Weight lifting doesn't burn fat
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Danicandothis, What do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits? Is it possible you are building muscle as you are losing fat so you're not noticing a big difference in your weight?
1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You burn fat when you are in a calorie deficit...exercise doesn't really matter save for increasing your energy expenditure to some extent or another.
I'm in maintenance and I lift a couple days per week, cycle 4-5 days per week, and rock climb...none of that is burning fat because I'm eating maintenance calories. If I wanted to burn fat I would drop my calorie intake...my exercise wouldn't change...the actual exercise is expending energy, not burning fat per sei...
so if someone is recomping they arent going to lose/burn fat? I thought you could?
Yes, because you're adding muscle mass at the same time which increases energy expenditure marginally which is why re-comp takes an eternity for much in the way of noticeable results. The squats and whatnot in and of themselves aren't burning the fat...you're just running hotter and expending more energy with more muscle mass, epoc, etc.
I'd say in reality that someone who's re-comping and actually losing fat and gaining muscle is actually in a very small deficit which was created by additional muscle mass.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Danicandothis wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Danicandothis wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
I don't eat back any of my exercise calories
None of what you are saying makes any sense.
Please open your food diary here so we can take a peek and help you. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
at the bottom, click "Public."
Made it public.
Okay great. I just took a look at your logs for the past week and I have some questions.- You said you weigh your food right? How come you have entries like "1 medium apple", "1 bar", "1 tablespoon", "1 cup", "13 pieces", etc.?
- Entries for things like "Caprese", "egg, whole, cooked, fried, 1 large", and "Taco Pasta". Did you put that in yourself using the recipe builder or are you using random entries you find in the database?
- Your Nature's Own bread is 120 calories every time. It's extremely rare that slices of bread match the grams listed on the package, are you weighing them every time?
I'm sorry OP, but like many people who come here, I know you're trying to log with the best of intentions but you're not as accurate with your logging as you'd like to believe. I can guarantee you are eating much more than you think.
Yeah, I agree with this. Always 4 ounces of deli meat (that's the default package serving) always "pieces" or "cups."
But she is staying under her goal by quite a bit. My guess is 1. A lot of food is not getting logged (or logged incorrectly) or 2. There is a medical problem.
There should be weight loss if you've been eating like this consistently and you've been honest. If there is guessing going on, all bets are off.
Also, try to up your protein, it's really low. It's possible to lose weight eating most of the stuff you're eating, but get in basic nutrition while you're at it. Makes it much easier. I find it hard to believe you are eating that low on protein and with so many sweet carby things and are not hungrier since you're not even allowing for exercise calories.
Yeah, I ran her stats through a TDEE calculator and chose lightly active. I get a TDEE of 2588 from Mifflin and 2853/2859 from Harris. If her goal is 1800 and things aren't being logged properly, there are probably days where she's at or above maintenance, and days where she's below it. If that is the case, then her rate of loss is going to be really slow. If she has a medical issue, then her actual TDEE would be even less than that. I think all the other stuff can be figured out once the logging issues are fixed.6 -
Well, even if it were the case, it would still be worth running over walking if you're short of time, because you're burning more calories per hour. Eg cycling is a very efficient way to travel and burns far fewer calories per mile than walking - but it's still great for weight loss because it burns more calories per hour.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You burn fat when you are in a calorie deficit...exercise doesn't really matter save for increasing your energy expenditure to some extent or another.
I'm in maintenance and I lift a couple days per week, cycle 4-5 days per week, and rock climb...none of that is burning fat because I'm eating maintenance calories. If I wanted to burn fat I would drop my calorie intake...my exercise wouldn't change...the actual exercise is expending energy, not burning fat per sei...
so if someone is recomping they arent going to lose/burn fat? I thought you could?
Yes, because you're adding muscle mass at the same time which increases energy expenditure marginally which is why re-comp takes an eternity for much in the way of noticeable results. The squats and whatnot in and of themselves aren't burning the fat...you're just running hotter and expending more energy with more muscle mass, epoc, etc.
I'd say in reality that someone who's re-comping and actually losing fat and gaining muscle is actually in a very small deficit which was created by additional muscle mass.
thats what I thought but was confused lol that clears the confusion up. and I know its slow as molasses to recomp.2 -
Get a second opinion. Something doesn't sound kosher.2
-
Maxematics wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Danicandothis wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Danicandothis wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
I don't eat back any of my exercise calories
None of what you are saying makes any sense.
Please open your food diary here so we can take a peek and help you. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
at the bottom, click "Public."
Made it public.
Okay great. I just took a look at your logs for the past week and I have some questions.- You said you weigh your food right? How come you have entries like "1 medium apple", "1 bar", "1 tablespoon", "1 cup", "13 pieces", etc.?
- Entries for things like "Caprese", "egg, whole, cooked, fried, 1 large", and "Taco Pasta". Did you put that in yourself using the recipe builder or are you using random entries you find in the database?
- Your Nature's Own bread is 120 calories every time. It's extremely rare that slices of bread match the grams listed on the package, are you weighing them every time?
I'm sorry OP, but like many people who come here, I know you're trying to log with the best of intentions but you're not as accurate with your logging as you'd like to believe. I can guarantee you are eating much more than you think.
Yeah, I agree with this. Always 4 ounces of deli meat (that's the default package serving) always "pieces" or "cups."
But she is staying under her goal by quite a bit. My guess is 1. A lot of food is not getting logged (or logged incorrectly) or 2. There is a medical problem.
There should be weight loss if you've been eating like this consistently and you've been honest. If there is guessing going on, all bets are off.
Also, try to up your protein, it's really low. It's possible to lose weight eating most of the stuff you're eating, but get in basic nutrition while you're at it. Makes it much easier. I find it hard to believe you are eating that low on protein and with so many sweet carby things and are not hungrier since you're not even allowing for exercise calories.
Yeah, I ran her stats through a TDEE calculator and chose lightly active. I get a TDEE of 2588 from Mifflin and 2853/2859 from Harris. If her goal is 1800 and things aren't being logged properly, there are probably days where she's at or above maintenance, and days where she's below it. If that is the case, then her rate of loss is going to be really slow. If she has a medical issue, then her actual TDEE would be even less than that. I think all the other stuff can be figured out once the logging issues are fixed.
Yes. At this point, we have a verified issue. If OP fixes this, we/she can see if this fixes the problem or if further investigation is necessary. But, as almost always, fix the known problem(s) before trying to fix other things that may or may not be broken.3 -
So weigh everything? Measuring with cups and tsp or tbsp isn't accurate?7
-
This content has been removed.
-
Yes. Weigh Everything. And it's really hard to weigh fast-food so I'd minimize that as much as possible.
2 -
Danicandothis wrote: »So weigh everything? Measuring with cups and tsp or tbsp isn't accurate?
cups and measuring spoons are fine for liquids, and I frankly use them for things like oats and rice, etc...but if you're using them for solids you don't want to heap them which is what most people tend to do...weight is more accurate in general.
What does a cup of chicken look like? It would depend on how you cut it up right? So where's the accuracy?2 -
Danicandothis wrote: »That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
The calculators can be off quite a bit when you are short and have a lot to lose. 1800 sounds potentially high, especially if you are not logging super accurately.
I get that the exercise calories seem like they should be sufficient to make up for that, but 3-4 days of weight lifting is GREAT for health but does not burn a lot of calories. 3 sessions of Zumba if you are out of shape and new to it may not burn as much as your Fitbit (especially if it is a heart rate one) is saying either, as when you are out of shape heart rate is a bad measure and overstates it. I'd log about 300 per hour for that, 150 per hour for the weights and lower base calories to around 1400 and log back exercise. (Just as something to try.)
And tighten up food logging (going by what others have said).
Looking at the Katch-McArdle calculator and assuming about 50% body fat (it could be higher as you are only 5'1), I get that 1800 would be less than half a lb per week at lightly active (which you could be if the identified exercise is most of what you get in a week) or about a lb per week if you are moderate (which I would assume if you also get in some walking through daily activity). That can be easily wiped out by inaccurate food logging.1 -
So your deficit intern may be too high. If that's the case and you've been basically doing the same workout for awhile, your body may have adapted to your NET calories allowed. That usually means your RMR slowed to compensate for low calories.Danicandothis wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
I don't eat back any of my exercise calories
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Danicandothis wrote: »Even if my calories are off on my fit bit I don't eat any of them back so shouldn't I still be in a calorie deficit even if the calories are overestimated
If you aren't losing weight, and it's been a few weeks, then you aren't in a caloric deficit.
I would suggest opening your diary - lots of expertise here on sorting out issues like this. Calorie tracking is so simple in principle, but so many things can go wrong in practice!
2 -
Scale. Weight of something doesn't lie.Danicandothis wrote: »So weigh everything? Measuring with cups and tsp or tbsp isn't accurate?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
Use a food scale for everything. I measure some liquids, but weigh some of them because it's convenient since I'm weighing everything else already.
When I measure oil, I make sure that I don't pour it so that it's high in the spoon. There are words to describe surface tension which are failing me at the moment, but there are points when you're pouring oil when the top is concave and where it's almost convex. I stop when it's concave in the measuring spoon.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Danicandothis wrote: »So weigh everything? Measuring with cups and tsp or tbsp isn't accurate?
cups and measuring spoons are fine for liquids, and I frankly use them for things like oats and rice, etc...but if you're using them for solids you don't want to heap them which is what most people tend to do...weight is more accurate in general.
What does a cup of chicken look like? It would depend on how you cut it up right? So where's the accuracy?
i weigh my oats and rice because Ive noticed in cups I cannot eyeball the right portion for someone who is like me I would recommend weighing them. for you it may work though1 -
Danicandothis wrote: »So weigh everything? Measuring with cups and tsp or tbsp isn't accurate?
Measuring can work fine, but if you're having difficulty pinning down where the problem may be, it's helpful that weighing is a bit more precise.
More important, in my mind, is that weighing is quicker in addition to being more accurate. Do it this way:- Assembling a salad in a bowl, a stew in a pan, sandwich on a plate? Put the bowl/pan/plate on the scale, zero, add an ingredient, note the weight, zero, add the next ingredient, note the weight . . . .
- Using something from a carton or jar, or cutting a slice from a hunk of cheese? Put the container or chunk on the scale, zero, take out portion, note the negative value (it's the amount you took out).
- Eating a whole apple, banana, un-hulled strawberries, corn on the cob? Weigh the ready-to-eat food, eat the yummy parts, weigh the core/hulls/peel, subtract & note.
- I like to keep a few clean plastic yogurt-tub lids around to weigh small items, like a handful of nuts or chopped hardboiled eggs or something. Drop the lid on the scale, zero, add item, note weight, eat or use - just a quick rinse of the lid under the faucet & you're done.
- I also use an old junk-mail envelope to scribble the items while I’m cooking to spare spills on my electronic device, and record the results after.
10 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?6 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.4 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?
I haven't. But I'm going to start
1 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
Thanks for proving my point.1 -
Note for weighing liquids: anything that's thin like water, close enough is good enough according to my last research on this. Milk, lemon juice and the like. Oil? Not so much.
Anyway, the metric is that 1 gram equals 1 ml.5 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?
you dont have toned muscle. you either have muscle or have a toned appearance. its also hard to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time and its not going to equal out to where the scale hasnt moved5 -
Give yourself a few weeks of weighing all food and see what happens. If the exercise you are doing is making you happy and feels like a sustainable amount stick with it, otherwise try changing it up, try some new things, maybe switch out a zumba with an elliptical day or try running or run walk intervals. Definitely don't give up weights completely because although cardio will give you a bigger initial calorie deficit the weights are "playing the long game"...investing in a better metabolism later.
Speaking to general health, do you have any other issues you are concerned with? Have you looked through the symptoms of hypothyroidism/hashimotos, or PCOS? do you have a goiter/chicken bone feeling in your throat? If any of this sounds familiar it would likely be a good idea to request a blood panel from your doctor. I used to be able to drop weight very easily but it is a lot slower now regardless of my deficit. It can be so frustrating if you don't know what is going on....for me it was hashimotos. Knowledge is power.3 -
Another point on the logging. Don't use complete dishes in the database. Like the pasta, if you haven't put that recipe in yourself it could be anything as it will be user created. I just cook for myself so I tend to skip the builder and just enter the ingredients in my day, either all of them to cover several days (and not log that meal for the next however many days it's being eaten) or split it over a few days. All works itself out with the weekly average.2
-
.VintageFeline wrote: »Another point on the logging. Don't use complete dishes in the database. Like the pasta, if you haven't put that recipe in yourself it could be anything as it will be user created. I just cook for myself so I tend to skip the builder and just enter the ingredients in my day, either all of them to cover several days (and not log that meal for the next however many days it's being eaten) or split it over a few days. All works itself out with the weekly average.
It was a recipe I built. I don't trust a lot of the pre set things that can be searched. Too much left up to be inaccurate
1 -
.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
Do you run?
I don't. I've tried but it's not been my thing
1
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