How do you lose 2 lbs a week?

Walking for 20mins burns about 200 calories....so that's easily done!!!

Work out (7 days walking for 20 mins)= 200 per workout X 7= 1400
Diet (eat 300 calories less than BMR)= 300 calorie deficit X 7= 2100

When I do the treadmill (every night) it says 224 calories per hr. My speed is generally 3.0 ~ how fast are you walking and what is the incline on to get 200 calories every 20 mins. By those numbers I'm burning over 200 calories, an as of tonight over 400.....

Wearing a heart rate monitor with a chest strap is the only way to get any sort of real idea. The treadmill numbers(unless reading from a chest strap HRM) are completely arbitrary and not specific to you. My HRM usually says I've burned around 100 or more calories than my treadmill says it should have been. Which do I believe? The one that knows my age, height, weight and beats per minute....not the one that simply knows how fast I'm going.

Walking for 20mins burns about 200 calories....so that's easily done!!!

Work out (7 days walking for 20 mins)= 200 per workout X 7= 1400
Diet (eat 300 calories less than BMR)= 300 calorie deficit X 7= 2100

When I do the treadmill (every night) it says 224 calories per hr. My speed is generally 3.0 ~ how fast are you walking and what is the incline on to get 200 calories every 20 mins. By those numbers I'm burning over 200 calories, an as of tonight over 400.....

Wearing a heart rate monitor with a chest strap is the only way to get any sort of real idea. The treadmill numbers(unless reading from a chest strap HRM) are completely arbitrary and not specific to you. My HRM usually says I've burned around 100 or more calories than my treadmill says it should have been. Which do I believe? The one that knows my age, height, weight and beats per minute....not the one that simply knows how fast I'm going.

Actually, in addition to your weight, how fast you are going is all you need to know.

When it comes to treadmill walking, the TM numbers can be the more accurate ones. That's because the TM measures the actual work intensity you are performing, and the energy cost (i.e. calories burned) prediction equations for walking and running at various speeds and elevations are relatively simple and well-validated. The only thing you really need is weight--the other stuff is not relevant. HRMs need the other data like age, height and gender because they need to include the additional data in their algorithms--that's because HRMs do not measure workload or calories directly--they just estimate based on an assumed relationship between heart rate and intensity.

At faster speeds, TMs start to lose some accuracy because of the lack of wind resistance; above about 6 mph. At about 8.5 mph they are probably overestimating by about 15%.

It really depends on how good your HRM is and how accurately you have it set up. I'd say if your HRM is off by more than 10%, unless it's a really cheap home treadmill, it's probably your HRM that is off, not the TM.

(That assumes, of course that you are not holding on to the handrails).

Walking for 20mins burns about 200 calories....so that's easily done!!!

Work out (7 days walking for 20 mins)= 200 per workout X 7= 1400
Diet (eat 300 calories less than BMR)= 300 calorie deficit X 7= 2100

When I do the treadmill (every night) it says 224 calories per hr. My speed is generally 3.0 ~ how fast are you walking and what is the incline on to get 200 calories every 20 mins. By those numbers I'm burning over 200 calories, an as of tonight over 400.....

Wearing a heart rate monitor with a chest strap is the only way to get any sort of real idea. The treadmill numbers(unless reading from a chest strap HRM) are completely arbitrary and not specific to you. My HRM usually says I've burned around 100 or more calories than my treadmill says it should have been. Which do I believe? The one that knows my age, height, weight and beats per minute....not the one that simply knows how fast I'm going.

Actually, in addition to your weight, how fast you are going is all you need to know.

When it comes to treadmill walking, the TM numbers can be the more accurate ones. That's because the TM measures the actual work intensity you are performing, and the energy cost (i.e. calories burned) prediction equations for walking and running at various speeds and elevations are relatively simple and well-validated. The only thing you really need is weight--the other stuff is not relevant. HRMs need the other data like age, height and gender because they need to include the additional data in their algorithms--that's because HRMs do not measure workload or calories directly--they just estimate based on an assumed relationship between heart rate and intensity.

At faster speeds, TMs start to lose some accuracy because of the lack of wind resistance; above about 6 mph. At about 8.5 mph they are probably overestimating by about 15%.

It really depends on how good your HRM is and how accurately you have it set up. I'd say if your HRM is off by more than 10%, unless it's a really cheap home treadmill, it's probably your HRM that is off, not the TM.

(That assumes, of course that you are not holding on to the handrails).

I've got a Nordic Track....it does NOT know any of my personal data, it simply makes it's estimates off the incline/speed settings. The HRM is measuring beats....2 people doing the exact same thing on a treadmill does NOT burn the same amount...if the other person weighs twice as much...they will burn much more on the effort.

And no...I'm not holding on to the handrails... :indifferent:

I eat around 1200 cals a day and burn about 1000 cals 5 days a week....some days it's more some days a little bit less.

whoaaa. eating disorder

Really? I just find that funny!

More like malnutrition really. Eating disorder actually requires more mental symptoms (I get sick of seeing it being thrown around in this board). But yeah. You're probably not getting anywhere near enough essential vitamins and minerals that way. Just sayin'.

Well...thanks for the concern but I am not malnourished either. I eat plenty. I should add that I eat what my goals are set for( 1lb weight loss a week) and that's 1200+cals. I like to exercise, so yes, I do burn a lot of calories during the week. I will eat some of those calories back but not all of them. I don't lose 2lbs that often now but when I first started I lost 2-3lbs every week. Was I eating enough back then? Probably not but nothing I can do about that now! )

I'm thinking there's some confusion. Do you burn 1,000 calories extra PER DAY... or is that estimated for the WEEK. If so, that would mean you only consume 200 net calories a day, which is very malnourished if you're burning that many calories a day.

yeah. if you are netting 200 calories a day.. that should change.

Whooa :-) I love this site. I see all your comments and it does make sense. I dont' really have much to lose except my last stubborn 10 lbs. I lloked back as to when I opened/signed up on this site...it was sometime in 2009 and I was 126 lbs. I never did anything except signed up. Only 2 weeks ago that I stumbled upon this site again and now taking it more seriously. My current weight fluctuates between 114- 112.6 lbs. I am only 4'10" - very small frame, so I have muffin top, no muscle definition. I joined the "Ripped in 30" forum and doing that 2-3x per week along with my 2x Step and sculpting class at my local gym. It seems that I am not losing weight but just maintaining. I started keeping track of my calorie per day as of yesterday too.

I guess a pound a week would be nice too or something...but so far I haven't seen any movement...when I started two weeks ago I was 112 but when I weigh in this morning I was up to 114. So it is a little discouraging.

I appreciate everyone's 2 cents... :-)

Hmmm.. I'm thinking that with your size and frame, you'll see results as far as toning up and everything rather than losing weight. You're really not that big, so tightening up you will prob feel a lot better, so I wouldn't think of the scale to be THAT big of a deal?? Just my opinion..

I think it depends on how much you have to lose. I am in my healthy weight range. To try to lose 2 pounds per week would not be healthy.

^^^ This.

The more weight you have to lose - the easier (and healthier) it is to lose 2lbs a week. The thinner you are and the closer to your goal weight you are - the less healthy it is to drop that kind of weight a week AND it will be more difficult to accomplish.

It's science; you need to be at a 3500 ish deficit to lose a pound, that's a 500 cal deficit each day for a 7day week. 2lbs week is just a 7000 cal deficit a week! Depending on your current weight this may or may not be healthy - someone who is 300 lbs can eat a larger deficit because it costs more calories to maintain a weight like that, whereas at my weight, a 1000 cal deficit would be an eating disorder.