I have to burn 1,000 calories a day?
ashlee_tx
Posts: 24 Member
Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
5
Replies
-
You don't need to burn 7000 calories a week--you just need to be at a deficit of 7000 calories per week. Most people start out by eating at a deficit.
Have you plugged your stats in here and let mfp tell you how many calories you should be consuming for your weight loss goals?10 -
^^ what they said.2
-
There's a few terms you could familiarize yourself with to have a better understanding of how calories work.
BMR - Basal Metabolic Rate: How many calories your body would burn in 24hrs if you were in a coma (all organs functioning but not doing much else).
NEAT - Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis: How many calories your body would burn in 24hrs during an average workday without added exercise. So that would include sleeping, going to work, doing errands, relaxing on the couch.
TDEE - Total Daily Energy Expenditure. How many calories your body would burn in 24hrs with your average workday AND your intentional exercise. So going to work for the day, sleeping, and going to the gym or playing an intense sport.
NEAT and TDEE can be the same number if you are a Sedentary person with no intentional exercise in your day.
MFP uses your NEAT and allows you to manually add in your exercise burnt calories by choosing entries from the database. You can also link an activity tracker like a Fitbit to your account to add in those burnt calories for you.
And as a note: You do not need to work out at all to lose weight! It certainly can help, and it's great for health, but not necessary for weight loss. As long as you're consuming fewer calories than your body burns, you will lose weight.14 -
I burn easily 1000 a day,7 days a week and way more. not hard at all.8
-
Like others have said, start out concentrating on your calorie deficit by watching the foods you eat and logging everything. Keep within that magic number and you will start dropping the pounds Sounds like you chose 2 lbs/week, which means you will be eating 1000 calories less per day than you need to maintain your current weight. With 100 lbs to lose, 2 lbs a week is fine as long as you can keep within that deficit without binging, otherwise consider changing to l lb/week. Exercise is the second thing you should think about, but don't overdo it and burn out. Adding some walking every day gives you more calories to eat back...it should not add to your weight loss. Doing cardio at home is another great choice, but again start out slow (like 3x per week) and build up your stamina. Later add in some light weights and go from there. Best of luck to you on your new, healthy journey.2
-
You can do these by cutting back on your calories in your meals. I started with 100 lbs to lose at the end of June. I've lost 30 so far and it was much easier than I thought. I do work out but I had a 1000 calorie deficit per day that was fine up until I reached about 28 lb. Weight loss. When I started tracking my food on mfp I realized I was eating 3000-4000 per day sometimes. To cut back 1000 calories was doable for my body with a lot of fat stored and still a decent amount of calories even with the deficit.0
-
Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
You need a deficit of 1000 calories a day, that doesn't mean you need to burn 1000 calories a day in exercise. Just being alive doing nothing your body is likely burning between 1200-2000+ calories a day depending on your size and that is before any exercise. If you are 100 pounds over weight you are probably at the higher end of that range. Most people lose weight eating something like 1500 calories a day without doing any exercise. To establish a deficit you need to determine what your TDEE is (how many calories you use up in a day including your basal metabolic rate (BMR) and then eat an amount less than that to establish your deficit.
You can get an estimate of your TDEE by filling out this calculator. http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
That should tell you your TDEE. If you want to lose 2 pounds a week it'll be 1000 calories less than your TDEE that you will want to consume.4 -
-
-
Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
Put your stats into MFP and it will give you a calorie goal. Log your food and hit your goal. Your body burns calories even at rest so as others have said, no you don't need to exercise off 1,000 cals per day, thank goodness. Start off small with exercise, and as you go you will get stronger and able to do more. Good luck! 1 -
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.11 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.10 -
Hello All, I am wanting to lose 2 pounds a week. Which means I need to burn 7,000 calories a week. However, I haven't worked out in over a year and am extremely out of shape. I walked a 5k and it took a week for me to get over the aches and pains. Is burning 1,000 calories a day hard to do just starting out? I just got the new apple watch and I want to put it to good use. ANY advice would be appreciated it.
I am at least 100 pounds over weight...so I would mainly walk and use workout videos for my cardio at least to start out.
People who do zero exercise can lose weight just by cutting back on portions. You can get to your deficit from eating less and/or moving more, the choice is yours. Logging and measuring portions will help you keep things in check.
Weight loss thru exercise alone is tough to "measure." People aren't always as consistent as they would like to think. You would have to eat the same calories while burning more.....but exercise makes some people hungry.
1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
I'm guessing either a typo, or possibly the 50% longer time of activity makes a difference.1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.
Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.6 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.
Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.
here is a quote from the website.Note About the Calories Chart
You burn more calories per mile at very low speeds because you are basically stopping and starting with each step and your momentum isn't helping to carry you along. Meanwhile, at very high walking speeds you are using more muscle groups with arm motion and with a racewalking stride. Those extra muscles burn up extra calories with each step. Running may burn more calories per mile as there is an up and down motion lifting your weight off the ground as well as moving it forward."
The chart of calories burned per mile is based on MET research - metabolic equivalents of various activities.
"References: AINSWORTH BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O’Brien WL, Bassett DR Jr,
Schmitz KH, Emplaincourt PO, Jacobs DR Jr, Leon AS. ""Compendium of Physical Activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities."" Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32 (Suppl):S498-S516."
NOt saying it is totally accurate but there is science behind it.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.
Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.
I just ran some numbers from the Shape Sense calculator, assuming a 6' tall, 50-year old, 200 lb male:
Calories burned walking 1 mile:
1 mph: 226 kcal gross, 139 kcal net
2 mph: 143 kcal gross, 100 kcal net
3 mph: 120 kcal gross, 91 kcal net
4 mph: 124 kcal gross, 102 kcal net
Using another calculator which is set with my personal parameters gives net burns of:
2 mph: 74 kcal
3 mph: 68 kcal
4 mph: 82 kcal
So both of these agree that 3 mph burns fewer net calories per mile than 2 mph. I have also heard the explanation that efficiency is important. At 2 mph you're moving slowly enough that you lose momentum at each step and need more effort to keep going compared to 3 mph, whereas at 4 mph you need more motion of your arms and body to stay stable. Another way of saying that is that 3 mph is closest to the most energy efficient walking speed.
Edited: I accidentally a word4 -
I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know0
-
kakaovanilya wrote: »I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
For a set amount of time spent walking, you definitely burn more calories at higher speeds. That is, if you walk for an hour at 3 mph you've burned 273 kcal, whereas an hour at 2 mph burns 200 kcal.2 -
kakaovanilya wrote: »I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
The faster you walk or run the more calories you burn per unit time but not per mile. The faster you move the faster you complete a mile and therefore the less time you are exercising if you only run one mile. I mean who burns more calories? Someone who walks a mile in 30 minutes or someone who sprints it in 5. Well, the person who took 30 minutes because they are measuring their caloric burn over 6 times the amount of time. If you compared their burn over just 5 minutes then yes the person sprinting burn a lot more than the person walking slowly.5 -
Oh I get it know. My english is not good enough so sometimes I need someone to elaborate so if I walk only 1 mile, I will burn more calories at a lower speed but if I walk 2 or 4 mile, I will burn more if I walk faster, did I get it right? 0
-
kakaovanilya wrote: »Oh I get it know. My english is not good enough so sometimes I need someone to elaborate so if I walk only 1 mile, I will burn more calories at a lower speed but if I walk 2 or 4 mile, I will burn more if I walk faster, did I get it right?
The faster you walk the more calories you burn per minute.
The reason you might burn less calories walking faster is if you walk the same distance not for the same amount of time. Someone walking twice as fast as someone else will finish 1 mile in half the time and will probably therefore burn less calories. But if they walk that pace for the same amount of time then yeah the person walking faster burns more.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
You might wanna take a closer look at that chart. How can you burn the exact same amount of calories at 2 and 4 mph, but burn fewer at 3 mph? Hrmmmm? I do believe someone screwed up.
Efficiency matters. There is a point where walking too slowly becomes less efficient. Similarly, so can walking too fast. I'm not sure how/where 3mph came from as the sweet spot of efficiency, but the theory works.
Not in this case. This chart has an error. I just feed numbers into about 10 various online walking calorie calculators. NONE of them say that 4 mph = 2 mph in regards to the number of calories burned and NONE of them say that 3 mph burns less calories than 2 mph. Try again.
Good job... You're a true MFPer.1 -
Aaron_K123 I could not get the calculator to work on the website. The section for the macro nutrients.0
-
Calorie burn calculations also require load... if a guy runs a mile in 5 minutes and weighs 160 lbs, his caloric burn is less than a guy that runs the same distance in the same time , same weight carrying a 20 lb bag of flour. So... a “fit” person is going to burn fewer calories than an overweight person covering the same distance in the same time.0
-
To the op... it is not necessary to exercise until you burn 1000 calories, to lose weight. If you moderate your intake and aim for 1/2 to 1/3 of that calorie burn through exercise daily, you will lose faster than if you just ate at a deficit. Getting out and walking is a sound strategy... your cardio capacity will improve, and you will be away from food sources... unless you pack a snack or stop for food along the way...0
-
NEAT and TDEE can be the same number if you are a Sedentary person with no intentional exercise in your day.
That is a common misconception here on MFP. NEAT is not BMR plus calories from normal daily activity, it is just the additional calories. So if your BMR is 2000 kcal/day, and you set your lifestyle activity level to sedentary, MFP calculates your TDEE at 2400. Your BMR is still 2000 and your NEAT is 400. If you add exercise (TEA) calories, then MFP adds those to your BMR and NEAT calculations and gives an updated TDEE.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kakaovanilya wrote: »I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
The faster you walk or run the more calories you burn per unit time but not per mile. The faster you move the faster you complete a mile and therefore the less time you are exercising if you only run one mile. I mean who burns more calories? Someone who walks a mile in 30 minutes or someone who sprints it in 5. Well, the person who took 30 minutes because they are measuring their caloric burn over 6 times the amount of time. If you compared their burn over just 5 minutes then yes the person sprinting burn a lot more than the person walking slowly.
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. If there were no up and down motion due to running vs walking and you ran in a vacuum so that there was no wind resistance, walking or running the same distance would use the same amount of energy (assuming the boy doesn't heat up more running). Energy usage is a function of distance traveled and not speed all those other things being equal. In real life, running does have up and down motion, your going faster which produces more drag which increases proportional to velocity squared, and your at a higher power level so you internally will heat up more. Running a mile will absolutely use more calories than walking. The faster you go for the same distance, the more energy you will burn primarily due to the added wind resistance, internal heating, and up and down motion. Remove those things and it would be equal. The walk will NEVER use less energy than the faster run.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kakaovanilya wrote: »I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
The faster you walk or run the more calories you burn per unit time but not per mile. The faster you move the faster you complete a mile and therefore the less time you are exercising if you only run one mile. I mean who burns more calories? Someone who walks a mile in 30 minutes or someone who sprints it in 5. Well, the person who took 30 minutes because they are measuring their caloric burn over 6 times the amount of time. If you compared their burn over just 5 minutes then yes the person sprinting burn a lot more than the person walking slowly.
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. If there were no up and down motion due to running vs walking and you ran in a vacuum so that there was no wind resistance, walking or running the same distance would use the same amount of energy (assuming the boy doesn't heat up more running). Energy usage is a function of distance traveled and not speed all those other things being equal. In real life, running does have up and down motion, your going faster which produces more drag which increases proportional to velocity squared, and your at a higher power level so you internally will heat up more. Running a mile will absolutely use more calories than walking. The faster you go for the same distance, the more energy you will burn primarily due to the added wind resistance, internal heating, and up and down motion. Remove those things and it would be equal. The walk will NEVER use less energy than the faster run.
I get that if you are talking about a machine that is built to travel a certain distance that difference that the machine that travels that distance faster will be less efficient than the machine that travels it slower due to drag and therefore will expend more energy in doing so. That I agree with. But are you sure that principle applies to a human whose engine is a biochemical one? For a machine working twice as hard will burn more than twice the amount of fuel. For a body though I am not sure that working twice has hard will burn twice the calories. I mean, ones heart rate can only go so high and I don't think the relationship between effort, heartrate and caloires burned is a linear one.
Picture this scenario. I walk a 26 mile route with an elevated heartrate and it takes me 12 hours. After I lie down and sleep for the remaining 12 hours. My clone ran the same route it and it took them 6 hours, they then lie down and sleep the renaming 18 hours. You are saying that their caloric burn above their 24 hour rate if they had not been active at all would be more than twice as much as mine? Doesn't the amount of time I have an elevated heart rate for (12 hours vs 6 hours for my doppelganger) matter at all?
I have a heart that elevates in rate associated with my metabolic rate elevating due to activity to dispose of excess carbon dioxide. The amount of time I am in that elevated state has potentially more effect than how elevated it gets. In otherwords a person with a bpm of 110 working for 2 hours will likely burn more calories than a person with a bpm of 150 working for 1 hour. Does it matter if the first person ran the same distance as the second person to achieve that bpm elevation over a longer period of time?
I'm not sure that I am correct, maybe you are right....but I'm not so convinced it is as cut and dry as a comparison you are making it out to be. I certainly don't think your comment deserved being "woo'd" though you may be correct.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kakaovanilya wrote: »I am surprised. I thought the faster you walk, the more calories you burn. Good to know
The faster you walk or run the more calories you burn per unit time but not per mile. The faster you move the faster you complete a mile and therefore the less time you are exercising if you only run one mile. I mean who burns more calories? Someone who walks a mile in 30 minutes or someone who sprints it in 5. Well, the person who took 30 minutes because they are measuring their caloric burn over 6 times the amount of time. If you compared their burn over just 5 minutes then yes the person sprinting burn a lot more than the person walking slowly.
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. If there were no up and down motion due to running vs walking and you ran in a vacuum so that there was no wind resistance, walking or running the same distance would use the same amount of energy (assuming the boy doesn't heat up more running). Energy usage is a function of distance traveled and not speed all those other things being equal. In real life, running does have up and down motion, your going faster which produces more drag which increases proportional to velocity squared, and your at a higher power level so you internally will heat up more. Running a mile will absolutely use more calories than walking. The faster you go for the same distance, the more energy you will burn primarily due to the added wind resistance, internal heating, and up and down motion. Remove those things and it would be equal. The walk will NEVER use less energy than the faster run.
I get that if you are talking about a machine that is built to travel a certain distance that difference that the machine that travels that distance faster will be less efficient than the machine that travels it slower due to drag and therefore will expend more energy in doing so. That I agree with. But are you sure that principle applies to a human whose engine is a biochemical one? For a machine working twice as hard will burn more than twice the amount of fuel. For a body though I am not sure that working twice has hard will burn twice the calories. I mean, ones heart rate can only go so high and I don't think the relationship between effort, heartrate and caloires burned is a linear one.
Picture this scenario. I walk a 26 mile route with an elevated heartrate and it takes me 12 hours. After I lie down and sleep for the remaining 12 hours. My clone ran the same route it and it took them 6 hours, they then lie down and sleep the renaming 18 hours. You are saying that their caloric burn above their 24 hour rate if they had not been active at all would be more than twice as much as mine? Doesn't the amount of time I have an elevated heart rate for (12 hours vs 6 hours for my doppelganger) matter at all?
I have a heart that elevates in rate associated with my metabolic rate elevating due to activity to dispose of excess carbon dioxide. The amount of time I am in that elevated state has potentially more effect than how elevated it gets. In otherwords a person with a bpm of 110 working for 2 hours will likely burn more calories than a person with a bpm of 150 working for 1 hour. Does it matter if the first person ran the same distance as the second person to achieve that bpm elevation over a longer period of time?
I'm not sure that I am correct, maybe you are right....but I'm not so convinced it is as cut and dry as a comparison you are making it out to be. I certainly don't think your comment deserved being "woo'd" though you may be correct.
I agree, hardly a woo comment. Figuring out energy expenditure is way harder using heart rate than a point mass moving a certain distance at a certain speed I think. The heart has a baseline requirement the exercise is added to. That would have to be taken into account. Also your example talks about what happens for a period after the exercise. I'm not sure what would happen with all the physiology in that case.
Looking at the body as a simple point mass moving at a certain speed and going a certain distance and not moving up and down and in a vacuum with no wind drag, speed of going a distance doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the weight of the object and the distance it is moved. If you add in wind resistance, the faster you go, the more energy is required because drag force increased by the square of the velocity (non-linear). If you add in up and down motion of running, then running will take more energy going to same distance as walking it.
Energy = Force x Distance. That is the basic formula for moving a point mass with a constant force. Speed doesn't come into play. Distance = Velocity x time for a constant velocity. If you go twice as fast for half the time as another trip, you go the same distance.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions