Who burns 1000+ cals daily?
Replies
-
Thank you all for your wonderful insights!!0
-
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »1000 calories with exercise? are you working out 1/2 the day? I mean I know it is possible, but I work out pretty intense every day of the week and burn around 400, MAYBE 500.
If you pick high cal burning workouts you dont need to spend half a day
I'll bite: what is your weight, age, and height, and what exercise do you do and how long that you think you burn over 1000 calories in exercise a day?
I’m curious too. According to my Garmin I spent a little over 492 hours doing workouts that burned a total of 167,322 calories last year. That works out to an average of 458 calories in 1.34 hours a day.
So running (primarily) isn’t the right activity?
3 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »If you mean 1000 extra exercise calories burned daily, that’s a lot of exercise, and pretty agressive for the average person.
As rv1234567 said, your body burns calories through functioning, that’s your BMR, how many calories your body burns daily.
Then why do we gain weight?
I burn, on an average day, at my current size, around 2300 calories (combination of just being alive, daily activities, intentional exercise). The intentional exercise is the smallest part of that (let's say 250 calories, averaged over all the days including rest days).
If I eat my 2300 calories, my weight will stay where it is now, more or less: Maintenance. If I eat that, plus - for example - a regular-sized Snickers bar, which IIRC is around 250 calories - I will gain about half a pound a week, and weigh about 26 pounds more by the end of a year. Or, if I ate one of those "healthy" 100-calorie packs of Emerald Cashew nuts every day instead of the Snickers, on top of maintenance calories, I'd add about 10 pounds in a year.
Gaining weight is easy, very easy. That's how I stayed obese for decades, including the last 15 years or so where I was athletically quite active, including training competing as an athlete, and not always unsuccessfully. About 5 years ago, I used MFP to start eating the right amount, and I got to a healthy weight in less than a year, and have stayed there since . . . without changing my exercise schedule or intensity in any significant way.
And certainly without adding 1000 extra calories of exercise. Much as I enjoy my sport (and I do), that would be too much for good life balance, for me.
YMMV - apparently does. And that's fine.1 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »1000 calories with exercise? are you working out 1/2 the day? I mean I know it is possible, but I work out pretty intense every day of the week and burn around 400, MAYBE 500.
If you pick high cal burning workouts you don't need to spend half a day
OP, I've already posted that weight loss is not my focus when training, but the ongoing discussion regarding "burning 1000 calories a day" piqued my interest. I went back and checked my Training Peaks data to find a couple time periods where my activities contributed to a 1000 calories/day expenditure as a weekly average. I am confident in my calorie expenditure numbers from my Garmin devices, especially cycling, since I have a power meter that captures watts, which is a true measure of work.
So I picked two weeks in 2018, one in June and another in July. (I was injured in 2019 and did not train).
During the week of June 18-23, I expended 6145 calories in 6 days, for an average of 1,024 calories daily.
In June, the week looked like this: Mon: cycling 672 cal, Tues: swim 300 cal, Wed: bike 581, Thurs: Sprint triathlon 834 cal, Fri: swim 636 cal, Sat: 81 mile Bike ride & 45 min run total: 3122 cal Sunday: Rest Day
During the week of July 16-22, I expended 7767 calories, for an average of 1109 daily.
In July, the week looked like this: Mon: bike 827 cal, Tues: track run: 459 cal, Wed: Bike 981cal; Thurs: Rest Day, Fri: open water swim 501 calories, Sat: 102 mile bike& 45min run total: 3841 cal, Sun: open water swim and 1.5hr run total: 1159 calories.
Note that even though my weekly average was over 1000/day for those two weeks, I only exceeded the number on a couple of days. The long bike rides skewed the results. So in my case, I did spend half a day or more in training and took in roughly 1500 calories in fuel to support the workouts.
Finally, I should note that these were two high volume weeks for me. Most of my training weeks are at lower volume.
1 -
I'd wager the eating plan is 1200 calories no matter what.
And the 1000 burned in exercise is from thinking that's required to lose 2 lbs weekly.
Any wagers how long this plan lasts?
And during serious Tri training for about a month when time/distance was ramping up - yes I could average 1000 a day within a week. With well planned "rest" days.
Ditto's to the comments that the level of effort most could do daily would require more time and lower intensity. Possible, but perhaps not practical.2 -
I'd wager the eating plan is 1200 calories no matter what.
And the 1000 burned in exercise is from thinking that's required to lose 2 lbs weekly.
Any wagers how long this plan lasts?
And during serious Tri training for about a month when time/distance was ramping up - yes I could average 1000 a day within a week. With well planned "rest" days.
Ditto's to the comments that the level of effort most could do daily would require more time and lower intensity. Possible, but perhaps not practical.
Exactly!!0 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »koalathebear wrote: »I'm pretty sure my Garmin overestimates my exercise calories but for me, an hour + of Zumba (which I do every morning before work via youtube), tends to burn 600+ calories compared to how much I can burn on a treadmill or an elliptical. For reference, a 40 minute HIIT class tends to burn around 350 calories. I capture all my walks whether walking the dog, grocery shopping (pushing a trolley) and I try to fit in a 30 minute lunchtime walk and a 30 minute walk around the block before my colleagues arrive at work (30 minute walks tend to burn around 100 calories or so).
So I frequently exceed 1,000 recorded calories a day based on 1 hour or more of intense cardio and an hour or more of leisurely/not very serious exercise - I fit as many incidental mini walks into my day as I can. My dog walks are not any more strenuous than a grocery walk to be honest because of my dogs' habit of wanting to pee on every tree/bush
Well said. keep up the good work. For nay sayers this is how it is possible.
How much are you eating? Why do you think you need to burn 1,000 calories per day with deliberate exercise? I averaged 1,000 calories per day when I was doing a lot of endurance cycling and cycling events...but that was also a considerable amount of time in the saddle on many days. I wasn't doing it for the burn, I was doing it because I love road riding...but ultimately, it takes time away from doing other things that need doing, family time, etc.
I was also fueling that exercise and had to eat quite a bit. I ask what your calorie target is because my guess is that it's 1200 and you're going to try to do this exercise on top of that and not fuel that activity and net somewhere around 200 calories per day. If that is the case, it is a very unhealthy approach and you will ultimately run into problems down the line like losing menstrual cycle, hair falling out, etc.
My guess is that you don't understand that you burn a significant number of calories just being alive...you burn more with your day to day goings on, and then with exercise. Your body requires calories (energy) for basic functions...so crashing your diet and doing an exorbitant amount of exercise on top of that is a really bad idea.3 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »1000 calories with exercise? are you working out 1/2 the day? I mean I know it is possible, but I work out pretty intense every day of the week and burn around 400, MAYBE 500.
If you pick high cal burning workouts you don't need to spend half a day
OP, I've already posted that weight loss is not my focus when training, but the ongoing discussion regarding "burning 1000 calories a day" piqued my interest. I went back and checked my Training Peaks data to find a couple time periods where my activities contributed to a 1000 calories/day expenditure as a weekly average. I am confident in my calorie expenditure numbers from my Garmin devices, especially cycling, since I have a power meter that captures watts, which is a true measure of work.
<snip impressive exercise details for reply length, or because intimidating, you choose >
Note that even though my weekly average was over 1000/day for those two weeks, I only exceeded the number on a couple of days. The long bike rides skewed the results. So in my case, I did spend half a day or more in training and took in roughly 1500 calories in fuel to support the workouts.
Finally, I should note that these were two high volume weeks for me. Most of my training weeks are at lower volume.
I'd observe that (1) you're a guy, so odds are that you're physically larger than the average woman, at the same BMI, so things like running burn more calories per minute for you automagically; (2) you're clearly a conditioned athlete, so you're capable of burning more calories per minute (or of bringing on less fatigue at any given calories per minute level for any given duration) than someone who's less conditioned.2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am in the peak 4 weeks of training for a marathon. I run all the time-I’m at the point of training that people dislike because it interferes with normal life activities and it’s absolutely physically exhausting (and unsustainable for any real length of time).
The closest I’ve come is an average of about 700 calories (burned through exercise) a day. That includes very necessary rest days and 20 mile runs.
I have no desire or physical ability to do more than that.
I’m also unlikely to motivate anyone to do anything. I’m busy motivating myself to go do yet another long-*kitten* run when I really just want to eat and nap.
As a runner who does marathon training regularly, I have had individual *days* where I've burned 1,000 or more (mostly if I do a long run on a weekend day and then do other activities later in the day). But to do that every day? It would be too hard for me to sustain that, employment, and other non-physical activities that are important to me. And what would be the point?
3 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »
Someone who burned 2,500 calories a day just by existing could use MFP in multiple circumstances.
Maybe they need to lose weight because they've been regularly using 2,500 but eating 2,600.
Maybe they want to gain weight because they've been burning more than they've been eating.
Or maybe they're perfectly happy with their weight and they want to track so they'll continue to be.1 -
I burn between 2300 and 2400 calories daily. Isn't TDEE awesome?!?1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am in the peak 4 weeks of training for a marathon. I run all the time-I’m at the point of training that people dislike because it interferes with normal life activities and it’s absolutely physically exhausting (and unsustainable for any real length of time).
The closest I’ve come is an average of about 700 calories (burned through exercise) a day. That includes very necessary rest days and 20 mile runs.
I have no desire or physical ability to do more than that.
I’m also unlikely to motivate anyone to do anything. I’m busy motivating myself to go do yet another long-*kitten* run when I really just want to eat and nap.
As a runner who does marathon training regularly, I have had individual *days* where I've burned 1,000 or more (mostly if I do a long run on a weekend day and then do other activities later in the day). But to do that every day? It would be too hard for me to sustain that, employment, and other non-physical activities that are important to me. And what would be the point?
Exactly. For sure I have individual days where I’m over 1000. But not an everyday thing, and certainly not something that I really could do everyday-and my highest overall average lands me around 700 (with a 2000+ day, a 1000+ day, one just about 1000 and a couple in the 400-500 range and rest days). 50 miles weeks are...rough (for me) and take a huge chunk of time. The 3-4 they are my peak of training are more than enough.
And exactly-what is the point? I’m not running 20 miles (or any miles) to burn calories.
1 -
I'd wager the eating plan is 1200 calories no matter what.
And the 1000 burned in exercise is from thinking that's required to lose 2 lbs weekly.
Any wagers how long this plan lasts?
And during serious Tri training for about a month when time/distance was ramping up - yes I could average 1000 a day within a week. With well planned "rest" days.
Ditto's to the comments that the level of effort most could do daily would require more time and lower intensity. Possible, but perhaps not practical.
I'd like to just chortle, but the thread makes me sad, and anxious for OP (which she will laugh at: I know, I know).
I suspect you (heybales) are likely right, but I hope not.
As an old woman (64), I've watched a lot of peers/friends try this sort of thing (extremes), some repeatedly and many times over many decades. (The ultra-high exercise load is relatively less common, and almost always is among the young, when it happens; relatively high (unrealistic) load of cardio-only exercise is pretty common (burns more calories, amIrite?
).)
It's not sustainable. Women doing this may get thin(ner), but then "go back to enjoying life", whether they got to goal (uncommon) or just lost a few pounds then "fell off the wagon" (common).
If they're lucky, they haven't suffered hair loss or other bad appearance effects, let alone heart damage or other organ damage.
The "diet" phase, with intense cardio and extreme calorie deficits (these days usually low carb, too) is soooo rewarding, so soon, on the scale. Putting up those big loss numbers, yay! Living on salads/veggies tends to be the theme, often low-balling protein foods (sooo fattening). So, lose some pounds, part water, if lucky to sustain it long enough, maybe some pounds of fat, plus more muscle loss than necessary (because of the punitively low cals, inadequate protein, no strength exercise).
The "off the wagon/enjoy life" phase tends to be high fat, high carb, often still inadequate protein, often lots of highly-processed foods ("deserve a treat" after all that "dieting") so not nutrient-dense or satiating, usually no particular exercise of any sort, at least not at anything like close to the "150 active minutes/2 strength sessions" per week that the gubmint sees as minimally adequate for health. Regain tends to be fairly rapid, and the statistics tell us the regain is usually to a new high weight, above the old one.
Muscle was lost - maybe only a little - during the "diet"; none regained during the aftermath. The magnitude of effect is greater with every cycle (aging, plus building on the previous degradation), and each time happens at a slightly lower BMR (so requires slightly lower intake to lose), because the muscle loss reduces exercise capability and daily life activity inclination, and causes tiny BMR reduction due to lower muscle mass plus maybe extra from increased adaptive thermogenesis and habits grown out of persistent low-level fatigue.
Repeat for decades.
Result, at around age 60**? Sadly often, it's obesity, metabolic disorders, low lean mass, lack of practical physical strength, weaker bones (higher fracture risk, more osteoarthritis), degraded connective tissue, probable conspiracy of those things with bodyweight to increase likelihood of need for joint replacement surgeries (with poorer/slower surgical recovery), more need for expensive prescription drugs with complex side effects, and an earlier permanent move to the assisted living facility.
Obviously, some women luck out, and not everyone experiences all those things, but that's the trend of the average, among the cyclical multi-decade extreme dieters.
** Sometimes, I wonder if this sort of thing contributes to the idea that it's "harder to lose weight in menopause".
Clearly, none of this could possibly happen to someone who "puts her mind to it", does "high calorie burning workouts", collects "motivating friends". I wish, truly.
Because it's a bad, sad path.9 -
-
i totally have a girl crush on @AnnPT772
-
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »1000 calories with exercise? are you working out 1/2 the day? I mean I know it is possible, but I work out pretty intense every day of the week and burn around 400, MAYBE 500.
If you pick high cal burning workouts you don't need to spend half a day
OP, I've already posted that weight loss is not my focus when training, but the ongoing discussion regarding "burning 1000 calories a day" piqued my interest. I went back and checked my Training Peaks data to find a couple time periods where my activities contributed to a 1000 calories/day expenditure as a weekly average. I am confident in my calorie expenditure numbers from my Garmin devices, especially cycling, since I have a power meter that captures watts, which is a true measure of work.
<snip impressive exercise details for reply length, or because intimidating, you choose >
Note that even though my weekly average was over 1000/day for those two weeks, I only exceeded the number on a couple of days. The long bike rides skewed the results. So in my case, I did spend half a day or more in training and took in roughly 1500 calories in fuel to support the workouts.
Finally, I should note that these were two high volume weeks for me. Most of my training weeks are at lower volume.
I'd observe that (1) you're a guy, so odds are that you're physically larger than the average woman, at the same BMI, so things like running burn more calories per minute for you automagically; (2) you're clearly a conditioned athlete, so you're capable of burning more calories per minute (or of bringing on less fatigue at any given calories per minute level for any given duration) than someone who's less conditioned.
re: #1 - Guilty as charged!
re: #2 - my point in showing some actual training data was to demonstrate that even in high volume training plans, almost all days are <1000 calories, and I noted that the high volume days are supported by fueling within the session.
And of course, the larger point, that the cyclists and marathoners have made, is that the "burn tons of calories daily" approach isn't an effective long term weight loss strategy and potentially harmful.2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »I burn between 2300 and 2400 calories daily. Isn't TDEE awesome?!?
Still buff!1 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »Well said. keep up the good work. For nay sayers this is how it is possible.
Ha, I was a bit nervous about posting in case I got kebabbed but I can confirm I definitely do not spend my whole life exercising and do not obsess about exercising - which is one of the concerns about doing a lot of exercise. In 2019, as well as losing 32kg, I read 113 books with the goodreads reading challenge, I kept a 499 day streak alive on duolingo and memorise as I study French, German and Mandarin. I hold down a very busy day job, I rehomed our 20th foster dog and took on our 21st foster dog, I do a lot of baking and jigsaw puzzles and also watch a lot of movies and tv, for which I write fan fic of variable quality
I do do a lot of multi-tasking though, so for instance, I'm a member of our Buy Nothing Group and every item I gift, I deliver in person with my dogs - although that's been hindered in recent weeks because of the heavy smoke from the bushfires down here. I listen to a lot of audiobooks while walking/exercising. I suspect many people wouldn't capture casual walks / walking around the shopping centre but I do - although I don't capture housework. For me it works. I'm not saying other people should do 1,000 calories a day and I often don't do 1,000 exercise but I frequently do. As I've mentioned, even though my Garmin is probably over-estimating exercise calories, it does not seem to have adversely affected my weight loss achievement and my current maintenance state...
I think the main reason people are 'challenging' you is that they don't understand why you've come to the figure of 1000. For me, I don't aim for a particular exercise figure, I'm just trying to make sure I have an adequate amount of exercise to offset calories eaten. I try to eat within my budget even now I'm in maintenance and exercise helps me to increase my budget - although if I can't exercise on a particular day, I eat less to stay within my budget.1 -
FitAndGoodLooking wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »1000 calories with exercise? are you working out 1/2 the day? I mean I know it is possible, but I work out pretty intense every day of the week and burn around 400, MAYBE 500.
If you pick high cal burning workouts you don't need to spend half a day
OP, I've already posted that weight loss is not my focus when training, but the ongoing discussion regarding "burning 1000 calories a day" piqued my interest. I went back and checked my Training Peaks data to find a couple time periods where my activities contributed to a 1000 calories/day expenditure as a weekly average. I am confident in my calorie expenditure numbers from my Garmin devices, especially cycling, since I have a power meter that captures watts, which is a true measure of work.
<snip impressive exercise details for reply length, or because intimidating, you choose >
Note that even though my weekly average was over 1000/day for those two weeks, I only exceeded the number on a couple of days. The long bike rides skewed the results. So in my case, I did spend half a day or more in training and took in roughly 1500 calories in fuel to support the workouts.
Finally, I should note that these were two high volume weeks for me. Most of my training weeks are at lower volume.
I'd observe that (1) you're a guy, so odds are that you're physically larger than the average woman, at the same BMI, so things like running burn more calories per minute for you automagically; (2) you're clearly a conditioned athlete, so you're capable of burning more calories per minute (or of bringing on less fatigue at any given calories per minute level for any given duration) than someone who's less conditioned.
re: #1 - Guilty as charged!
re: #2 - my point in showing some actual training data was to demonstrate that even in high volume training plans, almost all days are <1000 calories, and I noted that the high volume days are supported by fueling within the session.
And of course, the larger point, that the cyclists and marathoners have made, is that the "burn tons of calories daily" approach isn't an effective long term weight loss strategy and potentially harmful.
Reading myself back, I had one of those "gosh I was unclear" reactions.
To clarify: My point - the intended one, anyway - was not criticism, still less dismissal of your very useful data points.
My point was that (1) you're a serious, conditioned athlete, (2) nonetheless, 1000 calories daily from intentional workout-type exercise is unusual even for you (even as an average, let alone 1000 daily on successive days), and (3) it's even less likely or achievable for someone who's (probably) smaller and less well-conditioned.
Apologies if it came across as critical or dismissive. Intent was to say that your post should be extra persuasive because you're more capable of achieving that particular stretch goal vs. someone smaller, less conditioned.
And before any 3rd party chimes in with "but conditioned athletes burn fewer calories because efficiency: No. Just no. That's not how physics works. It will feel easier to the conditioned athlete. A HRM or tracker may estimate fewer calories for them because their stronger hearts pump more blood per stroke so beat slower doing the same work. The work is the work, the work is what burns energy (calories), in the CV exercise realm . . . not the feelingz, not the heartbeats.
Apologies if my post came across as a diss!1 -
(2) nonetheless, 1000 calories daily from intentional workout-type exercise is unusual even for you (even as an average, let alone 1000 daily on successive days)
@AnnPT77 - No apology needed! We're making similar points, sometimes we just can't read each other's mind.
Experiences recalled by the endurance types is that these high expenditure amounts are fairly infrequent occurrences (only occurring on long run/bike days) and when these "big days" occur, both extra fuel intake and recovery are needed. And if huge calorie burns are pursued via a high intensity approach, other issues come into play that make the approach unsustainable (and NO fun!), as you noted previously.2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »(snip 'cos blushing)(snip for sake of modesty, or its simulacrum)quiksylver296 wrote: »(snip because kinda group hug? )
You guys are really sweet, truly. :flowerforyou:
The post I wish all the "eat below my 'MFP given' 1200 and exercise hard for more deficit" crowd would read is the heart-wrenching, tragic one from the young woman who, at 25, experienced heart failure from doing exactly this, with life-long major consequences to health, not to mention appearance:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1
No one young cares in any visceral way about what might happen when they're old, even though their older self will wish they had (trust me on this). Psychologically, they're still immortal and invincible, on some implicit level.
No one young (or of any age, really) is very likely to learn from someone else's experience and advice. It's just human.
Will the awful thing that happened to that 25-year old happen to everyone who does this? No, of course not. But it can happen to some. There was no warning. She was not monstrously underweight. She felt good and strong . . . until her heart failed, and she became an invalid.
This is a thing that can happen to a young, apparently healthy woman with no warning, from extreme dieting.
How much risk do you want in your life? That's the question.1 -
Since I'm being Preachy McPreacherdottir here, let me say that it's not from a lofty pulpit of having done things right before reaching the semi-advanced age of 64.
I didn't yo-yo diet much: Too much of a hedonist, and married to a guy** who accepted me (loved me) whatever I weighed. I got fat, and stayed fat (obese) for literally decades.
I didn't get enough exercise, though it wasn't zero, and tended to strength-sustaining things, though usually short of weight training. I mostly ate well/nutritiously, just way too much, and drank too much, though not to the point of life-impairing nonfunctionality.
There's some evidence that yo-yoing is more dangerous to health than staying fat, as I understand it; and that being fat and active long-term is substantially more beneficial than fat and inactive. But it's still a bad thing to be seriously overweight, risk-wise, of course.
I got stage III breast cancer, which is more likely among obese, inactive women; I had 60% chance of survival for 5 years, and it's been 19+. Lucky.
My gallbladder was removed due to an inflammatory/cholesterolized condition that can be precancerous (it wasn't - lucky again), and that was almost certainly related to my weight and behavior.
I'm a short-endurance athlete, quite active, and have been for 15+ years. Now 64, I've been at a healthy weight for almost 5 years. The athleticism was a big improvement to my day to day quality of life, and being at a healthy weight another big one, too. All my blood tests, blood pressure, etc., are now solidly normal (they weren't, before weight loss).
Nonetheless, my recent CT scan shows arterial calcification (seemingly not too extreme, thankfully). I may have early COPD/emphysema (still in diagnostic process, not significantly symptomatic), something that isn't part of my genetic background. Guess what? Obesity is considered a probable risk factor, and there's correlation with inactivity, too.
So, if I could go back and counsel . . . hmm . . . maybe even b****-slap young Ann into more sensible behavior, I would. Not that it would work. But my life now would almost certainly be better, if she'd behaved differently.
Y'know, sometimes I really am a downer.
___________
** Who died 20 years ago at age 45, after smoking for most of his life, from a cancer that may be triggered in part by smoking. That's another preach, but I'd strongly suggest not smoking, too. If I have COPD, that may not be irrelvant (second hand smoke), even though I'm a nonsmoker. Dunno. But folks might wanna consider the family/roommates, too . . . even if you don't have children to model good health for.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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