Mr_Knight Member

Then you're not eating low calories. Sorry - I know that's not what you want to hear - but it is the truth.

In 7 minutes you aren't burning enough to be worth tracking. Even an Olympic-level athlete is only going burn about 100 calories going all out, at competition intensity. That's just flat out wrong. NO. This is 613 kinds of wrong. Heart rate and calorie burn only correlate under specific, calibrated conditions.

I concur as well.

Most likely both are significantly over-estimating. How far can you run in 80 minutes?

Lean on friends. Don't bottle up the emotions. If friends aren't enough, engage with a professional. And good luck - aging, deteriorating parents are a heavy heavy load - make sure you aren't being too hard on yourself!

Yep - everyday! I personally prefer 18:6, but it's all just personal preference at that point.

Oh good. :smile: Because I'm not arguing against people knowing how to do basic cooking - the points you listed are all valid - just pointing out that it would be a relatively new expectation, because historically, that wasn't the case.

I do it. I love it. It's a great way to organize my eating habits. And there are a million different ways to do it, depending on what best fits your personality and how you organize your life. IME, doing something like 16:8 is easier if it's done full time instead of onsie-twosie here and there. But this is firmly in YMMV…

Historically, only a small fraction of people needed to know how to cook well, because meals were far more communal than they are in the era of the 1.6 kid nuclear family. Everybody knowing how to cook would actually be the historical anomaly.

Yep. If you're running, you're running. It may take a bit longer to get the same burn, but as long as you make the same distance, you're golden.

A McDouble. Cheap, consistent, available everywhere, and non-disasterous macros. Egg McMuffin also works, what with 24-7 breakfast now.

Usually a sign the thread has been entertainment-worthy! :smile:

Sure! He's a typical 8,000 calorie day for Tour de France riders... 09:00 Breakfast -- carbohydrate-rich foods like bread, muesli, cereal, fruit, coffee, smoothies, orange juice and even noodles help top up glycogen stores. 10:30 Pre-race snack -- top up carbohydrate and calories — typically, rice cakes with honey, raisin…

Nope. The tiny kernel of truth that lies at the heart of this oft-repeated legend is that water brought to boiling, and then returned to room temperature, can freeze ever so slightly faster than room temperature water that wasn't brought to boiling first.

The workouts are fine, they're pretty typical/fashionable "HIIT" cardio with a dash of Crossfit vibe. Just be careful with the calorie burn numbers - HRMs normally give highly inflated numbers for this style of activity.

IF covers a huge spectrum, from 12/12 to 22/2. Everybody can, if absolutely necessary, do any form of it, but that's not really the point. :) Finding a timing that you can consistently live with is far more important than finding any specific timing. Good luck! IF can be an immensely liberating way of approaching food, for…

Hexapro here. Generally as a post-workout drink in the mornings so I can otherwise IF my way into the afternoon. And sometimes as a late day protein boost if I need to get my macros better lined up. It's awesome as a frozen-fruit smoothie.

Except we're not talking about eating less. We're talking about how much *more* to eat.

The most accurate burn numbers we have are for steady state cardio like running. I figure out how far I can run in the amount of time I'll be gyming, calculate the calories for that, then divide by 2 if I'm doing "cardio", divide by 3 if I'm crossfitting, divide by 4 if I'm lifting.

A rough comparable is a 200 pound person running 8 miles in one hour. Unless you're cardiovascularly capable of performing at that level, you aren't burning anywhere close to that number...

No, it can't.

Been there, done that. It's pretty normal in tracking weight loss to have offsetting errors. It won't matter until...it matters.

At 217, you're right around 400 calories on the burn. Rough rule of thumb for hills...1 calorie for every 100 kg climbing 1 metre.

They're not even close to accurate. Walking, for example, is typically overestimated by 100% or more. Exactly how inaccurate is highly dependent on individual and workout. To be safe, start by eating back 30% of them, and monitor what happens.

Your weight in pounds * miles walked * 0.3 -> approximate net calorie burn from walking. The 166 does seem a bit low...

Doing it before generally leads to fewer underestimates, and also doesn't introduce additional errors from the cooking method (important for water-absorbing foods like rice, pasta, etc).

The key word there is "doctor". There are ultra low calorie diets that can be used for obese folks - protein sparing modified fasts - but you really have to know what you're doing. Hence...."doctor"...meaning properly supervised...

What Moosie said.

The "clinics" are a total scam, for sure. Pre-packaged, overpriced food. If someone wants to go that path, just use the frozen food section of your grocery store, and make sure the calories add up right.

Matters for what?