Extremely slow progress! What is going on?!

I am logging my VEGAN food on mfp. I eat anywhere between 1800 to 2000 calories. I do well at hitting my target macros. I also wear an Apple Watch that tracks my activity. I’ve been using my health app in my phone to see my resting energy calories and also my active energy calories that I’ve burned. I total those two and usually end with a calorie deficit of 700 to sometimes 1000. Is this why my progress is so slow? I should also add that I exercise everyday.
Any advise is appreciated
«1

Replies

  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Are eating back your exercise calories, or are you netting 800-1,000 calories some days?
  • Rocio12
    Rocio12 Posts: 15 Member
    I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Rocio12 wrote: »
    I am 5”2 183 lbs. I be been at this deficit for 5 wks. I use my peloton bike and cycle 30 min 4-5 days. I also do upper body strength classes and lower body strength classes. I do 20 min yoga twice a week. These classes are 20 min max.

    How much weight have you lost over the 5 weeks?
  • Rocio12
    Rocio12 Posts: 15 Member
    I’ve stayed at 183
  • Hanibanani2020
    Hanibanani2020 Posts: 523 Member
    Are you sure those calories are correct? That seems very high. Don’t include intentional exercise in your activity. What is your activity set at?
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    edited June 2020
    Rocio12 wrote: »
    I’ve stayed at 183

    That's frustrating. I've been there. When you say logged, does that mean using a food scale too?
  • Rocio12
    Rocio12 Posts: 15 Member
    Yes. I alwAys use a food scale
  • Rocio12
    Rocio12 Posts: 15 Member
    Should I be eating more?
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Rocio12 wrote: »
    Should I be eating more?

    How many calories are you netting in a day?
  • Rocio12
    Rocio12 Posts: 15 Member
    1900
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    A second question would be how did you arrive at the calorie needs you are using? Did you go through the MFP guided setup, or are you using a number from another source? If you did use the MFP setup, what activity level did you choose?

    If using MFP's guideline, understand that is the NEAT method which includes your normal routine daily activities but NOT purposeful exercise. So you are to set your activity level to what your typical non-exercise activity is (don't count the yoga, bike, strength training). Are you typically on your feet during the day? Have a desk job? MFP sets your calorie goal based upon your day to day activity and expects you to eat your calories back.

    Many other calculators online, however, use the TDEE method, which is meant to incorporate all activity into a single number, so you set your activity level and then do NOT count back exercise.

    So if you are using the number MFP gave you, revisit your goals - which activity level did you choose? What loss rate are you shooting for? If you got your calorie goal from another source, it may be that its giving you a TDEE number and by counting back your exercise, you are actually eating too much.
  • cowejo9448
    cowejo9448 Posts: 1 Member
    good work! not too slow in my opiniontr?id=260694975193088&ev=PageView&noscript=1&.png
  • tmac68w
    tmac68w Posts: 19 Member
    Slow progress is better than no progress!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited June 2020
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
  • moonangel12
    moonangel12 Posts: 971 Member
    edited June 2020
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
    More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hour :lol: - I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.

    ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
    More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hour :lol: - I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.

    ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).

    But how do you know your garmin estimates correctly? Have you set your maximum heartrate for cycling, is there any estimate of the power involved? Just because a technical gadget says you burn so many calories doesn't mean you really burn so much. Now if you were to track your calories absolutely meticulously and had a good idea of your average NEAT, measured over a period without sport, and then only added regular cycling then you'd get a good idea if it's correct or not. Or a power meter on your bike.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    The point I'm trying to make is that both 300cals (83watt average) for an hour and 450cals (125watts average) for an hour are perfectly believable as the range that people ride at / are capable of is so wide.

    What doesn't jive is such a low power output / calorie burn and 22mph - that would involve a simply fantastically long downhill descent and I'd love to know where I could ride downhill for an hour.
    My suspicion is that (not unusually) some people don't realise that "speed" displayed on a stationary bike isn't a true metric or comparison to actual speed.

    If the OP wants to share her power output and duration I'd be happy to work out the calories.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,257 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.

    Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".

    But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.

    Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.

    Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".

    But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.

    Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.

    Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.

    BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....

    Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
    If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.

    Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".

    But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.

    Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.

    I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,257 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.

    Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".

    But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.

    Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.

    I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.

    I have no opinion on the calorie burn potential, specifically for heavy vs. light (except to agree with @sijomial that on a stationary bike, body weight is at most a minor factor). It's going to be more about strength and CV fitness.

    But "easier"? As in subjectively easier? That, I have an opinion about, having done stationary (and regular) biking at the range of weights between 183 and 116, all of that at similar strength and fitness levels. It's subjectively easier when lighter, no question.

    Sure, there's more weight to mash the pedal, with gravity. I don't see any advantage on the pull, which would IMO be more a strength issue (and it may actually be trivial harder on the pull because there's quite a lot of leg mass to move through space that isn't adding anything useful to the pull). Perhaps you're trying to say that the push on one side makes the pull on the other side easier . . . but why would I pull less than I can, just because I could?
    sijomial wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.

    Really?
    How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?

    An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.

    Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.

    Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".

    But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.

    Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.

    Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.

    BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....

    Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
    If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.

    Yes, agreed. My point was more that I felt like the "22 mph" thing was losing focus on the OP, and what she was actually doing (. . . and I didn't make that point especially clearly let alone succinctly :lol: ).

    I'm quite prepared to be impressed if Peleton does sound calorie estimating based on watts, and says 500+ calories for half an hour is an accurate number, gross or net. (I'm quite certain yoga/strength isn't 200+ for 20 minutes.)

    And I do understand that bodyweight is largely irrelevant for stationary bike, so citing equivalent BW in my PP is admittedly more "I've been there" than "there matters".

    I could geek out badly here about estimating methods, but I'll restrain myself :lol:, in the interest of keeping the focus mainly on OP's scenario.

    Calorie estimating generally is a pretty approximate process, from the calculator-based BMR estimate, to the food logging, to guesses on daily life activity, to exercise. Fortunately, some things tend to be over, others under; and personal methods consistency across all of those tends to make longer-term scale weight results a quite reliable guide to adjusting one's intake despite the level of error inherently involved. OP has some scale feedback. ;)
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,284 Member
    tmac68w wrote: »
    Slow progress is better than no progress!

    well yes - but OP said she has stayed on 183 - so I read that as no progress.