Disappointed with how LITTLE calories triathlon training burns. (Page 2)

I'm no expert, and I weigh in at 274 currently (down from 350+ a long time ago) - so take this with a grain of water-retaining salt....

How do you know that the calories burned at the gym number is accurate? I didn't see anyone ask this yet, so I will. From what I've seen, the typical digital readouts on equipment, vastly over estimate this number. Heck, my Garmin tells me I burned over 1200 calories on a 12 mile bike ride. It bases this on my weight and distance and pace, but there's no way 1200 is even close. I've heard that gym equipment is usually way off. It overestimates on purpose.

Also, 143 to 115 in 6 months sounds reasonable, but 28 pounds coming off of a 143 pound person is a lot harder than 28 pounds coming off a 300 pound person.

But I've found the facts here bear out in my life. I ate a lot less and dropped weight, but when I stopped focusing on diet and trained harder, I gained endurance, but weight loss stagnated. It's all about the diet.

This was the point I was trying to get at.  After reading my post again I can see how it would be confusing.  Starting my 2nd coffee IV as we speak so this Monday should perk right up!

Seriously, if you're doing triathlon to lose weight, you're doing it for the wrong reason.  And this is coming from somebody that has lost 45 and needs to lose 20 still.  If your main goal is to burn calories, you may as well go to step class instead.  The goal of most tri activities is to be efficient, not burn the maximum calories.

Also, if you're taking a minute to swim 25 metres, I guarantee you that your form is not very good, which means you are probably working very hard (hence burning a lot of calories) to not go that fast.  I've gotten into a coached swim program and cut 20% off my time.  I am certain that I actually burn less calories going faster.

As you move along in your tri experience you will realize you need to adjust other things in your life to improve your times.
To say it is the wrong reason is off base IMO. I enjoy TRI a lot, but my main goal is to lose weight. TRI is what I use to get to that point and it is working. Granted I did adjust my diet to encourage the weight loss.

"You diet for weight loss, you exercise for fitness" -- sports medicine doc friend of mine

I think this is what is going on:

1.  You are underestimating your calories consumed.  Re-examine your diet.  Nutrition labels can be off by as much as 20% according to the law.  That 20% is your weightloss.

2.  You are overestimating your calories burned.  Gym machine readouts are inaccurate as are Garmin and HRM numbers.  Also, as your weight decreases to do your caloric needs.

3.  You are overestimating your caloric needs.  As your weight drops your BMR drops too.

The bodybugg is not accurate.  It is a neat gizmo to get the morbidly obese moving in the right direction in terms of diet and exercise, but it is not accurately measuring your caloric expenditure. 

Cut your diet by another 250 calories.  You aren't running the deficit you think you are.  Increase time and intensity of tri training.

Change your thinking.  Stop thinking about "deficit" like your bodybugg conditioned you to do, and concern yourself with intake.

What she said.

What is your primary goal here?  Weight loss?  Completing an Oly?  Completing a century ride?

Quoted for truth

Another voice of "I'm no expert but...." chiming in.

Are you getting ENOUGH calories? You need X number of calories per day just to breath, blink, walk, etc.

If you fall below this number by diet and exercise, you body will think you are entering a famine, and start "saving" your fat and "eat" your muscles (not literally!). So it's quite possible you need to eat more.

Second, is your weight your only means of measurement of success? You shouldn't be doing it only that way. Measure your upper arm, chest, waist, hips, upper thighs and keep track. Many times you just replacing the fat with muscle, and measuring is a better way of judging progress.

Not entirely sure, but you sure do seem fixated on the number on the scale.

Have you considered % body fat? Body image? Or some other better metric?

^^^^This

I've lost 20lbs since the first of the year.  The past month I only lost about 2lbs despite my training increasing.  However, during that month I also lost 1/2 and inch from my waist and hips and another combined 1/2 and inch from the rest of my body, plus I dropped a pant size.  Weight shouldn't be the only thing you go by.  Take measurements, get a body fat % reading, go by how your clothes fit.

Okay... a lot of what has been said is good info, but...

Unless you go get crazy expensive (and hard to find) tests done, you or I will never know how many calories we burn during an exercise, nor will that number be consistent every time.  Everything you see on a machine or read in a book or hear on the net is probably going to be an estimation of some sort.   Even though I have a degree in this, have certifications for it, and do it for a living, it is still somewhat guesswork (well at least not an exact science).   Everyone is different.

Now, with that being said, you are on the right track.   Trying to figure out calories or (Kcal) expended vs those consumed is a good habit to get into for losing weight.  Though I have not read this whole topic, I noticed you stated something to the effect of your body liking 140 and that you were fighting it to go lower.   This is a very common and true part of weight loss or any other adaptation of the body.  Everyones body tends to have a certain steadystate assuming they ate the exact calories they expended every day.   That goes for all parts of it... the amount of fat you carry, the muscle, the bone, etc.   The further you get from that point the harder it will be to maintain. 

Also, just because you are burning calories, does not mean they are fat calories.   When people say they want to lose weight, they are speaking of fat calories.   If you are training for a triathlon, and you are exercising fairly hard, then you are likely burning more calories from sugar than you are fat.   Oddly enough fat calories are best burned at a slow easy pace over long peroiods of time.    Sometimes your goals for weight loss and goals for triathlons will not go well together.

Anyway, if you want me to go over numbers that are specific to you and your situation, you can send me a message.   Hopefully some of this info will help with general ideas though.

Deb, why don't you pick a week and log all your food and workouts here on BT and see if you can get some more focused feedback.

Also, what is your BF%? If you are very lean, losing the last pounds will be harder, and it will have to involve losing some muscle.

Wow.....I'm thinking if I was as obsessed with numbers as some people are, I'd be sucking every ounce of fun out of my workout routine. Maybe that's just me *shrug*.

I'm speaking as a 5'5" (when I try to be) 135ish lb female. Could I stand to lose 5 or so pounds? Sure. I don't think I'm built to weigh much less than that without looking like I'm starving. Should I eat as much pizza and snacks and ice cream as I do? Probably not. Could I exercise more? Sure, but (a) I try to keep my life balanced, which includes devoting time to work, my husband, my social life and just plain old down time, and (b) I'm fighting with an overuse injury, so my perspective has changed quite a bit recently.

I've also lost 35 lbs in the past couple of years by making healthy lifestyle changes. I don't eat NEARLY as much crap as I used to, and I work out a lot more. I never thought I could swim a mile or run a half marathon. But focusing on how many calories I'm eating/burning would just make me crazy. I just try to do the things that I enjoy, in moderation, and observe how my body (and mind!) responds to it.

log your food, and when I say log your food I mean EVERY LITTLE THING!

/thread

Deb, Congrats on your efforts!  I'm going to jump on the bandwagon here because this particular topic was not mentioned, so...

Over the past few years I've gotten myself in shape and really changed my eating habits.  I didn't want to  go into my 40's fat and unfit.  Last year I discovered triathlon and was hooked, so this is year two for me.  My goal was to get to 150 by race day last year (I'm 5'8") and I barely touched it, for a day, one day prior to race day.  And even through concerted effort and watching my diet, I really hovered around 155-158 all summer.

Then I got injured and the holidays hit, and I was back up to 160.  I started training again and went back to my training diet, but nothing was happening.  I was frustrated.  So I hauled out my "Paleo Diet for Endurance Athletes" book that I had read during the previous summer and got the new cookbook, and started Paleo eating in March.

After no weight budge for weeks, I started losing.  I'm now down to 144 and still losign a little bit.  My body fat is much lower, and my lean muscle is starting to show.  I have tremendous energy and training for my next race in 1 month is going well.

So, my point is, maybe it's time to shake things up a bit.  I'm not sure how old you are, but I know for certain once you hit 40 the game changes and you've got to keep outsmarting your body.  Paleo eating takes some time to get into, but cutting dairy, grains, sugar and salt from my diet has made a huge difference for me.  YMMV!

Good luck!

You do this for a living?  Many points here run contrary to other information.

I got a VO2max done, with resting metabolic, for $85.  Some of the information provided included which fuels were being utilized, what percentage and total.  As my exertion climbed, so did the fat oxidation as well as total caloric expenditure.

Can you clarify?

From my experience 1600 is too much for you. I am a 6'0" tall 190lbs male and I am at 1,800 a day and losing weight. My mother in law has lost over 40lbs in the last few months, she is 5'5" 140 and she eats 1,200 a day to lose weight.

Also your numbers on tri training are way off. One minute per 25 yards in the pool is dismally slow and 10mph on the bike is beach cruiser strolling.

If the OP is only taking in 1600 calories a day, he is already addressing diet issues.  One problem is that he needs to be in better shape so he can burn off more calories in a day.  I wouldn't encourage setting a goal of more than 4 pounds per month, especially if your workouts are less than 2 hours a day at reallly low intensity.  If you were working out 3 hours a day with good intensity you would be burning 1500 calories ish and that would be fine for creating a stable weight loss plan.  As you are burning 500 or less, yes it will take longer, but any deficit will be helpful.   

Exercise is almost always a smart part of a weight loss program, so to say that it is irrelevent is silly.  I am down 40 pounds and have stayed in the neg 30 to neg 45 range for 3 years, mostly through exercise.  My motabolism is epically low.  Exercise helps it along a bit.  Good luck and keep at it.