Questionable Math
Options
Replies
-
I know that sounds crazy, but if you eat 1600 calories, then you burn 1600 calories, it would be like you didn't eat any thing all day (if you just sat around and didn't exercise and didn't eat). You would be at 0 net calories. You would have to eat 3200 calories to net your 1600, because you burned 1600 you see????0
-
I question the math of your exercise burn. I've noticed a lot of people "overstating" their exercise calories burned (usually because of what's already in the database) and yet they complain that they are not seeing results.
Intensity of workout is key to calorie burn. If you are working out at a lower intensity than the database assumes, you aren't really burning those calories.
Do you have a Heart Rate Monitor to give you a more specific reading?0 -
Yes a heart rate monitor would be the best option for you so you can see what you are really actually burning!0
-
I think everyone has given you a good idea that yes - you need to consume a minimum NET calories of 1500 (more if you are close to your goal so as to decrease your daily deficit)... but a couple other have mentioned your exercise burn and HRM's - please make sure you are being accurate in these... 90 min of stationary bike is VERY unlikely to burn 1500+ calories. I realize MFP is setting that for you, but "vigorous" would mean extreme effort for 90 min which is nearly impossible IMHO for someone that still has 20+ lbs to lose.
Anyway, you've gotten good advice here - definitely eat more (lean proteins + veggies if possible!) and be wary of your "burn" measurements0 -
Also, in my opinion, what you are eating is important too. Like the calories you consume should be moderately high protein, moderate complex carbs and the good fats. Low sodium and low sugar. Watch your starches keep them moderate as well. Lots of water.0
-
I realize MFP is setting that for you, but "vigorous" would mean extreme effort for 90 min
For one thing if you are doing vigorous biking there is not way that it is vigorous, if you can do it for a full 90 minutes. Try to find a sprinter that can sprint for that long, vigorous means all out, which cannot be sustained over a 90 minute period, I would be lucky to do more than 12 minutes of vigorous anything, and I am quite fit.0 -
it's very simple math. just addition and subtraction. there isn't even any long division involved.
Lawl :laugh:0 -
The big thing with successful weight loss is CONSISTENCY is key. If you ate that little today I can bet my bottom dollar you might manage tomorrow, or even the day after but somewhere in the next 7 days you will lose it and lose it altogether.
I find it hard the idea of factoring in the exercise calories, for a lot of people they don't even log exercise but then make sure they are eating their calorie goal. That way you still have a defiicit but should have good results and not go into starvation mode.
I don't know what guys minimum eat is, for me its 1200 calories after that I get a note that says I'll go into starvation mode. The great thing is if I eat exactly 1200 calories it actually shoes me the weight I will be in 5 weeks which is lighter than if I ate less calories. It does work.
But I hear you, you have alot of eating to do I sometimes struggle making up the 1200 as I'm not used to eating that much. But eating more than normal is definitely working for me.0 -
On the stationary bike I am tracking the speed as to not drop below 20mph and my heart rate ranges from 177 to the mid 180's. I am indeed pushing myself to the fullest because I have the desire to lose the weight. I am counting on it being off by a little not alot. I am not just relying on my given output but of course I am using certain supplements(i guess the site doesn't like you to promote so I won't name) one to burn fat and one for improving endurance.) So the numbers are either up or down but one thing is for sure I am going hard. Please don't question my effort or dedication to what I am doing.
The food is where my problem is. Food and retirememnt got me into the situation. I know I am eating to little was not sure what would be a safe amount. This thing only gave me the option to lose 2lbs a week. So I figured if that was at 1700(my initial goal) my thought was if I dropped that drastically I would lose more.0 -
On the stationary bike I am tracking the speed as to not drop below 20mph and my heart rate ranges from 177 to the mid 180's. I am indeed pushing myself to the fullest because I have the desire to lose the weight. I am counting on it being off by a little not alot. I am not just relying on my given output but of course I am using certain supplements(i guess the site doesn't like you to promote so I won't name) one to burn fat and one for improving endurance.) So the numbers are either up or down but one thing is for sure I am going hard. Please don't question my effort or dedication to what I am doing.
The food is where my problem is. Food and retirememnt got me into the situation. I know I am eating to little was not sure what would be a safe amount. This thing only gave me the option to lose 2lbs a week. So I figured if that was at 1700(my initial goal) my thought was if I dropped that drastically I would lose more.
You may lose more, if you go below, but a lot of it would be muscle, not fat. A safe weight loss if you have 20-40ish lbs to go is 1 lb/week, if you have 40-75ish 1.5, if you have 75+ 2 lb/week. There is no reason to lose more than 2 lb/week as it is probably not healthy to do so. And the faster you lose, the more likely you are to put it back on.0 -
Just to be clear, I don't question your effort or dedication AT ALL. Anyone who can burn anywhere NEAR 2000 calories a day, AND eat 800 calories a day is seriously dedicated, and giving 100% effort. That is awesome.
Is it clear now that the 1700 calories per day gives you a 2 lb a week weight loss, even with NO exercise? So, if you want to ramp it up more, try eating around 1700 cals/day, and burning around 1500-2000 per day, as you've been doing. THAT combination will give you a 4 lb per week deficit.
You won't be able to do it for too long, and I suspect some people might jump all over this answer crying 'starvation mode, starvation mode'. But I'm with you - I don't see why you can't try it for a couple of weeks and see how you do, how you feel. If you start to feel fatigued, and achy like you're getting the flu - I would up your calories by about 200-300 and see if that helps.
No one here knows the exact right formula for you - you're going to have to sort it out on your own. I am still REALLY impressed with your calorie burn. Even if it's off by double, it's an amazing effort. Great job!0 -
Just to be clear, I don't question your effort or dedication AT ALL. Anyone who can burn anywhere NEAR 2000 calories a day, AND eat 800 calories a day is seriously dedicated, and giving 100% effort. That is awesome.
Is it clear now that the 1700 calories per day gives you a 2 lb a week weight loss, even with NO exercise? So, if you want to ramp it up more, try eating around 1700 cals/day, and burning around 1500-2000 per day, as you've been doing. THAT combination will give you a 4 lb per week deficit.
You won't be able to do it for too long, and I suspect some people might jump all over this answer crying 'starvation mode, starvation mode'. But I'm with you - I don't see why you can't try it for a couple of weeks and see how you do, how you feel. If you start to feel fatigued, and achy like you're getting the flu - I would up your calories by about 200-300 and see if that helps.
No one here knows the exact right formula for you - you're going to have to sort it out on your own. I am still REALLY impressed with your calorie burn. Even if it's off by double, it's an amazing effort. Great job!
With only 20 lbs to lose a 4 lb/week goal is way too aggressive and will result in a loss of muscle, most likely 50-75% of a 4lb loss would come from muscle, unless you have 100+lbs of fat to lose. And if over 50% comes from muscle you will lose weight, but your BF% will be higher at the lower weight than it is now.
With your 20 lb/ goal, you should be set to lose no more than 1 lb/week, and should be eating back exercise calories to limit the amount of muscle you lose.0 -
Just to be clear, I don't question your effort or dedication AT ALL. Anyone who can burn anywhere NEAR 2000 calories a day, AND eat 800 calories a day is seriously dedicated, and giving 100% effort. That is awesome.
Is it clear now that the 1700 calories per day gives you a 2 lb a week weight loss, even with NO exercise? So, if you want to ramp it up more, try eating around 1700 cals/day, and burning around 1500-2000 per day, as you've been doing. THAT combination will give you a 4 lb per week deficit.
You won't be able to do it for too long, and I suspect some people might jump all over this answer crying 'starvation mode, starvation mode'. But I'm with you - I don't see why you can't try it for a couple of weeks and see how you do, how you feel. If you start to feel fatigued, and achy like you're getting the flu - I would up your calories by about 200-300 and see if that helps.
No one here knows the exact right formula for you - you're going to have to sort it out on your own. I am still REALLY impressed with your calorie burn. Even if it's off by double, it's an amazing effort. Great job!
With only 20 lbs to lose a 4 lb/week goal is way too aggressive and will result in a loss of muscle, most likely 50-75% of a 4lb loss would come from muscle, unless you have 100+lbs of fat to lose. And if over 50% comes from muscle you will lose weight, but your BF% will be higher at the lower weight than it is now.
With your 20 lb/ goal, you should be set to lose no more than 1 lb/week, and should be eating back exercise calories to limit the amount of muscle you lose.
Your first paragraph math is only correct if the person is at 50% bodyfat now. If however he is at 25% bodyfat, only 25% of the weigh he loses needs to be fat for him to stay at the same bodyfat %.
For example, say he is 200 lbs now at 25% bodyfat (he has 50 lbs of fat) and loses 4 lbs, 1 of which is fat (25% fat loss), 3 of which are lean body loss (75% of the loss is not fat). He will then weigh 196 and will have 49 lbs of fat (50-1).
49/196 still is exactly 25% bodyfat.
The more I read about so-called starvation mode the more I agree with you. I think it does exist in a manner of speaking in that studies show your body's metabolism does adjust when caloric intake falls dramatically, however, it apparently takes quite a long time (weeks?) for this to begin and even when it does start, studies have shown obese people still lose primarily fat when in this mode. It is normal sized people who apparently start to equally catabolize muscle and organ tissue (but still lose fat) when they eventually go into "starvation mode". So while I don't think starvation mode is a myth, I do think it is very much misunderstood.
I like your recommendation to shoot for a sensible (IMO) 1 lb/week loss and adjust your calories and exercise around that goal. A 3500 calorie/week deficit should be maintainable for most people.0 -
All I can say is... I was only netting 200 calories a day after considering my 1000 calorie burn a day. I got REALLLLLLLLLLLY sick. It's 4 weeks... and I still don't feel well. My body completely shut down after I started blacking out (although I had felt GREAT!) even the day before.
Your body will get back at you. So as some suggested, I agree... you should try to net no less than 1200 a day for your body type.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
- 401 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
- 994 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions