Had enough right now
RoyBeck
Posts: 947 Member
Hi. I'm 37. I've lost 17lbs since November. I'm down to 247 from 264.
I eat 1900 a day of the same pre logged foods. Every single day I eat the same as I know the calorie content and it's just easier for me to monitor.
I've walked 290 miles since January 1st and started running a mile a day since March 1st.
I've lost 2lbs in the past 3 weeks. I lost 60lbs in 2013 using MFP and 45 in 2018 in the same 4 month period I'm currently at. Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???
Is 1900 too high? Am I walking too far?
Any advice would be appreciated.
I eat 1900 a day of the same pre logged foods. Every single day I eat the same as I know the calorie content and it's just easier for me to monitor.
I've walked 290 miles since January 1st and started running a mile a day since March 1st.
I've lost 2lbs in the past 3 weeks. I lost 60lbs in 2013 using MFP and 45 in 2018 in the same 4 month period I'm currently at. Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???
Is 1900 too high? Am I walking too far?
Any advice would be appreciated.
2
Replies
-
"Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???"
No!
(The major part of age-related reduction in calorie needs reflects changes in people's activity and exercise not the passing of years and at just 37 - you are just a baby!)
"Is 1900 too high? "
Very unlikely at your size.
"Am I walking too far?"
Dunno - how are you feeling from all that walking? Stressed, sore, tired all the time or does it feel normal?
"Started running a mile a day since March 1st"
Aha! There's the recent change in routine. Sore legs perhaps? A new and more intense exercise routine is a trigger for inflammation and water retention. Suggest you give this and any future routine change a month to settle out.
If you are still in a sustained calorie deficit you must still be losing fat despite the number on your bathroom scales not reflecting it.
PS
It might be worth looking into diet breaks if you are starting to feel beaten down (physically and/or mentally) by a sustained long term deficit.
15 -
In addition to this ^
Is it possible your portion sizes have started to creep up? It's easily done and you don't mention if you're measuring/weighing your pre-logged portions. I know my consistency might start to wain if I was eating the exact same things all the time.7 -
Harder? Not likely. However, it's not good that you are yo-yo dieting. You keep regaining the weight lost? This happens to all of us, but you're regaining a lot and in a few years. I guess I'd look at doing something that you can keep up for the rest of your life, both exercise and food intake. At 37, if you think things are difficult, what do you think will happen at 45? 50? 60? and beyond...... It's time to take stock and prepare for the rest of your life. Start studying up on how to maintain. That's the real problem, and it isn't easy.12
-
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...2 -
"Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???"
No!
(The major part of age-related reduction in calorie needs reflects changes in people's activity and exercise not the passing of years and at just 37 - you are just a baby!)
"Is 1900 too high? "
Very unlikely at your size.
"Am I walking too far?"
Dunno - how are you feeling from all that walking? Stressed, sore, tired all the time or does it feel normal?
"Started running a mile a day since March 1st"
Aha! There's the recent change in routine. Sore legs perhaps? A new and more intense exercise routine is a trigger for inflammation and water retention. Suggest you give this and any future routine change a month to settle out.
If you are still in a sustained calorie deficit you must still be losing fat despite the number on your bathroom scales not reflecting it.
PS
It might be worth looking into diet breaks if you are starting to feel beaten down (physically and/or mentally) by a sustained long term deficit.
@sijomial
I feel fine after my walks even after a 10 miler so definitely feel my body has adapted. Running just a mile though is really tiring on my legs the next day.
Diet break as in eat at maintenance for a period of time?
Thanks for your reply.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In addition to this ^
Is it possible your portion sizes have started to creep up? It's easily done and you don't mention if you're measuring/weighing your pre-logged portions. I know my consistency might start to wain if I was eating the exact same things all the time.
@tinkerbellang83
I know what you mean. I weigh everything that isn't packaged. Eg chicken breast is 218 per portion as per the labels. I eat 5 broccoli florets with each meal which is 38 etc.. it's very boring lol but short term it is working - well was. I'm sure it still is.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Harder? Not likely. However, it's not good that you are yo-yo dieting. You keep regaining the weight lost? This happens to all of us, but you're regaining a lot and in a few years. I guess I'd look at doing something that you can keep up for the rest of your life, both exercise and food intake. At 37, if you think things are difficult, what do you think will happen at 45? 50? 60? and beyond...... It's time to take stock and prepare for the rest of your life. Start studying up on how to maintain. That's the real problem, and it isn't easy.
@snowflake954
I know. I was 270 in 2007 and lost 70lbs. Back up to 266 in 2013 and back down to 210. Slowly back up to 265 in October and now down to about 247.
I love running so that's 'my thing' but I picked up several injuries in 2019 when I was down to about 225 and running up to 10 miles. Hopefully as I now ease back into it, injury free, I'll stick to it.
Thanks for your points I appreciate them and hope to yo-yo no more.0 -
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...
@bubus05
1500 seems low? But I guess MFP knows more and you've done well to lose 90lbs!!
Patience I have in abundance luckily. I'm in for the long haul. I dont wanna be the fat dad to my 3 and 9 year old kids anymore.0 -
"Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???"
No!
(The major part of age-related reduction in calorie needs reflects changes in people's activity and exercise not the passing of years and at just 37 - you are just a baby!)
"Is 1900 too high? "
Very unlikely at your size.
"Am I walking too far?"
Dunno - how are you feeling from all that walking? Stressed, sore, tired all the time or does it feel normal?
"Started running a mile a day since March 1st"
Aha! There's the recent change in routine. Sore legs perhaps? A new and more intense exercise routine is a trigger for inflammation and water retention. Suggest you give this and any future routine change a month to settle out.
If you are still in a sustained calorie deficit you must still be losing fat despite the number on your bathroom scales not reflecting it.
PS
It might be worth looking into diet breaks if you are starting to feel beaten down (physically and/or mentally) by a sustained long term deficit.
@sijomial
I feel fine after my walks even after a 10 miler so definitely feel my body has adapted. Running just a mile though is really tiring on my legs the next day.
Diet break as in eat at maintenance for a period of time?
Thanks for your reply.
That's not surprising. Running not only requires a lot more oxygen update but is also a lot harder on the muscles, and burns more than twice as many calories as walking.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Harder? Not likely. However, it's not good that you are yo-yo dieting. You keep regaining the weight lost? This happens to all of us, but you're regaining a lot and in a few years. I guess I'd look at doing something that you can keep up for the rest of your life, both exercise and food intake. At 37, if you think things are difficult, what do you think will happen at 45? 50? 60? and beyond...... It's time to take stock and prepare for the rest of your life. Start studying up on how to maintain. That's the real problem, and it isn't easy.
@snowflake954
I know. I was 270 in 2007 and lost 70lbs. Back up to 266 in 2013 and back down to 210. Slowly back up to 265 in October and now down to about 247.
I love running so that's 'my thing' but I picked up several injuries in 2019 when I was down to about 225 and running up to 10 miles. Hopefully as I now ease back into it, injury free, I'll stick to it.
Thanks for your points I appreciate them and hope to yo-yo no more.
If exercise is important to your weight loss (attention--you can lose without exercise), then you need a backup plan for injuries. Can you take up swimming? Sometimes you can work around injuries by doing something else while you heal. I, personally, do many different exercises for this reason--swimming, acquagym, strength training, yoga, stretching, walking, and jogging. I'm 66 and if I stop for injuries, I'd never do much. You probably should branch out and not give up your favorite, but use different muscles with other movement.8 -
"Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???"
No!
(The major part of age-related reduction in calorie needs reflects changes in people's activity and exercise not the passing of years and at just 37 - you are just a baby!)
"Is 1900 too high? "
Very unlikely at your size.
"Am I walking too far?"
Dunno - how are you feeling from all that walking? Stressed, sore, tired all the time or does it feel normal?
"Started running a mile a day since March 1st"
Aha! There's the recent change in routine. Sore legs perhaps? A new and more intense exercise routine is a trigger for inflammation and water retention. Suggest you give this and any future routine change a month to settle out.
If you are still in a sustained calorie deficit you must still be losing fat despite the number on your bathroom scales not reflecting it.
PS
It might be worth looking into diet breaks if you are starting to feel beaten down (physically and/or mentally) by a sustained long term deficit.
@sijomial
I feel fine after my walks even after a 10 miler so definitely feel my body has adapted. Running just a mile though is really tiring on my legs the next day.
Diet break as in eat at maintenance for a period of time?
Thanks for your reply.
A long period of dieting is mentally and emotionally draining but there's also physical adaptations that can take place e.g. down-regulating fideting, feeling colder, a series of ways for your body to slow you down a bit in the face of an extended deficit.
A period eating at maintenace can be very helpful to refresh yourself mentally and physically. Plus it's good practice for maintenance at goal weight.
Tired legs can be a sign that you are retaning some water for repair to the muscles from their unaccustomed/new stress.3 -
None of my business really.
But you've lost and regained before.
And the vast amount of benefit will come from you controlling your normal eating.
Please note that the eating statement is coming from a guy who is very active by mfp standards (even more than you) and who utterly relies on activity calories to have enough daily chocolate.
Jokes aside. Did you see the stuff about "normal" eating above?
Yes, it is "work" to modulate your normal eating and slowly change your regular weight gain eating patterns to something you can sustain and can sustain you long term.
So. A couple of things.
Where exactly do you think that at your weight about a lb a week (accounting for water retention) is terrible? That's a good 50 lbs a year.
But I doubt you will last a year, and/ or that you will retain your loss, IF you eat totally differently when you're trying to lose weight as when you're trying to maintain weight!
Yes initially using a food scale and looking up multiple entries and verifying them is a lot of work... but it really isn't that much work as you get better and faster at it over time....
And, frankly, eating the same thing for months at a time is also work, at least it would be for me!
So yes I'm with take stock and think long term contingent.... Including injuries (or other life events) which should probably be considered inevitable over a full life span...10 -
What are you doing that’s different than any other time you’ve dieted? Because I would expect the same outcome if your answer is that you’re doing everything the same. And I would also wonder why you would expect a different outcome than living the yo-yo diet life. I would change my process to reflect something I could do consistently and maintain over a lifetime.4
-
What other people are saying.
Unless you're going to eat those exact same meals the rest of your life, it isn't going to work. You have got to learn how to feed yourself in a healthy, sustainable, way that will keep you at the weight you want to be.
You cannot just lose the weight and 'go back' to what you were doing because you have.
I'm approaching my goal weight. Weight loss has slowed but I no longer feel like I'm on a diet. I'm just eating and living. What I'm doing now is normal now, not a... Thing I Am Doing. It's the normal foundation to my life, not the center part of it.
And while that's bragging, it is what you need to be able to do, eventually.
Eating 218 grams of chicken and 5 broccoli florets and being bored NOW, ALREADY, is not a thing you can continue.7 -
Hi. I'm 37. I've lost 17lbs since November. I'm down to 247 from 264.
I eat 1900 a day of the same pre logged foods. Every single day I eat the same as I know the calorie content and it's just easier for me to monitor.
I agree with others that you would be well-served to continue how you plan to maintain your weight long term, and starting to experiment sometime soon to work out the finer points, if you can't imagine yourself eating the same foods every day for the rest of your life. Figuring out things like satiation, nutrition, tastiness, and overall happiness can be easier with that cushion of a small calorie deficit in case of . . . experiments that don't go so well.
Because of age? Highly unlikely. (I'm 65, lost weight at 59-60. It widens my eyes when people worry about aging already being weight loss doom in their 30s/40s.)I've walked 290 miles since January 1st and started running a mile a day since March 1st.
I've lost 2lbs in the past 3 weeks. I lost 60lbs in 2013 using MFP and 45 in 2018 in the same 4 month period I'm currently at. Could it be that at 37 it's different from when I was 29 and 34???
What can be different with time (not necessarily age) is:
* Lifestyle. Lower activity in daily life reduces calorie expenditure; often people are less active as they age, but circumstances also change for other reasons. For example, many people are less acoutive in daily life because of pandemic-related lifestyle changes and constraints. In a context where even fidgetiness has been show to account for up to a couple hundred calories difference in calorie expenditure between otherwise similar people, these changes can be meaningful.
* Yo-yos in weight. Were your past losses maintained, or regained and re-lost? Bodies tend to become come good at whatever we train them to do. If there are yo-yos, one might think of that as training to expect periods of famine, and slow down various bodily processes more readily in response to calorie restrictions - subtle things, potentially, like hair growth rate, tiny changes in body temperature, etc. Some such changes can even persist after the diet: If intake goes up, but that subtle slowing continues, regain is faster.
* Loss of muscle mass. This one *is* a thing that will happen with aging, if we do nothing to counter it. Periods of extreme dieting (fast loss) can make that muscle loss happen relatively more quickly, especially if there's sub-ideal protein intake and general nutrition, and inactivity. The subtle slowings and lifestyle changes mentioned above can conspire in this muscle loss. The daily calorie expenditure difference between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat is believed to be only about 4 calories per pound per day, so very small, but it can be in the mix. Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that as people lose muscle, it becomes harder and less fun to be active in daily life and exercise, so that people who retain/build muscle may have lives with more movement and physical intensity.
So, aging? Not mostly, at least not per se. Past practices having an influence on subsequent results? More probable, IMO.
You can't change the past, but you control the future. If you've been losing around a pound a week, that may be pretty perfect. (Rough arithmetic, November to 3 weeks ago sounds like maybe 4 months, 16 weeks, 17 pounds lost total presumably including the last 3 weeks.) A little slower in the past 3 weeks is as likely to be a water weight issue from the new running, as from any other factor. Even if it isn't, 3 pounds in 2 weeks isn't crazy slow.
Are you doing any strength training at all? If not, consider it, even bodyweight training if you don't have gym/weights access.
Also, I assume you dialed in your macros with the foods you're eating daily, but eating the same things daily isn't an ideal nutritional plan, especially on the micronutrient front. IMO, taking a multivitamin or other supplements is not a solution for that. Are you using standard MFP macro percents? I can never remember what's standard for protein, maybe 20%? If so, that'd be 95g at 1900, which I wouldn't consider optimal at 247lbs. (I would find it OK for me, if losing/active at 5'5", 125 pounds, but I actually target more to hedge my bets.) Examine.com, which is generally regarded as evidence-based and neutral, suggests a minimum of 134g, and up to 168, though I made a guess or two at some of the settings for you.
ut
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
If you've yo-yo-ed before, your best bet now would be to train your body to exploit the maximum number of calories possible and still lose weight (a path of learning to thrive), rather than training your body to expect future famine ( a path of learning to limp along on minimum calories).Is 1900 too high?
Improbable. I admit I'm mysteriously a good calorie burner for a li'l ol' lady, but I'd lose on that, albeit slowly, even at my current size and age 65, doing less cardio than it sounds like you are.
Am I walking too far?
Is it causing you pain or injury? Is it at least moderately enjoyable to you, as a way to spend large blocks of your time? Is it allowing you enough time and energy for work, chores, family, friends, other hobbies/activities important to you? Do you see yourself as enjoying this kind of routine long term, as a way to maintain health and weight?
If the answers to those three questions are a confident No, Yes, Yes, Yes, then you're not walking too far. Any other answers, I'd suggest you consider a different routine. Physical well-being and time is about all life is made of, and we only get so much of either, so it's good to spend them well, IMO.Any advice would be appreciated.
Best wishes!
3 -
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...
A bunch of this, unfortunately, is counterfactual. You got a bunch of disagrees, but I'm going to use my words to explain why I'd be inclined to do likewise.
First, the same activity, done at the same intensity (pace, or other relevant intensity metric), for the same time duration, at the same body weight, burns approximately the same number of calories . It can't not. It's just physics. In most normal activity like walking or biking, efficiency (in a true physical sense) doesn't change much. (In those rare cases where efficiency may be a bigger factor, the activity isn't technically the same, and the effect is unlikely to be massive anyway; and in many activities, a more efficient person will have capabilities that let them burn more calories in a time interval than a less-efficient one for the same cost in fatigue, so there's an offsetting practical factor.)
As a person gets fitter, the activity will feel easier, perhaps much easier. As a person gets fitter, a heart-rate-based calorie estimate (like from a heart rate monitor) may estimate fewer calories, because it measures heart rate and estimates calories: The fitter person's more capable heart pumps more blood volume per beat, so needs fewer beats to deliver the same blood volume, the blood volume delivers oxygen, and it's oxygen utilization that actually correlates relatively closely with calorie burn, not heartbeats.
Yes, as one loses weight, weight-bearing activities burn fewer calories, because it takes less energy to move the lighter body. Also, some of the activities you mention (running vs. walking, sprinting vs. slower running) do burn more calories per minute than walking, but can be continued for relatively shorter time periods because of fatigue, so the net may not be better, depending on time budget. (Fatiguing activities have other downsides, but no need to get into that here, except to say that fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of the rest of the day.)
"Anaerobic high intensity training" is generally over-rated for calorie burn, in part because heart-rate monitors tend to over-estimate its calories (because heart rate goes up for reasons other than oxygen demand), in part because it feels satisfyingly difficult, and in part because people compare EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percents, rather than doing the arithmetic to discover that the difference in calories that's at play is not generally really significant.
Our "metabolism" may not slow that much with age, certainly not much by your 40s. A TDEE calculator estimates my BMR ("metabolism") at 65 to be 100ish calories lower than it was at 25, 40 years younger. That's half a serving of peanut butter, more or less. Further, if I use one of the research based formulas that considers body fat percentage, it estimates my BMR at 25 and 65, with the same body fat percent, as . . . exactly equal. Food for thought, about the importance of maintaining muscle mass to the extent feasible. (FWIW, I used https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/).
I agree with you about the "give it time" part, though, 100%. 🙂7 -
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...
A bunch of this, unfortunately, is counterfactual. You got a bunch of disagrees, but I'm going to use my words to explain why I'd be inclined to do likewise.
First, the same activity, done at the same intensity (pace, or other relevant intensity metric), for the same time duration, at the same body weight, burns approximately the same number of calories . It can't not. It's just physics. In most normal activity like walking or biking, efficiency (in a true physical sense) doesn't change much. (In those rare cases where efficiency may be a bigger factor, the activity isn't technically the same, and the effect is unlikely to be massive anyway; and in many activities, a more efficient person will have capabilities that let them burn more calories in a time interval than a less-efficient one for the same cost in fatigue, so there's an offsetting practical factor.)
As a person gets fitter, the activity will feel easier, perhaps much easier. As a person gets fitter, a heart-rate-based calorie estimate (like from a heart rate monitor) may estimate fewer calories, because it measures heart rate and estimates calories: The fitter person's more capable heart pumps more blood volume per beat, so needs fewer beats to deliver the same blood volume, the blood volume delivers oxygen, and it's oxygen utilization that actually correlates relatively closely with calorie burn, not heartbeats.
Yes, as one loses weight, weight-bearing activities burn fewer calories, because it takes less energy to move the lighter body. Also, some of the activities you mention (running vs. walking, sprinting vs. slower running) do burn more calories per minute than walking, but can be continued for relatively shorter time periods because of fatigue, so the net may not be better, depending on time budget. (Fatiguing activities have other downsides, but no need to get into that here, except to say that fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of the rest of the day.)
"Anaerobic high intensity training" is generally over-rated for calorie burn, in part because heart-rate monitors tend to over-estimate its calories (because heart rate goes up for reasons other than oxygen demand), in part because it feels satisfyingly difficult, and in part because people compare EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percents, rather than doing the arithmetic to discover that the difference in calories that's at play is not generally really significant.
Our "metabolism" may not slow that much with age, certainly not much by your 40s. A TDEE calculator estimates my BMR ("metabolism") at 65 to be 100ish calories lower than it was at 25, 40 years younger. That's half a serving of peanut butter, more or less. Further, if I use one of the research based formulas that considers body fat percentage, it estimates my BMR at 25 and 65, with the same body fat percent, as . . . exactly equal. Food for thought, about the importance of maintaining muscle mass to the extent feasible. (FWIW, I used https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/).
I agree with you about the "give it time" part, though, 100%. 🙂
Ok for the sake of argument...
suppose there are two guys, same weight, same age, running a five mile track. One is a pro athlete, the other is an amateur. I bet the pro guy will burn less calories doing the same routine, TBH I find it fascinating it is even debated.
You seem to agree metabolism does slow down with age, the question is by how much...I guess it depends. The point is if you eat the same food at 40 you used to eat at 20 chances are you will get fat. I happened to me.
Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight.
Thanks for your opinion, even if we disagree...1 -
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...
A bunch of this, unfortunately, is counterfactual. You got a bunch of disagrees, but I'm going to use my words to explain why I'd be inclined to do likewise.
First, the same activity, done at the same intensity (pace, or other relevant intensity metric), for the same time duration, at the same body weight, burns approximately the same number of calories . It can't not. It's just physics. In most normal activity like walking or biking, efficiency (in a true physical sense) doesn't change much. (In those rare cases where efficiency may be a bigger factor, the activity isn't technically the same, and the effect is unlikely to be massive anyway; and in many activities, a more efficient person will have capabilities that let them burn more calories in a time interval than a less-efficient one for the same cost in fatigue, so there's an offsetting practical factor.)
As a person gets fitter, the activity will feel easier, perhaps much easier. As a person gets fitter, a heart-rate-based calorie estimate (like from a heart rate monitor) may estimate fewer calories, because it measures heart rate and estimates calories: The fitter person's more capable heart pumps more blood volume per beat, so needs fewer beats to deliver the same blood volume, the blood volume delivers oxygen, and it's oxygen utilization that actually correlates relatively closely with calorie burn, not heartbeats.
Yes, as one loses weight, weight-bearing activities burn fewer calories, because it takes less energy to move the lighter body. Also, some of the activities you mention (running vs. walking, sprinting vs. slower running) do burn more calories per minute than walking, but can be continued for relatively shorter time periods because of fatigue, so the net may not be better, depending on time budget. (Fatiguing activities have other downsides, but no need to get into that here, except to say that fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of the rest of the day.)
"Anaerobic high intensity training" is generally over-rated for calorie burn, in part because heart-rate monitors tend to over-estimate its calories (because heart rate goes up for reasons other than oxygen demand), in part because it feels satisfyingly difficult, and in part because people compare EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percents, rather than doing the arithmetic to discover that the difference in calories that's at play is not generally really significant.
Our "metabolism" may not slow that much with age, certainly not much by your 40s. A TDEE calculator estimates my BMR ("metabolism") at 65 to be 100ish calories lower than it was at 25, 40 years younger. That's half a serving of peanut butter, more or less. Further, if I use one of the research based formulas that considers body fat percentage, it estimates my BMR at 25 and 65, with the same body fat percent, as . . . exactly equal. Food for thought, about the importance of maintaining muscle mass to the extent feasible. (FWIW, I used https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/).
I agree with you about the "give it time" part, though, 100%. 🙂
Ok for the sake of argument...
suppose there are two guys, same weight, same age, running a five mile track. One is a pro athlete, the other is an amateur. I bet the pro guy will burn less calories doing the same routine, TBH I find it fascinating it is even debated.
You seem to agree metabolism does slow down with age, the question is by how much...I guess it depends. The point is if you eat the same food at 40 you used to eat at 20 chances are you will get fat. I happened to me.
Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight.
Thanks for your opinion, even if we disagree...
No, the two guys will burn roughly the same number of calories, with some minor differences at the margin possible because of body composition and configuration. X amount of work takes Y amount of energy. How it feels subjectively is irrelevant. If the amateur is significantly less well-conditioned, he will accumulate more fatigue, and feel worse both during and afterward. That's not inherently a sign of using more calories. You're right, it's surprising it's even debated.
I don't necessarily agree that "metabolism" slows with age in a linear fashion. (I keep putting "metabolism" in quotes because all too often people are talking about overall calorie expenditure, when metabolism is a reasonably defined physiological subset. We have some influence over metabolism (BMR) but not a lot IMO, and vast control and influence over the rest of it.) I think there's a point where aging has physical consequences that can't be fully avoided (such as sarcopenia), but that we have much more influence and control than most people imagine until a fairly late stage, as long as neither injury nor disability become major roadblocks.
The effect of metabolism on TDEE between 20 and 40, *if* someone maintains the same body weight, muscle mass, and activity level/exercise, would be pretty negligible. Even the so-called calculators, which are working off population averages, suggest the BMR difference is small, and they're not holding muscle mass constant in the basic ones. (In the ones that include body fat percent - you know, the ones that say my BMR at 25 and 65 would be estimated the same if my body fat percent were the same? That's the statistical effect of holding muscle mass close to constant. They estimate zero metabolism difference, statistically, age 25 to 65, at the same body fat/size/activity level.)
The bigger deal is that people *don't* maintain the same body weight, muscle mass, or activity. Before I was 22, I had an active, physical job, and an active daily life (lots of walking and bike transport, for example). At 22, I got a desk job and a car, and slowed down. I lost muscle mass, with the lower activity. I gained weight, became obese. That's a pretty common kind of story, with lots more lifestyle changes that lead in a similar direction for various people. Then I became a competing masters athlete, regained some muscle mass . . . but stayed same level of obese. (Ate more, not controlling calories.) Then got thin again by controlling eating, keeping most of the muscle mass, became a thin old woman with a mysteriously high TDEE, even when sedentary. Go figure.
Do you know a lot of professional athletes? I admit I only know a few, current or former national team (Olympic) athletes. Their standard training regimen doesn't involve much "anaerobic high intensity training", though of course training differs by sport. In these cases, the standard training includes a relatively small amount of high-intensity cardiovascular work, and a good bit of classic strength training, for conditioning and fitness. I can only think of one, a woman now my age, who mentioned weight management in my presence; she talked about managing eating, not adding "anaerobic high intensity training". In my admittedly limited experience, serious athletes have a training regimen primarily for fitness and health purposes, and when retired from high-level competition, enjoyment enters into it more; they know the role of calorie intake and nutrition in body weight. The consistent amateur athletes I know tend to look at it in pretty much the same way: They do the training/activity they do for fun/health/fitness/performance, and manipulate either overall training volume or eating to manage weight, not add different training modalities. 🤷♀️
I think we've both made our points, and they're mainly off topic for the thread. I thought someone ought to take a stab at explaining the many "disagree" clicks you were getting, so I gave it a shot, even though I obviously don't know exactly what others were thinking when they clicked "disagree". Other readers can draw their own conclusions, from this point: I think both your position and mine are fairly clear.11 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.8 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In addition to this ^
Is it possible your portion sizes have started to creep up? It's easily done and you don't mention if you're measuring/weighing your pre-logged portions. I know my consistency might start to wain if I was eating the exact same things all the time.
@tinkerbellang83
I know what you mean. I weigh everything that isn't packaged. Eg chicken breast is 218 per portion as per the labels. I eat 5 broccoli florets with each meal which is 38 etc.. it's very boring lol but short term it is working - well was. I'm sure it still is.
I wouldn't be too fussed by the veg, but you need to weigh everything... its very unlikely all the chicken breasts are the same size in a package... I bought a 2kg tray of chicken at the weekend, and bagged it up into portions.... 8 chicken breasts, 2 in a portion weighed anything between 480g to 600g...1 -
thisvickyruns wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In addition to this ^
Is it possible your portion sizes have started to creep up? It's easily done and you don't mention if you're measuring/weighing your pre-logged portions. I know my consistency might start to wain if I was eating the exact same things all the time.
@tinkerbellang83
I know what you mean. I weigh everything that isn't packaged. Eg chicken breast is 218 per portion as per the labels. I eat 5 broccoli florets with each meal which is 38 etc.. it's very boring lol but short term it is working - well was. I'm sure it still is.
I wouldn't be too fussed by the veg, but you need to weigh everything... its very unlikely all the chicken breasts are the same size in a package... I bought a 2kg tray of chicken at the weekend, and bagged it up into portions.... 8 chicken breasts, 2 in a portion weighed anything between 480g to 600g...
I agree but the chicken I buy is a 2 pack and the nutritional label says each breast is 218 calories. I weigh them if it's a bigger pack like you say.0 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.
Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.
2 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.
Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.
Only having read the summary, my thoughts: intense exercise might lead to a person being less active the rest of the time, therefore putting a 'cap' on their TDEE. This study doesn't prove that for the same exercise, a more trained person will burn less calories.7 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.
Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.
That study is not saying what you think it's saying!
It's nothing to do with burning less calories through efficiency. It's saying some people's behaviours change if they feel fatigued, that's especially true if people attempt too much high intensity exercise beyond their recovery ability.
e.g. that study would support that after riding for 4hrs I felt pretty tired yesterday evening and didn't do much compared to a usual evening. But do you think sitting on the sofa for an evening in some way cancelled out a 1937+ cal burn?
And if you want to expand into strength training, the more weight you move the more calories you burn. It takes twice the energy to bench press 100kg rather than 50kg.
My TDEE was about 4,500 yesterday, yes that's unusual but over the course of many years I'm burning c. 600 cals a day on average. If that made me tired (it doesn't - it makes me feel energized) and reduced my NEAT a bit (it doesn't, since I got fitter I'm only more active) then there would be some compensation in spells of lower burn when not exercising.
None of that in any way makes your statement anything but completely wrong - "A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories".
4 -
thisvickyruns wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In addition to this ^
Is it possible your portion sizes have started to creep up? It's easily done and you don't mention if you're measuring/weighing your pre-logged portions. I know my consistency might start to wain if I was eating the exact same things all the time.
@tinkerbellang83
I know what you mean. I weigh everything that isn't packaged. Eg chicken breast is 218 per portion as per the labels. I eat 5 broccoli florets with each meal which is 38 etc.. it's very boring lol but short term it is working - well was. I'm sure it still is.
I wouldn't be too fussed by the veg, but you need to weigh everything... its very unlikely all the chicken breasts are the same size in a package... I bought a 2kg tray of chicken at the weekend, and bagged it up into portions.... 8 chicken breasts, 2 in a portion weighed anything between 480g to 600g...
I agree but the chicken I buy is a 2 pack and the nutritional label says each breast is 218 calories. I weigh them if it's a bigger pack like you say.
Nutritional labels are allowed to be off by 20%. I’d weigh them. I’d weigh them 12 or 15 times and they are all correct, then I’d be comfortable not weighing them any more.4 -
See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...
A bunch of this, unfortunately, is counterfactual. You got a bunch of disagrees, but I'm going to use my words to explain why I'd be inclined to do likewise.
First, the same activity, done at the same intensity (pace, or other relevant intensity metric), for the same time duration, at the same body weight, burns approximately the same number of calories . It can't not. It's just physics. In most normal activity like walking or biking, efficiency (in a true physical sense) doesn't change much. (In those rare cases where efficiency may be a bigger factor, the activity isn't technically the same, and the effect is unlikely to be massive anyway; and in many activities, a more efficient person will have capabilities that let them burn more calories in a time interval than a less-efficient one for the same cost in fatigue, so there's an offsetting practical factor.)
As a person gets fitter, the activity will feel easier, perhaps much easier. As a person gets fitter, a heart-rate-based calorie estimate (like from a heart rate monitor) may estimate fewer calories, because it measures heart rate and estimates calories: The fitter person's more capable heart pumps more blood volume per beat, so needs fewer beats to deliver the same blood volume, the blood volume delivers oxygen, and it's oxygen utilization that actually correlates relatively closely with calorie burn, not heartbeats.
Yes, as one loses weight, weight-bearing activities burn fewer calories, because it takes less energy to move the lighter body. Also, some of the activities you mention (running vs. walking, sprinting vs. slower running) do burn more calories per minute than walking, but can be continued for relatively shorter time periods because of fatigue, so the net may not be better, depending on time budget. (Fatiguing activities have other downsides, but no need to get into that here, except to say that fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of the rest of the day.)
"Anaerobic high intensity training" is generally over-rated for calorie burn, in part because heart-rate monitors tend to over-estimate its calories (because heart rate goes up for reasons other than oxygen demand), in part because it feels satisfyingly difficult, and in part because people compare EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percents, rather than doing the arithmetic to discover that the difference in calories that's at play is not generally really significant.
Our "metabolism" may not slow that much with age, certainly not much by your 40s. A TDEE calculator estimates my BMR ("metabolism") at 65 to be 100ish calories lower than it was at 25, 40 years younger. That's half a serving of peanut butter, more or less. Further, if I use one of the research based formulas that considers body fat percentage, it estimates my BMR at 25 and 65, with the same body fat percent, as . . . exactly equal. Food for thought, about the importance of maintaining muscle mass to the extent feasible. (FWIW, I used https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/).
I agree with you about the "give it time" part, though, 100%. 🙂
Ok for the sake of argument...
suppose there are two guys, same weight, same age, running a five mile track. One is a pro athlete, the other is an amateur. I bet the pro guy will burn less calories doing the same routine, TBH I find it fascinating it is even debated.
You seem to agree metabolism does slow down with age, the question is by how much...I guess it depends. The point is if you eat the same food at 40 you used to eat at 20 chances are you will get fat. I happened to me.
Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight.
Thanks for your opinion, even if we disagree...
The pro athlete will likely find it easier (if his athletic activity is related to running), but how does that change the number of calories it uses?3 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.
Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.
That study is not saying what you think it's saying!
It's nothing to do with burning less calories through efficiency. It's saying some people's behaviours change if they feel fatigued, that's especially true if people attempt too much high intensity exercise beyond their recovery ability.
e.g. that study would support that after riding for 4hrs I felt pretty tired yesterday evening and didn't do much compared to a usual evening. But do you think sitting on the sofa for an evening in some way cancelled out a 1937+ cal burn?
And if you want to expand into strength training, the more weight you move the more calories you burn. It takes twice the energy to bench press 100kg rather than 50kg.
My TDEE was about 4,500 yesterday, yes that's unusual but over the course of many years I'm burning c. 600 cals a day on average. If that made me tired (it doesn't - it makes me feel energized) and reduced my NEAT a bit (it doesn't, since I got fitter I'm only more active) then there would be some compensation in spells of lower burn when not exercising.
None of that in any way makes your statement anything but completely wrong - "A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories".
We must be reading a different study.
Direct quote " Here we tested a Constrained total energy expenditure model, in which total energy expenditure increases with physical activity at low activity levels but plateaus at higher activity levels as the body adapts to maintain total energy expenditure within a narrow range. "..." For subjects in the upper range of physical activity, total energy expenditure plateaued"
As far as I can see how many calories we burn during an exercise is only part of the equation when it comes to weight loss. In that sense a 500 cal workout might result in the same TDEE as a 1000 cal workout at least according this study. So yes I was wrong, a five mile walk might result in the same calorie burn as a pro but your TDEEs will differ . A pro athlete is obviously 'very adapt' to exercise hence his
TDEE will most likely look substantially different to that of an amateur doing the same excercise.
By the same logic a fit person's TDEE will look different to an unfit person's by doing the same routine.1 -
@bubus05
Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.
My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.
Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.
Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.
"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?
BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.
Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.
That study is not saying what you think it's saying!
It's nothing to do with burning less calories through efficiency. It's saying some people's behaviours change if they feel fatigued, that's especially true if people attempt too much high intensity exercise beyond their recovery ability.
e.g. that study would support that after riding for 4hrs I felt pretty tired yesterday evening and didn't do much compared to a usual evening. But do you think sitting on the sofa for an evening in some way cancelled out a 1937+ cal burn?
And if you want to expand into strength training, the more weight you move the more calories you burn. It takes twice the energy to bench press 100kg rather than 50kg.
My TDEE was about 4,500 yesterday, yes that's unusual but over the course of many years I'm burning c. 600 cals a day on average. If that made me tired (it doesn't - it makes me feel energized) and reduced my NEAT a bit (it doesn't, since I got fitter I'm only more active) then there would be some compensation in spells of lower burn when not exercising.
None of that in any way makes your statement anything but completely wrong - "A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories".
We must be reading a different study.
Direct quote " Here we tested a Constrained total energy expenditure model, in which total energy expenditure increases with physical activity at low activity levels but plateaus at higher activity levels as the body adapts to maintain total energy expenditure within a narrow range. "..." For subjects in the upper range of physical activity, total energy expenditure plateaued"
As far as I can see how many calories we burn during an exercise is only part of the equation when it comes to weight loss. In that sense a 500 cal workout might result in the same TDEE as a 1000 cal workout at least according this study. So yes I was wrong, a five mile walk might result in the same calorie burn as a pro but your TDEEs will differ . A pro athlete is obviously 'very adapt' to exercise hence his
TDEE will most likely look substantially different to that of an amateur doing the same excercise.
It can sometimes be hard to read these if you're not used to how they're written, but that source isn't concluding that the same activity will burn fewer calories for a fitter person. It's talking about TOTAL daily energy use, which they state "can be behavioral, such as sitting instead of standing, or fidgeting less."
They say some of the changes MAY be metabolic, but again, this is happening throughout the entire day. It isn't referring to individual exercise sessions burning significantly fewer calories for a fit person.
4 -
I bet someone who is trained to swim would burn fewer calories than me getting across the pool. However, I attribute this entirely to form. If I hold a board or noodle and do frog kicks, I either stay in place or move backwards. I have tried to get a few swimmers to help me, but they are too busy laughing to offer helpful suggestions. My freestyle moves more water out off the pool than across my body. My back crawl takes me in circles if the swimming area is big enough. This makes it very hard to get across the pool. I have never really worked on these problems consistently because I go to the pool to have fun and burn calories, which I am doing in spades by flailing around aimlessly.
I do not know if it is possible to be this bad at cycling or running and I have no idea if I use more or fewer calories because I have to walk my bike up the steep hills...3 -
concordancia wrote: »I bet someone who is trained to swim would burn fewer calories than me getting across the pool. However, I attribute this entirely to form. If I hold a board or noodle and do frog kicks, I either stay in place or move backwards. I have tried to get a few swimmers to help me, but they are too busy laughing to offer helpful suggestions. My freestyle moves more water out off the pool than across my body. My back crawl takes me in circles if the swimming area is big enough. This makes it very hard to get across the pool. I have never really worked on these problems consistently because I go to the pool to have fun and burn calories, which I am doing in spades by flailing around aimlessly.
I do not know if it is possible to be this bad at cycling or running and I have no idea if I use more or fewer calories because I have to walk my bike up the steep hills...
Simple--sign up for a few lessons at your pool. Your form will improve for sure.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions