7-900 burnt cals a day, 1200 cals consumed...

Brizzleaw
Brizzleaw Posts: 5 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey everyone,

This is my first post so please go easy on me, I just want to ask a question on timelines...

I’m currently 76kg, 5’4”, 34 yr female (gotten a bit soggy round the bum and common areas) I have a very good fitness and endurance level though and am very used to training and the technicalities of training when I apply myself. I don’t struggle with food anger and can control cravings easily when I apply myself. My current soggyness is from a lazy food lifestyle and not much exercise.

I’m currently active burning between 700-90” calories a day and am managing to consume approx 1200 per day in good foods.

How long roughly until I can reach approx 63kg do you guys think?

Thanks in advance!

Replies

  • Brizzleaw
    Brizzleaw Posts: 5 Member
    Thanks for your comment 👍🏻 and I understand (and expected) this response.

    My enquiry is if anyone knows the maths on my equation as it were and I’m looking to adjust the current burn/consume rate from the outcome
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    edited April 2020
    So you are okay with following a dangerous and unhealthy diet?

    Change your weight loss to 1 lb a week, log any exercise calories separate and eat back those calories.

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,819 Member
    Those 700-900 calories burned per day, is that just exercise or general activity too? Because the calories in and out equation can't be calculated without knowing how active you are outside of intentional exercise.
    Aside from that, you need a 7700 calorie deficit to lose 1kg.

    I'm around your age and around your weight and same height. And I'm eating, on average, between 1500 calories (on a totally inactive sedentary day, very rare) and 2300 calories (very active day with high step count and/or exercise). And I'm still losing weight, slowly. I can't imagine being as active as you and eating that little, I'd crash or binge in a matter of weeks.
    Your body needs more energy than that!
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Brizzleaw wrote: »
    Thanks for your comment 👍🏻 and I understand (and expected) this response.

    My enquiry is if anyone knows the maths on my equation as it were and I’m looking to adjust the current burn/consume rate from the outcome

    Not enough information to determine. Your total calorie use per day is determined by your full activity level, not just intentional exercise.

    I imagine it would wind up being moot, as many people would suffer serious physical consequences or just a lack of energy to continue before they reached their full goal on a plan that involved eating so little with so much activity. 700-900 calories a day in exercise is a serious level of activity for a woman your size.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10791091/finding-your-basal-metabolic-rate
    3500 calories = 1lb fat
    But . . .
  • KNoceros
    KNoceros Posts: 326 Member
    I’m afraid as others have said you need to rethink your approach.
    I am about the same height as you, started a little later (about 37yo) and a little lighter (73.5kg).
    It took two years to get to 62kg using a small sustainable deficit and logging things here.
    I have never had to resort to 1200!

    Three years after hitting that original target my weight has stayed in the 60-62 kg range. Most days (yesterday was an exception), I do this while eating 1900-2100kCal.

    Send a FR if you like.
  • hipari
    hipari Posts: 1,367 Member
    700-900 calories burned through exercise per day sounds like an overestimation at your weight. As a comparison, I weigh 98kg, and I can burn about 500 calories in an hour by a brisk walk. I could increase my burn rate by running, for example, but I wouldn't have the stamina to do it for such a long period of time. I wear a Fitbit with constant heart rate measuring and I have checked the math several times: the burns stated by the Fitbit and my food log match what I lose, so I'd say it's accurate enough for this purpose.

    Even at my weight, when I went on a 4-day hike in a very tough&hilly terrain with a 40lb backpack, I only burned about 1500 cals/day more than in my regular life.

    To answer your question about how long until you reach your goal weight with your plan, I see two possibilities:
    1) you'll never reach it because you crash and burn and either start bingeing because you're starving, or run into serious medical issues
    2) you'll reach the goal relatively quickly, and gain it all back and then some because you didn't learn a sustainable lifestyle

    Out of the countless smart people and advice I have found on this forum, there's one that's very applicable here (can't remember who said this, but it's brilliant): when you're losing weight, you have to at the same time learn how to eat at your goal weight. They suggested calculating what your maintenance calories would be at your goal weight and learning how to live a sensible and sustainable day-to-day life with that amount of food. That way, you naturally create a deficit for your current deficit, the weight starts slowly coming off and you are already learning your maintenance level.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Not enough information and clarity to really make out your numbers.

    Is the 700 - 900 calories mentioned purely from exercise? (If so, what exercise for what duration, how are those calories estimated?)

    Or is the 700 - 900 calories a combination of purposeful exercise and general activity?

    How are you estimating your food intake?

    Why did you choose 1200cals as your intake and are you intending using this site as intended and eating back your exercise calories?

    As for the how long question - you have to create a deficit of approximately 100,000 calories over an extended period of time to drop 13kg.
    If you had an overall rate of loss of 500cals/day (which may not be appropriate, sensible or achievable....) you are looking at roughly 200 days/28 weeks. It's why sustainability including getting appropriate nutrition along the way is more important than speed.
  • Brizzleaw
    Brizzleaw Posts: 5 Member
    Thank you everyone, I appreciate you all taking the time to respond :-)

    I wear an Apple Watch at all times to track my active and bmr calories so the numbers I’ve posted are not a guess. I work very hard during exercise to get the best burn, my cardio is strong and I don’t tire quickly. My energy & endurance levels are very high and I have always (even back in my clubbing/dancing days) when I was about 8.5st, was always the sweaty one that never ran out of energy

    To answer the person who asked why 1200 calories as a consumption...that has actually come from the MyFitnessPal algorithm output and is what has led to my question here. It’s interesting that’s for sure :-)

    As for the burn out a lot of mentioned, I completely hear you about it not being long term sustainable - I’ve never applied this for any amount of time so thanks for the advice that a “crash” could/would happen.

    I’m definitely going to use some of the links everyone has provided and increase the daily consumed calories as if the maths is a straightforward as bmr + active cals = minimum cals need to consume then yes i am under.

    On the TDEE...should I calc this and then deduct approx 500 cals for deficit then? I’ve tried one calc someone shared and with my body stats it suggests my TDEE is 2451 which seems so very high and a deficit of 500 cals means I should still be eating around 2000 a day which again seems high for what I’m trying to achieve?
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    you got 1200cal because you set rate of loss at 2lbs a week - and based on your current weight; that is likely too agressive (76kg = 167lbs)

    setting rate of loss to 1lb a week and making sure you are eating back at least a portion of our workout calories
  • Brizzleaw
    Brizzleaw Posts: 5 Member
    Aaah ok thank you, so ignore the recommendation and just go for 1lb, cool thanks :-)
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,819 Member
    edited April 2020
    Brizzleaw wrote: »

    To answer the person who asked why 1200 calories as a consumption...that has actually come from the MyFitnessPal algorithm output and is what has led to my question here. It’s interesting that’s for sure :-)

    MFP gave you that number based on the info you entered. I'm guessing you entered a desired weight loss rate of 2 lbs/1kg per week? That is too aggressive at your current weight. Here is a guideline :smile: 09cu3zdwq7jn.jpg

    Personally I wouldn't bother with a Tdee calculation at this point, I would just let your Apple watch sync with MFP for your calorie burn and enter a lower weight loss rate in the settings.

    Whether or not your Apple watch is accurate is a question that time will answer: whether or not you lose weight at the desired rate of loss. And then you can adjust your calorie goal as needed.
  • Brizzleaw
    Brizzleaw Posts: 5 Member
    Thanks guys, that’s a real help.

    I’ve just adjusted the goal to 1lb per week and now it says that the daily cals to consume is 1690 which feels more realistic doesn’t it
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,819 Member
    Much better and sustainable, definitely!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    FYI - there is absolutely no guarantee your Apple Watch is at all accurate as it can't measure energy (calories), it can only measure data like heart rate and movement and make an estimate.
    It might be able to make reasonable estimates though and that's (probably) good enough for purpose.

    Another issue is that it doesn't integrate properly when synced directly to MyFitnessPal. Either leave unsynced or connect via an intermediate app - Pacer I believe is used with some success.

    With all the many estimates involved some degree of adjusting based on results over a period of weeks may be necessary. Apart from weight loss things like hunger, exercise performance, general energy levels and recovery are worth taking into account when making adjustments.

    Your new 1690 goal sounds a much better place to start. Best of luck.

  • briscogun
    briscogun Posts: 1,138 Member
    I have an Apple Watch and I am convinced the "calorie burn" I get for the workouts I do are WAY over-inflated. When I jog on the treadmill, for example, my heart rate will get up to 186+, but even when I stop and walk at the end to cool down my heart rate is still way up there and I'm getting a "burn" that I'm really not earning just because my heart rate is still going strong for a while.

    I'll walk for 5 minutes. run for 25-28, then walk again for 5 and get like a 400+ calorie burn? Probably not. So I do NOT eat back my exercise calories or trust that figure. I use my watch to make sure I am getting my 30+ minutes of exercise in every day, but do NOT trust the calorie counts it gives me. I will eat back maybe 25-50% tops.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    edited April 2020
    briscogun wrote: »
    I have an Apple Watch and I am convinced the "calorie burn" I get for the workouts I do are WAY over-inflated. When I jog on the treadmill, for example, my heart rate will get up to 186+, but even when I stop and walk at the end to cool down my heart rate is still way up there and I'm getting a "burn" that I'm really not earning just because my heart rate is still going strong for a while.

    I'll walk for 5 minutes. run for 25-28, then walk again for 5 and get like a 400+ calorie burn? Probably not. So I do NOT eat back my exercise calories or trust that figure. I use my watch to make sure I am getting my 30+ minutes of exercise in every day, but do NOT trust the calorie counts it gives me. I will eat back maybe 25-50% tops.

    since weight is one of the variables in run calories - 400 could be in the realm of possibility

    also apple includes normally calories burnt during that time period as part of the calorie count
  • _nikkiwolf_
    _nikkiwolf_ Posts: 1,380 Member
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    briscogun wrote: »
    I have an Apple Watch and I am convinced the "calorie burn" I get for the workouts I do are WAY over-inflated. When I jog on the treadmill, for example, my heart rate will get up to 186+, but even when I stop and walk at the end to cool down my heart rate is still way up there and I'm getting a "burn" that I'm really not earning just because my heart rate is still going strong for a while.

    I'll walk for 5 minutes. run for 25-28, then walk again for 5 and get like a 400+ calorie burn? Probably not. So I do NOT eat back my exercise calories or trust that figure. I use my watch to make sure I am getting my 30+ minutes of exercise in every day, but do NOT trust the calorie counts it gives me. I will eat back maybe 25-50% tops.

    since weight is one of the variables in run calories - 400 could be in the realm of possibility

    also apple includes normally calories burnt during that time period as part of the calorie count
    Yes, it also on weight and speed. not just on the time.
    For running, a formula that works surprisingly well is
    calories burned = body weight (in kg) * distance (in km)
    [ It doesn't work out so nicely in lbs and miles... calories burned = 0.45 * body weight (in lbs) * 1.6 distance (in mi) ]
    If you weight 80kg, and run 5km, then 400 calories doesn't sound too wrong.
    If you are 70kg and run 3km, then 200 would be more credible.

    Still, I also do not trust the calories from my fitbit at all. It gives me a ridiculous amount of calories for walking, and pretty much nothing for strength training.
    For weight loss, I always looked for the exercise in the MFP database and then logged 50% of the suggested calories.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    I have just got a Polar HRM that allows input of vo2max for a better "estimate" of calories burned.
    Incline treadmill walking , treadmill says one figure, Polar hrm another and these 2 calculators each give different figures. Who knows !
    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
    Treadmill Calc https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
    Fitbit gear seems to be very often in doubt.

Categories