Anyone who goes gym 6 days a week and aims for 1000 calorie loss?

Michael190lbs wrote: »

kami3006 wrote: »

I couldn't eat enough to sustain that since I eat all my exercise calories to support my training.

Ya I love peanutbutter

Me too! But I'd still be hard pressed to add 1000 cals to my daily intake.

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.

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

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.

:-)

Insain1 wrote: »

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.

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.

That seems excessive for someone who isn't a professional athlete. I do Yoga 6 days a week, strength train for 3 and do cardio 4x per week (one of those days being back to back dance classes) and I am only burning roughly 180 cals per day in exercise, except for dance day which is around 350.