Take notes !!!
mlrosborough
Posts: 4 Member
WOW, I read you must burn 3,500 calories to lose 1lb of fat ! I hope that's accurate !
2
Replies
-
Yep0
-
Or eat 3500 cals less. Burning 3500 is harder lol2
-
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Or eat 3500 cals less. Burning 3500 is harder lol
I guess that would be the "debate" part of this thread. I run a lot and I eat a lot. I guess if I didn't run so much, maybe I wouldn't be so hungry all of the time, but in my mind, I feel like burning the calories is the easier part.3 -
I don't like eating so little so my deficit is only 300 calories, I gotta make sure to work out more and walk more to make the CO part of CI bigger , it's been working, I have been losing steadily, 1 lb every week and a bit.
For me it's way easier to eat just a wee less and consciously move way more :P1 -
lporter229 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Or eat 3500 cals less. Burning 3500 is harder lol
I guess that would be the "debate" part of this thread. I run a lot and I eat a lot. I guess if I didn't run so much, maybe I wouldn't be so hungry all of the time, but in my mind, I feel like burning the calories is the easier part.
There will be the time when you can not run a lot and burn all those calories, and I hope that time never comes be it to myself or you, but when / if it does..... Then what???
I guess I will have to get used to eating less! (That will be hard...)0 -
mlrosborough wrote: »WOW, I read you must burn 3,500 calories to lose 1lb of fat ! I hope that's accurate !
You need a 3500 calorie deficit from your maintenance calories per week to lose about 1 Lb. You can do that with exercise and keeping your diet the same (a lot of people are pretty bad about that) or you can eat less.
IMO, it is generally more efficient to eat less or have some kind of combo than just trying to burn it off with exercise. With exercise, injuries happen...you need rest and recovery days...life in general happens and you miss workouts or you can't do what you intended to do, etc.4 -
lporter229 wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »Or eat 3500 cals less. Burning 3500 is harder lol
I guess that would be the "debate" part of this thread. I run a lot and I eat a lot. I guess if I didn't run so much, maybe I wouldn't be so hungry all of the time, but in my mind, I feel like burning the calories is the easier part.
Agreed. much easier to burn more than to eat less, IMO.1 -
mlrosborough wrote: »WOW, I read you must burn 3,500 calories to lose 1lb of fat ! I hope that's accurate !
Well, a gram of fat is 9 calories, and there's 454 grams in a pound, so there's 4086 calories in a pound of fat. Just saying.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions