Let's say your BMR is around 1550. 350(available calories) - 1550(BMR) = -1200 (calories that you don't have to nourish your bodily functions just to survive and stay healthy).
Putting all that aside...if you are only netting 350 calories you should have lost way more than a stone.
How are you tracking your calorie intake?
Hi even if the calorie count is ok, this training & nutrition will not work on the long run, due to the constant low calories the metsbolism will slow down and block progress.
A calorie deficit of about 300 - 400 per day would be better in my opinion0 -
Hi there! I don't necessarily go with the goal of burning 1000 calories. However, depending on what I do, it can be fairy easy or very difficult, also depending on how much time I want to spend. If I only have an hour to burn (literally, haha...so cheesy) and I want to burn a high amount of calories, I'll just run on the road or a treadmill for an hour. I usually burn between 1000-1100 calories in an hour when I do that. However, burning calories like that without getting in some lifting and protein, you're sure to lose a lot of weight, but it'll be a lot of muscle as well as the fat. It's easy to get stuck into "run, run, run" and burning large amounts of calories because yes, if you're diet is right, you'll lose weight faster and feel much lighter sooner. However, without lifting, you're body composition will hardly change because of all the muscle you're burning as well. I've done it myself...I've lost as 20 pounds and hand almost the same amount of body fat after as I did before, about a 3-4 percent difference. A 20 pound cut in weight should result in a much more significant body fat reduction than that. I mean, you may already be in great shape and maintain a good diet, in which case, none of this matters to you, lol! But if not, just food for thought... Happy training!
2 -
No thanks.1
-
I do typically work out 6 or 7 days a week, sometimes twice a day. I don't go with the goal burning a specific amount of calories. I have three memberships and a classpass so I like to mix it up.1
-
Ive now put in my stats to an online calculator and its worked out my calories for me so around 1350 i should be eating. After exercicing it says i can eat my calorie plus 1000 extra ive worked off. Ive done a test on both where ive eaten the extra calories and one maintained the calorie goal but found staying in the calorie goal helped lose weight.
Does depen what you eat though.
doesnt depend on what you eat it depends on how much you eat. if you eat over your maintenance calories you will gain, if you are in a deficit you will lose. a HRM also is not 100% accurate when it comes to exercise calories burned unless you are doing steady state cardio(biking,swimming,running,etc). it still may not be 100% accurate. if you can eat 1350 and 1000 calories that means you should be eating 2350 calories and when you burn the 1000(if you actually are) you will net the 1350.when you exercise MFP gives you calories back to eat(your deficit is built in before any exercise),so no you wont gain weight because the exercise is putting you into a bigger deficit(which is why they give them back,its to eat them).
if you stay in your deficit yes you will lose the weigh,whether its through eating in a deficit,creating one with exercise or both. and the less you weigh the harder it is to burn 1000 calories. if you lift weights your weight goes up due to water retention to help repair your muscles.its not actual fat weight. so yes I would say eat those calories back and wait a several weeks to see where you are(if you are losing,gaining or maintaining),Then adjust from there. netting too low of calories is not good. you need to fuel your workouts and your body after those workouts.4 -
If I remember correctly a stone is 14lbs. So for six months you have lost .5lb a week. Nothing wrong with that amount but in my head it doesn't match up with the info.
You eat 1350 calories a day minus the 1000 calories you burn which leaves you with 350 calories for bodily functions and everyday living activities. Let's say your BMR is around 1550. 350(available calories) - 1550(BMR) = -1200 (calories that you don't have to nourish your bodily functions just to survive and stay healthy).
Putting all that aside...if you are only netting 350 calories you should have lost way more than a stone.
How are you tracking your calorie intake?
Hi even if the calorie count is ok, this training & nutrition will not work on the long run, due to the constant low calories the metsbolism will slow down and block progress.
A calorie deficit of about 300 - 400 per day would be better in my opinion
I was hoping that she would see that if her numbers are correct she is leaving her body very little to function with. IDK...I would guess that her calorie counting is not correct because I don't think anyone could survive for 6 months with those kind of numbers.
If her CICO is correct she will do more harm than just slowing down her metabolism.1 -
If I remember correctly a stone is 14lbs. So for six months you have lost .5lb a week. Nothing wrong with that amount but in my head it doesn't match up with the info.
You eat 1350 calories a day minus the 1000 calories you burn which leaves you with 350 calories for bodily functions and everyday living activities. Let's say your BMR is around 1550. 350(available calories) - 1550(BMR) = -1200 (calories that you don't have to nourish your bodily functions just to survive and stay healthy).
Putting all that aside...if you are only netting 350 calories you should have lost way more than a stone.
How are you tracking your calorie intake?
Hi even if the calorie count is ok, this training & nutrition will not work on the long run, due to the constant low calories the metsbolism will slow down and block progress.
A calorie deficit of about 300 - 400 per day would be better in my opinion
I was hoping that she would see that if her numbers are correct she is leaving her body very little to function with. IDK...I would guess that her calorie counting is not correct because I don't think anyone could survive for 6 months with those kind of numbers.
If her CICO is correct she will do more harm than just slowing down her metabolism.
I think dfc is saying that she should not be trying to go with a 1000 calorie burns and should aim for a smaller deficit of about 300-400 a day. now if she is really burning 1000 calories she should either either 2350 or eat that 1000 calories back. or she can burn less with less exercise(more is not always better).1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »If I remember correctly a stone is 14lbs. So for six months you have lost .5lb a week. Nothing wrong with that amount but in my head it doesn't match up with the info.
You eat 1350 calories a day minus the 1000 calories you burn which leaves you with 350 calories for bodily functions and everyday living activities. Let's say your BMR is around 1550. 350(available calories) - 1550(BMR) = -1200 (calories that you don't have to nourish your bodily functions just to survive and stay healthy).
Putting all that aside...if you are only netting 350 calories you should have lost way more than a stone.
How are you tracking your calorie intake?
Hi even if the calorie count is ok, this training & nutrition will not work on the long run, due to the constant low calories the metsbolism will slow down and block progress.
A calorie deficit of about 300 - 400 per day would be better in my opinion
I was hoping that she would see that if her numbers are correct she is leaving her body very little to function with. IDK...I would guess that her calorie counting is not correct because I don't think anyone could survive for 6 months with those kind of numbers.
If her CICO is correct she will do more harm than just slowing down her metabolism.
I think dfc is saying that she should not be trying to go with a 1000 calorie burns and should aim for a smaller deficit of about 300-400 a day. now if she is really burning 1000 calories she should either either 2350 or eat that 1000 calories back. or she can burn less with less exercise(more is not always better).
Yes that is exactly what i am saying, for halthy weight los this is deficit & training is too much0 -
I ride a bike 18-21 miles 7 days a week in 60 min and hit the gym six days a week for weights but I eat at or above my TDEE1
-
I couldn't eat enough to sustain that since I eat all my exercise calories to support my training.0
-
-
Michael190lbs wrote: »
Me too! But I'd still be hard pressed to add 1000 cals to my daily intake.0 -
Thanks all and some really helpful advice off some. Im going to have a pt to help sort this out. Its sometimes easier said than to do about eating. Its hard to program in my head that ive actually got to eat more to lose more. I did do 3 months heavy weights and less cardio and ate more but i was set an amout to eat regardless of how much i exercised. I did question this pt guy why after doing a day of cardio i was still hungry and he told me it just takes time to adjust but thst wasnt the case then ended up on the binge. My head tells me not to over eat now.0
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »a HRM also is not 100% accurate when it comes to exercise calories burned unless you are doing steady state cardio(biking,swimming,running,etc). it still may not be 100% accurate.
The best HRM system supposedly has an error of up to 7 %, but that's expensive, and maybe overstated. Run of the mill HRMs can be wrong but 200 or 300 % sometimes. And wrong by smaller amounts like 20 % other times.
Your heart rate goes up and down for a lot of reasons. One of them is exercise intensity, others are the weather, your emotional state, how much caffeine you've had, etc. Fitbit can't tell if your heart rate is elevated because you just had a latte or if it's because you're sprinting on a bike. Heart rate isn't some kind of magical insight into calories.
Also, cycling is rarely a steady state. People get tired, and people get second winds. Riding a bike outdoors means dealing with hills, stop lights, the wind, etc. The intensity varies a great deal throughout the course of pretty much every ride.1 -
So do you suggest eating back the calories you burn off? If so doesnt that just put weight back on?
An analogy: if you drive your car until the gas tank is empty, and then you put more gas in, and then you drive more, and you put more gas in, won't your tank overfill? No, because you emptied it.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »a HRM also is not 100% accurate when it comes to exercise calories burned unless you are doing steady state cardio(biking,swimming,running,etc). it still may not be 100% accurate.
The best HRM system supposedly has an error of up to 7 %, but that's expensive, and maybe overstated. Run of the mill HRMs can be wrong but 200 or 300 % sometimes. And wrong by smaller amounts like 20 % other times.
Your heart rate goes up and down for a lot of reasons. One of them is exercise intensity, others are the weather, your emotional state, how much caffeine you've had, etc. Fitbit can't tell if your heart rate is elevated because you just had a latte or if it's because you're sprinting on a bike. Heart rate isn't some kind of magical insight into calories.
Also, cycling is rarely a steady state. People get tired, and people get second winds. Riding a bike outdoors means dealing with hills, stop lights, the wind, etc. The intensity varies a great deal throughout the course of pretty much every ride.
I know heart rate goes up for many reasons. but point being people should not rely on HRM and they arent meant to be used to gauge calorie burns. they are meant to gauge heart rate and are stated to only be used with steady state cardio. They are also meant to be used for people who train so they know what/where their "training zones" are..HRM like anything else for calorie burns are an estimate.I never said it was a magical insight into calories, I stated even with steady state cardio is still may not be 100% and it wont be. everything is just an estimate I know that.. people just need to know that HRM are not going to be 100% accurate for most exercises especially weight lifting.they are going to be off by a lot most likely1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »....people just need to know that HRM are not going to be 100% accurate for most exercises especially weight lifting.they are going to be off by a lot most likely
I see it as a tone of voice point. When you say it's not 100% I'd take that to mean that the actual value is perhaps +/- 5% of indicated, rather than +/- somewhere between 20-60% of indicated.
It's about informed use, understanding the tool. If I were to use a simple Polar, or perhaps FitBit, and went for a constant pace 5K run then I'd be pretty comfortable with the reading. If it was a 10K, the same. If I did a speed session for 10K I'd be confident of a reasonable overestimation, because of HR fluctuations. If I did a steady paced 10 mile run, I'd assume an overestimation because of cardiac drift.
So even for steady state, they've got big vulnerabilities.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »a HRM also is not 100% accurate when it comes to exercise calories burned unless you are doing steady state cardio(biking,swimming,running,etc). it still may not be 100% accurate.
The best HRM system supposedly has an error of up to 7 %, but that's expensive, and maybe overstated. Run of the mill HRMs can be wrong but 200 or 300 % sometimes. And wrong by smaller amounts like 20 % other times.
Your heart rate goes up and down for a lot of reasons. One of them is exercise intensity, others are the weather, your emotional state, how much caffeine you've had, etc. Fitbit can't tell if your heart rate is elevated because you just had a latte or if it's because you're sprinting on a bike. Heart rate isn't some kind of magical insight into calories.
Also, cycling is rarely a steady state. People get tired, and people get second winds. Riding a bike outdoors means dealing with hills, stop lights, the wind, etc. The intensity varies a great deal throughout the course of pretty much every ride.
I know heart rate goes up for many reasons. but point being people should not rely on HRM and they arent meant to be used to gauge calorie burns. they are meant to gauge heart rate and are stated to only be used with steady state cardio. They are also meant to be used for people who train so they know what/where their "training zones" are..HRM like anything else for calorie burns are an estimate.I never said it was a magical insight into calories, I stated even with steady state cardio is still may not be 100% and it wont be. everything is just an estimate I know that.. people just need to know that HRM are not going to be 100% accurate for most exercises especially weight lifting.they are going to be off by a lot most likely
I think you misunderstood my post, I was agreeing with you as lending support to what you were saying. Specifically about magical insight into calories, that's not what they're made for or good at. You said they're not 100% accurate for calories, and I'm trying to help quantify that and give some reasons it's true.
:-)1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »a HRM also is not 100% accurate when it comes to exercise calories burned unless you are doing steady state cardio(biking,swimming,running,etc). it still may not be 100% accurate.
The best HRM system supposedly has an error of up to 7 %, but that's expensive, and maybe overstated. Run of the mill HRMs can be wrong but 200 or 300 % sometimes. And wrong by smaller amounts like 20 % other times.
Your heart rate goes up and down for a lot of reasons. One of them is exercise intensity, others are the weather, your emotional state, how much caffeine you've had, etc. Fitbit can't tell if your heart rate is elevated because you just had a latte or if it's because you're sprinting on a bike. Heart rate isn't some kind of magical insight into calories.
Also, cycling is rarely a steady state. People get tired, and people get second winds. Riding a bike outdoors means dealing with hills, stop lights, the wind, etc. The intensity varies a great deal throughout the course of pretty much every ride.
I know heart rate goes up for many reasons. but point being people should not rely on HRM and they arent meant to be used to gauge calorie burns. they are meant to gauge heart rate and are stated to only be used with steady state cardio. They are also meant to be used for people who train so they know what/where their "training zones" are..HRM like anything else for calorie burns are an estimate.I never said it was a magical insight into calories, I stated even with steady state cardio is still may not be 100% and it wont be. everything is just an estimate I know that.. people just need to know that HRM are not going to be 100% accurate for most exercises especially weight lifting.they are going to be off by a lot most likely
I think you misunderstood my post, I was agreeing with you as lending support to what you were saying. Specifically about magical insight into calories, that's not what they're made for or good at. You said they're not 100% accurate for calories, and I'm trying to help quantify that and give some reasons it's true.
:-)
ah ok I did misunderstand you. and thanks for clearing it up for me and others reading the post
0 -
Ive now put in my stats to an online calculator and its worked out my calories for me so around 1350 i should be eating. After exercicing it says i can eat my calorie plus 1000 extra ive worked off. Ive done a test on both where ive eaten the extra calories and one maintained the calorie goal but found staying in the calorie goal helped lose weight.
Does depen what you eat though.
Reading between the lines a little here:
Some (non-MFP?) calculator said you should eat 1350. Did you tell that calculator to include your doing 2 hours of exercise virtually every day? I'm thinking you didn't. So, I'm thinking the 1350 is probably based on your having put in your stats (height/weight/age) and some weight loss goal. Is that right?
I'm wondering why you didn't just use MFP's built-in calculator (if you didn't) and put in your weight, age, etc., and weight-loss goal? MFP does expect you to eat back your accurate exercise calories - that's how it's designed. (The gas tank analogy above was good for visualizing this.) If the place you got your 1350 also didn't include your 2 hours of exercise in its estimate, then you can use MFP, and plan to eat 1350 + exercise.
Like others here, I suspect two things: (1) Your exercise is likely over-estimated, and (2) your food logging may be inaccurate. Why do I suspect these?
Exercise: I absolutely believe you are working hard at the gym. I believe you said you're also using a heart rate monitor (HRM). This is good.
Still, I suspect over-estimating of exercise calories for three main reasons.- It sounds like your workouts include strength training of some sort. HRM are not accurate for that. Your heart rate goes up because of (basically) stress and strain in lifting. But that doesn't actually burn many calories; it just raises your heart rate.
- I've been very active for a dozen years, including being - perhaps surprisingly - a competitive masters rower (those boats like in the Olympics) while obese. Trust me, I worked very hard. Even my hardest cardio workouts on the rowing machine, even at 183 pounds, even at way-high heart rates (AT & race-pace workouts for the techies out there) were not going to burn the equivalent per-minute number of calories it would take to get to 1000 calories in 2 hours. Maybe 800 or so . . . but here's the kicker: Even as a conditioned athlete, there was no way I could continue an AT workout for 2 hours, even in two 1-hour sessions, or multiple smaller ones. This is true by definition (of that exercise intensity), it's not because I'm lazy. And I certainly couldn't (and wouldn't) repeat it 6 days every week
- You said that when you ate 1350 + your exercise, you didn't lose weight. It's true that some people burn fewer calories than the norm, but only a very tiny, petite 35-year-old woman eating 1350 net (i.e., the extra eating above that is erased by exercise) is going to maintain or gain weight doing that. To get 1350 as a pre-exercise calorie level to maintain weight, I had to tell one of the calculators the woman was about 4'7" and 90 pounds. (And a 4'7" woman weighing 90 pounds is not gonna burn 1000 calories in 2 hours, no matter what she does.)
Eating Someone above calculated that if you've lost 2 stone in the last 6 months on this routine, that's 0.5 pounds a week. That implies you've been eating about 250 calories per day below your maintenance calories - on average, counting all your exercise, all your low-calorie eating, any binges or over-goal days along the way, everything. This, plus the situation in #3 above, suggest that your food logging may not be very accurate.
In my fastest-loss period during my weight loss, I lost 55 pounds in 6 months. I'm nearly twice your age (59 when losing), so my metabolism is likely to be slower than yours. Outside of exercise, I'm sedentary. I didn't exercise 1000 calories daily (routinely, at least - maybe once or twice doing something special). I ate back all, or nearly all, of my exercise calories (after estimating them very carefully) during that whole time.
I only ate at 1350 or fewer net calories for a short number of weeks (actually eating more food than that, though, because remember I was eating exercise back). I had to stop doing that when I realized that it was too low, made me lose too fast, and left me weak/fatigued.
I'm truly concerned about you. I want you to be a success. The way to do that is to log your eating accurately (weighing food, recording everything, including over-goal days), set a sustainable calorie goal you can stick to without binging, eat nutritiously, put together a reasonable gym program you can sustain permanently (because you'll want to keep lost weight off), and just stick to that patiently and persistently until you achieve your goals.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions